Continued...My new friends want to know why Americans think they are terrorists. It's a good question, and an innocent one, judging by the young and open faces of the dozen or so students sharing their evening meal with me. They don't look like terrorists as they sit in a semicircle on green mats in the courtyard of Jamia Uloom-ul-Quran, a small Deobandi madrassa located in a historic downtown mosque in Peshawar. This provincial capital served as headquarters for the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, and jihad is still a going concern here. A block away from the madrassa, at shops selling shoes and used clothes, I'd bought a 50-cent al Qaeda DVD of a suicide bomber preparing for a mission. At the end of the disc, over religious music, the bomber is shown in his car at a distant crossroads, blowing up a convoy. "We know that shop," the students say. "But we're not terrorists."
A few of the students appear to be ten or younger, but most are in their late teens or early 20s. They say their dream for Pakistan is "a peaceful nation, in which justice prevails, in keeping with Islamic law." But they believe, as many here do, that Islam is under attack. By America, by the West, by India, by their own government. Under these circumstances, they say, jihad is justified. What about suicide bombing? Is it sanctioned by Islam? "You must think we have classes here in making bombs or AK-47s!" exclaims one boy, and they all laugh.
"In any Muslim land that's occupied, suicide bombing is allowed," says a personable older boy named Rafiullah, who has bright brown eyes and the beginnings of a beard. A few mention Iraq and Palestine as places where such bombings are justified. Another boy mentions Afghanistan. "But it's not allowed in Pakistan," Rafiullah says, "since we're not an occupied country." ("Not yet!" somebody else interjects, to laughter.) "Nobody has a right to blow you up, even if you're a non-Muslim, or an infidel. If you are here as a guest, you are welcome." He reaches to shake my hand, as if to reassure me.
The call for jihad is rising across Pakistan, but it is here, in the northwest, that the Islamists are taking control. Ever since 9/11, thousands of Taliban fighters have found refuge among their fellow Pashtun tribesmen in Peshawar, Quetta, and the mountainous tribal areas along the Afghan border, especially North and South Waziristan. A year ago this month, the government agreed to a cease-fire with the tribes and abandoned most of North Waziristan to the militants. It's a sign of the local Taliban's strength that the agreement was signed not by tribal elders but by Taliban commanders.
Pakistan's turnabout on the Taliban, which it had strongly supported since 1994, came shortly after 9/11. When Afghanistan's Taliban government, which had sheltered Osama bin Laden, disintegrated under the firestorm meted out by the United States and its coalition partners, President Musharraf confronted a stark choice: Cooperate or suffer the consequences. He immediately sided with the U.S. against the Taliban. It was not a popular decision. Today, Pakistan is under pressure to contain the Taliban and al Qaeda to the tribal areas along the Afghan border, although it's clear that they're gaining in other parts of Pakistan. Many Deobandi madrassas are believed to have an al Qaeda recruiter on the premises. But Muhammad Hanif Jalandhry, who runs a madrassa in Multan, says the reputation of Pakistan's madrassas as factories for terrorists is "propaganda. I tell you, it's the oppressive system we live under that's bringing people to these seminaries. People are seeking refuge and security—and dignity. They are seeking a future."
Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis
- Thread starter Vinod2070
- Start date
Some excellent images at: Photogallery - National Geographic Magazine
Guys, I will highly recommend to go through the complete article I posted. Some points are just so poignant that they take the breath away.
In fact reading about Edhi was really emotional. His presence in Pakistan alone proves that the people are innately good in spite of the evil ideology of the likes of Taliban and that Zaid clown that is trying to consume them.
No not most, Pushtuns and Baluchs are mostly Deo-bandis, cities in Punjab are mostly deo-bandis, educated people are mostly deobandis. Baralvis are mostly in Karachi and in villages
Mysterious my foot, he was killed by the Americans, he fought a war for Americans and won them that war. They did not need him anymore, so he was killed.
Wrong he was never termed a non-muslim by any Molvi. Fingers have been pointed on him on various issues but he was never termed a non-muslim. I dunno western media lie so much just to malign the molvis. Infact Molvis have started same kindda services based on his system e.g. Lashkar-i-Tayba also started an Ambulance service and open few hospitals. No one in western media talks about that. LT also started digging water wells for hindus in the Tharparkar area, no one talks about that. Then dawa was banned hindus in that area proptested more than the muslims in cities.
What is the % of Barelvis in Pakistan population. I have seen claims from Musharraf and many others that Barelvis are 70% to 90% of Pakistanis and Deobandis are a minority.
In fact that was the basis of Musharraf's claims that the extremists are just 10 % of Pakistani population after 9-11.
Whatever you say? Any proof? Any investigation by your government that has been made public? If no, why not!
In the absence of proof, it is another conspiracy theory.
The article mentions non-Islamic. That is a common term used by the extremists for anyone who doesn't agree with their views. That is how they justify murdering the other Muslims in their mosques!
By claiming that they are not Muslim enough and therefor fit for killing and their murder will take them straight to heaven with the attendant promised goodies.
Excellent point raised Johnee. :113:
These are real issues with many Pakistani and leads to their identity crisis and inability to be a normal nation.
Musalman, first of all I congratulate you on a great and very balanced post. I wish more Pakistanis thought like you. Probably we won't have the enmity that we have now.
However I do want to point out some difference of thoughts.
However I do want to point out some difference of thoughts.
I agree that the actual number of people with foreign ancestry is small but you should know that there is a very large number who fake foreign origins. I read a Pakistani writer who said that there are more Qureshis in Pakistan than in Arabia! It is a fact that many Pakistanis want to proclaim themselves Ashrafs and look down on the majority Ajlafs.
Good for you. Unfortunately, I don't think the green passport earns the same respect in much of the world, in fact quite the opposite. It is sad but justa fallout of the policies of the past so many decades.
I agree that IVC is a shared legacy. The issue is that small number of Pakistanis who care about it want to just cliam it as an exclusively Pakistani legacy and that defies logic given that they also claim the pre-invasion period as jahiliya too.Third question what is IVC? If that means Indian Vedic Culture then dude we are as much Indians as you guys are. Harrapa Mohejordero is in my land so i have a claim to it. Lahore is named after the son of Ram so i also lay a claim on Ram tooPoint is we do not have identity crisis infact we enjoy being part of every nation may it be the Muslim Europeans or the Afraican Muslims they are my brothers in Islam and Indians or the east they being my blood brothers
Census is on the basis of Muslim Hindu etc not on sect. Mushraf was not a Baralvis he was nothing he was secular infact. most mosques in lahore my city is deobandi but there r alot of baralvi mosques too. State mosques r usually deobandi however badshi mosque is barelvi mosque.
of course conspiracy theory
Non Muslim non islamic kafir what ever he is not call any of it
:113:
I
Ashraf Ajalaf term i heard from Singh never heard of it. No one look down upon me for being ethinically Punjab. I have friends who are syed, no one act like he is superior. Unnessary repect of Arab or Syed is given by baralvis not my deobandis.
I know usually requires a strip search
thats why i said it earned me respect in Turkey Algeria. And it was due to Muslim brotherhoodJahilya is termed used for infedals of Arabia. IVC is shared of course. Pre Islamic period is not taught in school so we usually have no idea. Infact i told u the history we are told is from 1940 to 47 , which is in my opinion bs
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,307
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,307
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,307
DAWN.COM | Columnists | Why-we-are-where-we-are
Why we are where we are
By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 25 Apr, 2009 | 01:04 AM PST
IN the middle of Karachi stands the concrete shell of a 30-storey building. This is the structure of the Hyatt Regency hotel started in the mid-seventies, and which has remained a building site since work was abandoned in 1977.
In a sense, this hulk is a metaphor for Pakistan: a state launched with much fanfare, enthusiasm and good intentions, but which can neither be completed nor pulled down.
Any state has a number of prerequisites to function effectively: settled borders; an accord on the measure of autonomy to be exercised by the federating units; the official language; and a broad consensus on the nature and direction of the state. Another element relates to national identity. Finally, any modern state must establish its monopoly on the use and means of violence.
As an artificially created entity, Pakistan was required to define and establish these parameters. Unfortunately, it failed to do so, largely because of the long delay in forging a consensus on the constitution, and partly because of the frequent military interventions that repeatedly eroded respect for the constitution and the rule of law. Poorly educated military dictators with no sense of history attempted to come up with half-baked concepts that have laid waste to the institutions we inherited from the British.
An early problem the new state faced was the issue of borders that were left undefined by the departing colonial power. Pakistani rulers have struggled with this question, opting for military confrontation instead of dialogue and discourse. It is true that our neighbours have not been very helpful in settling the matter. Pakistani militarists have driven our foreign and defence policies, arming to repel real and perceived dangers from abroad, while creating a Frankenstein’s monster that now threatens to devour us.
As a result of this single-issue agenda, money that should have been spent on education and health was diverted into the insatiable black hole of bloated military budgets. As our population has increased without check, millions of young people remain uneducated and unemployed. Filling the educational vacuum are the thousands of madressahs, many financed by Saudi Arabia, that do not equip students for careers in the modern world. There is thus a fertile breeding ground for the Taliban and their fellow extremists to recruit foot soldiers from.
The last six decades have amply demonstrated the difficulty inherent in building a national identity based solely on religion. Talk to any conservative Pakistani today, and he will assert that as Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, the Sharia should be the law of the land. It would be futile to point out that Jinnah visualised a secular state in which all Pakistanis would be equal citizens. This lofty vision would be scant comfort to the Sikh families who have had to flee their homes in the tribal areas because demands for jaziah, the old Muslim tax on non-Muslims, were made by de facto Taliban rulers.
In order to justify the partition of the subcontinent, rulers have resorted to bewildering mental contortions. Many have tried to move our roots to the Middle East from our true origins in South Asia. This confusion is reflected in school textbooks and the media. Thus, we have young people unsure of their past, and unable or unwilling to claim their rich cultural patrimony.
The insecurity caused by the wrenching experience of Partition has seen military and civilian rulers looking to the West for military and economic assistance. For years, these anti-Communist alliances made us feel stronger than we actually were. But they also isolated us, and when the balance of power began to shift against us, the army built up a force of extremists to further its agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. These are the militants who threaten our very survival today.
Instead of fighting them, the ruling elites continue their double game of playing footsie with the Taliban, while laying claim to billions in western aid. But the jihadis cannot be defeated with money alone: political will and a broad consensus backed by military might are needed. So far, there are few signs of any of this happening. While the Taliban walk into Buner and Dir after their uncontested victory in Swat, the army continues its policy of studied indifference, while the politicians play their power games.
The divisions in the ranks of Pakistani society over this threat are visible in the media. In a sense, this is the inevitable product of decades of brainwashing about the nature of the Pakistani state. Many people are confused about the issues underlying this crisis: having been told that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, they are now being asked to accept that the real enemy is not Hindu India, but fanatics who want to impose their stone-age rule in the name of Islam.
Such contradictions cannot be easily resolved, especially in a deeply conservative society where illiteracy is rampant. When simple, poorly educated soldiers are warned by mullahs that they will not be accorded a Muslim burial if they fall fighting the Taliban, it is understandable that they should be reluctant to go into combat. Generations of army officers have been indoctrinated at military academies into believing that India is the real enemy. It is hard for them to face reality, and reorient our defence to the west.
Since Zia began promoting Wahabi madressahs across Pakistan in the eighties, we have faced bitter sectarian strife. Anti-Shia militias have been in the forefront of the jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir, acquiring arms, training and large amounts of money in the process. These forces are now formally allied with the Taliban, and have presented their erstwhile handlers in our intelligence services with the difficult task of keeping them on our side, while simultaneously appearing to fight them.
In the long wish list prepared by the army for the Pentagon’s consideration, night-vision goggles are high in our priorities. Well-informed friends in Peshawar tell me that this equipment is on sale in the local arms bazaar, having been looted from US and Nato convoys. But if our army doesn’t want to buy the locally available goggles, could I ask them to consider fighting during the day, at least?
When you next drive past the looming shell of the Hyatt Regency, spare a thought for what might have been.
[email protected]
Why we are where we are
By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 25 Apr, 2009 | 01:04 AM PST
IN the middle of Karachi stands the concrete shell of a 30-storey building. This is the structure of the Hyatt Regency hotel started in the mid-seventies, and which has remained a building site since work was abandoned in 1977.
In a sense, this hulk is a metaphor for Pakistan: a state launched with much fanfare, enthusiasm and good intentions, but which can neither be completed nor pulled down.
Any state has a number of prerequisites to function effectively: settled borders; an accord on the measure of autonomy to be exercised by the federating units; the official language; and a broad consensus on the nature and direction of the state. Another element relates to national identity. Finally, any modern state must establish its monopoly on the use and means of violence.
As an artificially created entity, Pakistan was required to define and establish these parameters. Unfortunately, it failed to do so, largely because of the long delay in forging a consensus on the constitution, and partly because of the frequent military interventions that repeatedly eroded respect for the constitution and the rule of law. Poorly educated military dictators with no sense of history attempted to come up with half-baked concepts that have laid waste to the institutions we inherited from the British.
An early problem the new state faced was the issue of borders that were left undefined by the departing colonial power. Pakistani rulers have struggled with this question, opting for military confrontation instead of dialogue and discourse. It is true that our neighbours have not been very helpful in settling the matter. Pakistani militarists have driven our foreign and defence policies, arming to repel real and perceived dangers from abroad, while creating a Frankenstein’s monster that now threatens to devour us.
As a result of this single-issue agenda, money that should have been spent on education and health was diverted into the insatiable black hole of bloated military budgets. As our population has increased without check, millions of young people remain uneducated and unemployed. Filling the educational vacuum are the thousands of madressahs, many financed by Saudi Arabia, that do not equip students for careers in the modern world. There is thus a fertile breeding ground for the Taliban and their fellow extremists to recruit foot soldiers from.
The last six decades have amply demonstrated the difficulty inherent in building a national identity based solely on religion. Talk to any conservative Pakistani today, and he will assert that as Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, the Sharia should be the law of the land. It would be futile to point out that Jinnah visualised a secular state in which all Pakistanis would be equal citizens. This lofty vision would be scant comfort to the Sikh families who have had to flee their homes in the tribal areas because demands for jaziah, the old Muslim tax on non-Muslims, were made by de facto Taliban rulers.
In order to justify the partition of the subcontinent, rulers have resorted to bewildering mental contortions. Many have tried to move our roots to the Middle East from our true origins in South Asia. This confusion is reflected in school textbooks and the media. Thus, we have young people unsure of their past, and unable or unwilling to claim their rich cultural patrimony.
The insecurity caused by the wrenching experience of Partition has seen military and civilian rulers looking to the West for military and economic assistance. For years, these anti-Communist alliances made us feel stronger than we actually were. But they also isolated us, and when the balance of power began to shift against us, the army built up a force of extremists to further its agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. These are the militants who threaten our very survival today.
Instead of fighting them, the ruling elites continue their double game of playing footsie with the Taliban, while laying claim to billions in western aid. But the jihadis cannot be defeated with money alone: political will and a broad consensus backed by military might are needed. So far, there are few signs of any of this happening. While the Taliban walk into Buner and Dir after their uncontested victory in Swat, the army continues its policy of studied indifference, while the politicians play their power games.
The divisions in the ranks of Pakistani society over this threat are visible in the media. In a sense, this is the inevitable product of decades of brainwashing about the nature of the Pakistani state. Many people are confused about the issues underlying this crisis: having been told that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, they are now being asked to accept that the real enemy is not Hindu India, but fanatics who want to impose their stone-age rule in the name of Islam.
Such contradictions cannot be easily resolved, especially in a deeply conservative society where illiteracy is rampant. When simple, poorly educated soldiers are warned by mullahs that they will not be accorded a Muslim burial if they fall fighting the Taliban, it is understandable that they should be reluctant to go into combat. Generations of army officers have been indoctrinated at military academies into believing that India is the real enemy. It is hard for them to face reality, and reorient our defence to the west.
Since Zia began promoting Wahabi madressahs across Pakistan in the eighties, we have faced bitter sectarian strife. Anti-Shia militias have been in the forefront of the jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir, acquiring arms, training and large amounts of money in the process. These forces are now formally allied with the Taliban, and have presented their erstwhile handlers in our intelligence services with the difficult task of keeping them on our side, while simultaneously appearing to fight them.
In the long wish list prepared by the army for the Pentagon’s consideration, night-vision goggles are high in our priorities. Well-informed friends in Peshawar tell me that this equipment is on sale in the local arms bazaar, having been looted from US and Nato convoys. But if our army doesn’t want to buy the locally available goggles, could I ask them to consider fighting during the day, at least?
When you next drive past the looming shell of the Hyatt Regency, spare a thought for what might have been.
[email protected]
Isn't that a fact, without Islam what is the point having Pakistan as a separate country ???? Mushraf removed that Islamic thing and now we are in trouble. As a nation our only binding force is Islam and nothing else. With out islam we are Sindhs Punjabis Kashmiris Pushtun Baluchi Barawhi etc no need for one single country then
In that case, why not merge with Iran, Afghanistan, other Central Asian countries or Arab states?
What differentiates you from them? They are also Muslims.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,307
The second part of the line is:
It would be futile to point out that Jinnah visualised a secular state in which all Pakistanis would be equal citizens.
Care to explain this?
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,307
any way something interesting now, so terrorism is getting suffixed with there national identity now:
Sarfraz Manzoor: How to tell I'm not a terrorist | Comment is free | The Guardian
Sarfraz Manzoor: How to tell I'm not a terrorist | Comment is free | The Guardian
The mosques and Madressas are liberally funded by the Saudi Wahabis. They have to be disproportionate in number to the population.
Musharraf, a secular? You made my day. I have read about his treatment of the Shias of Northern Areas when he was a Brigadiar. He is a terror supporter, always has been. He was supporting the murder of innocent civilians by the terrorists during his Agra visit here in India!
9/11 may have made him change his tune but not his colors. He was two timing the Yanks and the Yanks bought his line and got duped.
Well, nothing to discuss then.
He is none of it. But obviously some Mullahs think so. A magazine of the stature of NGM is not lying and you know that.
You seem to be ignorant of a major facet of the Muslim social life in the subcontinent. The lack of knowledge does not take away from the fact of this divide. Do try to find out about this. It is not something that you can wish away.
Jahiliyah is the Pre-Islamic period. It assumes that there was no civilization to speak of before the coming of Islam. That is what is claimed by many Pakistanis who think that the natives welcomed Muhammed Bin Qasim with open arms. You go to Sindh and you will know from the loclas about the genocide he perpetrated and the thousands of girls sent to Harems back to Arabia. But this is one of the prevalent myths in Pakistan. I will post a list of such myths in Pakistan now. This is by a Pakistani writer and is a pretty good reflection of the lies the Pakistani take to be truths.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Why Pakistan is based on fake ideology | Pakistan | 7 | |
|
Pakistan must shed its ideological obsession on Kashmir-Hussain Haqqan | Pakistan | 3 | |
|
Ideological Struggle in the Pakistan Army : Trying to join twain that cannot meet | Pakistan | 0 | |
|
Attacks on Chinese in Pakistan | Pakistan | 10 |
