Qazi Hussain Ahmed Argues Completely Illogically, Rewrites History, Badly Needs To Be Introduced To Shift+F7
This is too easy, but I'm going to do it anyway: picking on Qazi Hussain Ahmed's latest op-ed in The News, titled "Islamisation: cure of all evils". Let's get started.
First, our dear old sage argues that in order to secure Pakistan against a movement that aims to introduce strict Islamic law in the country, we should introduce strict Islamic law in the country.
Then, he gets a number of basic facts wrong about the country's political history.
That's curious, because one would imagine that if Islamization of the country was a "strong desire of an overwhelming majority of the people, millions of whom are ready to sacrifice their lives to achieve this objective", then, you know, they might have actually voted for political parties espousing these objectives every now and then. The evidence, however, seems to suggest that Islamic parties traditionally struggle to gain more than 10% of the vote, at best. Maybe Qazi saab subscribes to good ol' "silent majority" rule of politics, except in this case, they're so silent that you have to have overdosed on LSD to hear them.
Next, Qazi saab tells us the whys and hows of Pakistan's creation...
...without being explicit about the fact that the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami actually opposed the creation of Pakistan. No worries though; he can't be expected to be a great thinker and have all his facts straight.
Finally, I would advise the dear Qazi saab to hire a better translator -- or, at the very least, hire someone who can use a thesaurus. The word "slave", or its variants, were used six times; "master" and its variants seven; and "elite" or "establishment" four times. Dude, it's shift+F7. Not that complicated.
Shouldn't stop you guys from reading ir though. In fact, I highly encourage you to do so. Who doesn't need a good laugh with their morning tea?
First, our dear old sage argues that in order to secure Pakistan against a movement that aims to introduce strict Islamic law in the country, we should introduce strict Islamic law in the country.
Complete Islamisation of Pakistan has been the genuine and long-standing demand of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Not only that, it is also the appropriate answer to the lurking fears of Talibanisation, growing rapidly with every passing day, as a natural response to the suppression of this public demand at the state level.
Then, he gets a number of basic facts wrong about the country's political history.
Those who believe that Pakistan can be secularised by separating the Islamic system from its state are suffering from a serious fallacy. What they conveniently ignore in their bias against Islamic codes is that Islamisation of the country is not just the demand of what they call some extremists but is the strong desire of an overwhelming majority of the people, millions of whom are ready to sacrifice their lives to achieve this objective, like those who laid down their lives in the Pakistan Movement.
That's curious, because one would imagine that if Islamization of the country was a "strong desire of an overwhelming majority of the people, millions of whom are ready to sacrifice their lives to achieve this objective", then, you know, they might have actually voted for political parties espousing these objectives every now and then. The evidence, however, seems to suggest that Islamic parties traditionally struggle to gain more than 10% of the vote, at best. Maybe Qazi saab subscribes to good ol' "silent majority" rule of politics, except in this case, they're so silent that you have to have overdosed on LSD to hear them.
Next, Qazi saab tells us the whys and hows of Pakistan's creation...
The entire debate that Islam should not be the system of governance in the country was the thinking paradigm of those who are mental slaves to the western culture and averse to the Islamic ideology. This is an undeniable fact that Muslims from the length and breadth of the subcontinent strove for the creation of Pakistan and rendered matchless sacrifices in human history.
...without being explicit about the fact that the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami actually opposed the creation of Pakistan. No worries though; he can't be expected to be a great thinker and have all his facts straight.
Finally, I would advise the dear Qazi saab to hire a better translator -- or, at the very least, hire someone who can use a thesaurus. The word "slave", or its variants, were used six times; "master" and its variants seven; and "elite" or "establishment" four times. Dude, it's shift+F7. Not that complicated.
Shouldn't stop you guys from reading ir though. In fact, I highly encourage you to do so. Who doesn't need a good laugh with their morning tea?
Labels:
Pakistan
28 comments:
Funny Ahsan???hmm may be for you not for all..
but on a serious note, why do you think Islamisation of Pakistan is stoppable? and whats the harm fusing culture and governance, I think It would produce better tools for people to access their needs and deeds as per their ""deen"" not in a pseudo-catholic way of system which we inherit. Doesn't it sounds like a self dependent system in which people would have believe. I am quite not sure, but I got the Impression that you have doubts in capabilities of Islam. also If you would ask your dad or granddad or somebody of that age & era, they will tell you, how and why they created Pakistan and on what basis..
Typical west pandering drivel. to be expected really
Amjad,
To each his own, but in my opinion...
Culture and Government is fine.
Religion and Government is not fine.
There is a clear and distinct difference between Pakistani culture and the religion of our country. The government should be run on principles than encompass and include the basic teachings of all religions. A theocracy, which is a religious government based on one religion, is not such a government.
I have no idea about Ahsan's inclinations about mixing religion and rule, as I certainly didn't find this post objectionable, but I really do have serious problems with mixing religion and government.
So yes. I do NOT think that Islam, or any other religion, is capable of prescribing a set of modern political, economic guidelines for a diverse people to live by. Religion should be something that is between one and his maker. And it should remain between families and should not be forced upon a populace.
And Ahsan needn't ask his dad or grandpa why Pakistan was created. I can quote Quaid-e-Azam, on that. Let's see what Jinnah felt about mixing religion and government. Why not go to the source of the creation itself, after all. Here you go..
"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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." Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah in address to first constituent assembly, Aug 11, 1947
"In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis -- but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any
other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." Quaid-i-Azam, Feb. 1948
February 19, 1948, a broadcast to the people of Australia: “But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it.” — Jinnah.
Anyway, this is a debate and a difference in views that can not be resolved. But it can be understood. Which is why I'm just throwing my two cents out there.
Amjad,
I've been a silent reader of this blog for a while after reading your comments, I have a few fundamental disagreements which prompted me to finally break my silence :)
1. Pakistan was never meant to be a theocracy, rather a secular state that would foster pluralism and tolerance. To quote the Quaid's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on Aug 11th, 1947:
"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."
Complete text available at: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html
2. Your premise that secularism and /or liberal thought and Islam are at odds with each other is not at all accurate. Islam in principle is tolerant, pluralistic and encouraging towards intellectual debate. However, all of these so-called champions of Islamic jurisprudence promote a theology based on rigidity, intolerance, oppression and are anti-rational.
3. Your phrase '... as per "deen" not in a pseudo-catholic way ...' begs a question; "Who's deen?" If you visit mosques across Pakistan, every other Mowlvi has his own version of Islam. Certain mosques advocate the fall of the west and even pray for it! Some clerics shout in loud speakers that muslims and jews can never be friends, others instruct parents to keep their daughters at home claiming it to be un-islamic that they go for secular education. Whom do you trust? Your own judgment or someone who has a beard with yet another rhetoric?
4. The doubt is not about Islam, but about the capability of those who claim to be its guardians and dictate jurisprudence based upon their own interpretation of Islam.
I have been over these issues too many times to count, so for those who want a longer version of my views on this stuff can read this:
http://fiverupees.blogspot.com/2006/10/university-life-in-pakistan-and-other_11.html
@ Omar Haq,FJ & Ahsan,
You guys have confused me badly, this is first time in my life, I have seen 3 Pakistanis, talking in different direction, we have huge problems in regions(with in) etc, but against India and towards Islam we are like "one sole with many bodies". Quaid understood that and foreseen the consequences of living with hindus whom we ruled for centuries and hence gave final call of "Divide or Destroy India" called "Direct Action" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day), We fought bloody wars, lived half stomach and build our own N-bombs,TO SHY AWAY FROM ISLAM AT LAST?????? to make it a "land fit for all religions", so going by this theory we were simply wasting our time, energy, blood,brothers,books everything?????
Our Army did what was given to it by us, remember we form armies they don't grow on trees, always fought for the Islamic cause around the globe, for what?? to create one more mini India?? pseudo-secular, dirty country or Land of Islam or Pure..
I am sorry, ever since I was a kid, I was told my parents fought very hard to create Pakistan as an Islamic State after Mecca itself, as no other country was made in the name of Islam, being Mecca first..
I don't know what you will do with fancy American cars or half clothed women to call yourself modern state, but I think, if that happens, at least half of the population of Pakistan will commit suicide..
Secularism alone will never prevail in Pakistan (as much as I would like it to).
What secularists need to figure out is an alternate narrative to that of Islamic theocracy. The religious right dominates the ideological dialogue, where as the left has little else to offer but nitpicking on grammar and prose style.
The other strategy is to actually let them come into power, wait for them to fuck up, and then say: now didn't that suck?! (it's what the democrats in America do very well).
Either way, liberals need to adopt the mantra of true hippies: Stop Bitching, Start a Revolution. I just wish I knew where to start.
@Ahsan after reading his "Detailed Views" on given link --
******
So there's no point getting into a black-hole argument with anyone about what Pakistan was "meant to be". There's simply no way of knowing.
******
Such a Wastage, when we don't even know and if its impossible to find out (as its a black-hole topic). Dude if we have 100 more like you, we don't need RAW or CIA, you are at your best.
******
Firstly, if you believe that Islam must govern our public lives, then I ask you: whose Islam? Sunni or Shia? Barelvi or Deobandi? Mystic, modern or medieval? This is a serious question that I have yet to hear a serious answer to
******
Allah's Islam, all Muslim are brothers, once we will start walking behind him on his path, we will achieve what we were meant to.That's will be true democracy and of course you only said, "its acceptance of idea not shear copy of ones democracy". why not Islamic democracy?????????? why not give it a try at least??????? why copy India always??????????
rest of the entire article has a very western outlook, if you start looking it from central /middle asian perspective, you will see the difference. 1400 years back Islamic Civilizations when came into existence there were different issues, people were like animals, but we thought them a way of living in a proper way, we contributed a lot in Trade, Math's, language development, consolidation of even Asia, since today America and Western civilization is at top, you are the first ones (remember rat jumps first out of a sinking ship) jumping like rat, in your sheer illusion of sinking ship..
Watch this series of videos for brief history of Islam "ISLAM: Empire of Faith"..
I am not a good writer and may not argue better than you, but I will try to take you back on right path :-)
At Last, please also tell us what do we say to Kashmirs who are fighting India for 62 years (2 or 3 generations) in hope of joining Islamic Pakistan.. that listen you fools we suddenly decided that we are secular from now a kind of mini-India..which doesn't even know why it was created???? I am amazed.. really..
I am a devout Muslim myself, but I've never supported the Jaamat-e-Islami or anything other pseudo-Muslim political party. Even though I do agree that religion (or basic morality, so to speak) is necessary for people in general, letting it interfere with politics just makes both politics and religion lose their respective meanings.
Plus, for people like Qazi Hussein and others like him, "Islamization" begins and ends at enforcing purdah on women and making men pull their shalwars above their ankles. Hey Mr Pseudo-Mullah, Islam places more emphasis on honesty, integrity, truth and above all, being responsible for your actions. If Pakistan was to be made into a proper Islamic state (I find that a bit of an oxymoron, because I feel a proper Islamic state should be secular, but that's a whole different debate), the first crackdown should be on corrupt officials and on poverty and on feudals encroaching on land that doesn't belong to them. If these so-called "soldiers of Islam" were to (God forbid) ever come to power, the first thing they would enforce a crackdown on would be women not wearing burqas or women who choose to have an education or a career. Talk about not having your priorities straight. Plus, knowing these people, they will only pick parts of Islam that work best for them, and ignore the more important bits, like feeding the hungry and punishing thiefs, corrupt politicians, etc. That is hypocrisy in its worst form.
And for any person who is interested in Pakistan becoming an "Islamic state"... remember, charity begins at home. If you're so interested in enforcing morality upon unsuspecting citizens, be a good Muslim yourself and at least fix your own actions. Imagine if each of us were to monitor our own actions, and not encroach upon the personal freedoms of others! Now THAT would be an Islamic state I'd like to live in.
i think the title ''cure of all evils'' kind of just halted me from reading any further. to those of you who were able to venture further: bravo!
Amjad:
I'll take your points in order.
1. You say that with people like me, we don't need RAW or the CIA. I'm positive the Indian and American governments don't agree with you there. But more to the point, I don't see why questioning how we can ever know what Jinnah really wanted amounts to treason. Indeed, PEOPLE ON THIS VERY BLOG POST disagree COMPLETELY on what Jinnah wanted. You say those fighting for Pakistan wanted an Islamic state; two other commenters have argued the exact opposite. Isn't this very disagreement proof of my point, that is, that we simply cannot know what Jinnah wanted because at the end of the day, he was a politician who said convenient things when they had to be said?
2. All Muslims are NOT brothers. If they were, Iran and Iraq would not have fought a decade long brutal war, Shias and Sunnis would not target funeral processions in Pakistan, Ahmedis would not wander around scared shitless about what will happen to them. It is the height of chauvinism to think that there is one "true" path and that all you have to do is convince all your Muslim "brothers" of that fact. I promise you, every "type" of Muslim in Pakistan -- Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Bhoris, Ahmedis, Ismailis and god knows what else -- think that their path is the one true path. So are you going to convince all of them to abandon their way of life to the way you practice your religion?
3. You're right, "people were like animals" and would have been completely left behind without Islam. Another typically chauvinistic argument.
4. Your Kashmir point so ignores basic facts about the dispute that I will not bother engaging with it. Maybe some other commenters would like to take it up, but this is it from me.
Ahh with people like Amjad among you why do you need Talibans to destroy Pak? Name every country (especially India) as dirty and your land of pure, Islam where your own Muslim brother kill you as pure!! Its funny to think that people are ready to commit suicide if their girls roam around in skimpy clothes but are ready to live with Talibans and mujhaideens fu$$ing their rears everyday!! And for god sake come out of your stupid self-satisfying illusion that YOU rules India! They were Mughals who were over thrown by Marathas. There were no Muslims in India before Mughals. They converted Hindus to Muslims by the power of word. So AMJAD if you go back and trace your family tree you will find you are a grand-grand-grand parents were originally a HINDU, the psuedo-seculars, dirty breed!
Divide Action eh mate? Have u forgotten 1971? It was the generosity of Gandhi who gave you 300 crores during partition to start your land, something which you have not yet returned! But yeah you keep sending your freedom fighters in our land, so if that is the way of repaying then good going!!
Pakistan can never in 100 years be mini-India. A country found on bloodshed to satisfy ego of few people will run out of its time eventually and Talibans are doing just that! I am glad Jinnah asked for a seperate Pakistan. Its a wise decision to cut off cancer in its early stages and we did just that :)
Until you keep mixing Islam with every damm thing in daily life you cant come out of this mess. Religion is a personal thing to guide you spiritually! No wonder all Muslim countries are doomed!!!
@Amjad
You seriosuly amaze me! Kashmiris dont want to join Pakistan, especially after the current events..HA HA...nice joke! These people want peace and prosperity. Thats why they voted in heavy numbers in this election and now they have their democratically elected CM. So much so that now a seperatist leader is also standing in election though with dirty motives but he had to follow the democratic path of India :)
Kindly come out of the illusion that people are dying to join ur Islamist Pakistan. Given a chance, the people of your side of Kashmir will join this part of Kashmir where they have a voice unlike common ppl in Pak!
You are a perfect example of a perosn fed on the staple diet of hate India, hate secularism, hate everything related to India. NO wonder you are in this mess. Go Amjad :)
In my earlier comment I meant power of sword. My 's' key gets stuck some time.
I meant Mughals converted by the power of sword!
...but in the end, if pakistan moves towards becoming a secular, modern country, the question of why pakistan needed to be formed will remain inadequately answered. if not, then do enlighten me.
also, i'd really like to know if it's possible for both india and pakistan to be modern countries that teach histories in their schools in a way that does not in some way create angst towards the other.
just to clarify, i do sincerely hope pakistan becomes a modern, secular state - but doing so, would surely create doubts in the minds of the large populace that believes pakistan was founded to form an essentially religious islamic state. if the interpretation of an "islamic" state turns out to be quite alike the goals india sets for itself, then people are bound to raise questions about what the whole fucking fuss was about in the first place?
and once that occurs what do you tell the next generations of pakistan? and that's the link to my question on how history is taught. would india and pakistan teach history in a way to tell the next generations that we hated so much we fucked ourselves up?
Amjad
You sound like a terrorist in making. Priya, you have aptly replied to the bugger.
Hey Amjad what if Women want to be scantily clad, whats your problem? Can handle nudity, eh?
I think the problem with you guys is the Caliphate and what you have been taught as the ubiquitous time in Islamic history. You guys are moving towards becoming another Afghanistan and still say that you need to move towards complete islamization. If a majority of the Pakistanis do support such a law and governance structure, I think the world is in for a bad time with people like you here. I think you need to migrate to the moon. That will solve all the worlds problems.
I have a question to all of us- for how many generations are we going to hate each other? What have we achieved by hating each other? Are we going to pass on this hatred to our next generation instead of teaching them love and peace? I thought our generation is different and smart generation who will choose love over hatred, make a new beginning of understanding and sharing so that the both countries will start moving in the right direction but alas, I was proved wrong.
I DON'T think Jinnah was a secular person, reasons? here,
1> He Married (second time) a Parsi lady called "Rattanbai Petit", who was FORCED (I don't know how, that's too personal of Jinnah) to convert to a Muslim with new name "Maryam" BEFORE MARRIAGE..
Supporting links :
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Jinnah
The wedding
Shortly after her eighteenth birthday, Rattanbai converted to Islam and adopted the name Mariam. Two months later, on April 19, 1918, they were married at his house South Court in Bombay.
Pakistanherald:
http://www.pakistanherald.com/programs.asp?p=&page=54&order=prog_id
(There are 3 or 4 good programs all of them finally ends with no conclusion as ""WHO was Jinnah??""
2> His daughter and he had rough relations ever since she decided to marry a non-muslim Parsi and she never lived in Pakistan created by her own father (which is your country :-)) and you all live there)
Wiki Again :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Wadia
Dina's relationship with her father became strained when Dina expressed her desire to marry a Parsi-born Indian Neville Wadia. Jinnah, a Muslim, tried to dissuade her, but failed. Mahommedali Currim Chagla, who was Jinnah's assistant at the time, recalls: "Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have anyone she chose. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina's mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim, the young lady replied: 'Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?' And he replied that, 'she became a Muslim'".
I am cutting it off here and not making it lengthy & boarding, however, I know we can talk on 100s more point. these two itself represent, he was NOT secular. I think in general there is nothing called a "Secular Muslim", these tow words are so antonyms.
Priya, you sound like a fool, much so like Amjad.
Aren’t you guys making a mountain out of molehill? What started as a benign post has become a full-fledged Indo- Pakistan mud slinging contest? Isn’t it high time that we should focus on more significant issues – education and development of both countries?
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21662
“Osama bin Laden can come here. Sure, like a brother they can stay anywhere they want,” TTP spokesman Muslim Khan said in a two-hour interview on Friday, his first with a foreign journalist since the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation was imposed. “Yes, we will help them and protect them,” he added.
Excellent!!
Maybe the god damned mullah should read a little bit about the Quaid's life before making such preposterous claims.
To quote Jinnah himself:
"Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission"
I am really astonished at comments which show no knowledge whatsoever of the facts of history. Without going into the conclusions which these facts were marshalled to support, I want to correct some of the most offensive mistakes, offensive because inaccuracy and distortion is always offensive.
@Priya
They were Mughals who were over thrown by Marathas. This is not wholly correct, only partially. There were others, including Nadir Shah, the King of Persia, his former general and successor, Ahmad Shah, and the Sikhs of the Punjab.
The British were active against Mughal forces from 1757 onwards.
There were no Muslims in India before Mughals.
Depending on how you define India, Islam in India pre-dates the Mughals by over 500 years. That’s a long time.
In terms of political power, we have
1. In Sind, Muhammad bin Qasim, Arab, around 711 AD;
2. In the Kabul area, Sabuktigin, father of Mahmud of Ghazni, around 980 AD;
3. In Delhi, Qutbuddinb Aibak, 1206 to 1210 AD.
There were Shia princes in Sind and Multan before Muhammad of Ghor attacked the Hindu Shahi kings of Kabul + Peshawar + Punjab.
The period of the Delhi Sultanate, from 1206 to 1526, is entirely before the Mughals; during this period, there was a Muslim kingdom ruling from Delhi, which expanded throughout India, and receded as well, during its 320 years.
They converted Hindus to Muslims by the power of (s)word. Again, area-specific. Without going into long-winded explanations, Kerala and Bengal were to a high degree of probability converted without any coercion or compulsion.
I am not engaging the arguments or conclusions, only those facts cited which are inco. It is surprising that with the wealth of material above currently, these elementary mistakes are made.
I dont see why there can be a tradeoff like the way Malaysia governs itself. What is presented is a false choice between complete secularization or theocracy. thers nothing wrong with Usul ul Fiqh in itself but its application in modern times leaves much lacking.
@ bonobashi Thanks for presenting well established historical facts.I would have appreciated if Priya has cited examples of secular and tolerant Akbar- great Mughal emperor and of Sufism which still thrives in both lands.
o yaar forget about qazi wazi---he has always been marginalized by society and govt. more or less for the last three or four decades and now just retired. everybody knows that most of the time, he just shoots from the hip and contibutes nothing beneficial to pakistani society intellectually---his godfather modoody was against the creation of pakistan and accused jinnah of being a secularist or a parsi despite conversion to islam, sometimes a drinker---he shamelessly allied with gandhi to isolate jinnah but failed, so screw him.
BTW, didnt u hear the share
larka larkee razi to kya kar lay ghaa qazi!
wink:)
Post a Comment