Pak Tea House » journalism, Karachi » The Dishonest Crooks of Our Urdu Press
The Dishonest Crooks of Our Urdu Press
Ladies and gentlemen I have long harped on about the paucity of honesty, integrity, intellect and just common sense that is common place in our Urdu Press. Needless to say the googlies of people like Hamid Mir, Oria Jaan Maqbool, Javed Chaudhry etc can make anyone’s headspin. A Lahore based English weekly has a special section dedicated to the bloopers of the Urdu press which is comment enough on such matters.
However, this website and this author has also gotten some attention from a newspaper from Karachi that specializes in spreading false religious frenzy. One such hilarious misrepresentation is how this particular author spun my short blog on Obama’s Nobel Prize win. Here is the original blog post for all to see: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/congratulations-us-president-obama/
In this “article” (more like a two-liner) after congratulating President Obama for his Nobel Prize Win (which I think even Obama realizes is unjustified) I reminded the readers of President Obama’s election pledge vis a vis Kashmir. It is no secret that peace in Pakistan has deteriorated greatly in the last year or so and so I put peace in Pakistan on my wish list for Nobel Prize Winner. Those on my Facebook friends list know that my status all day was “Congratulations Mr. President on Nobel Speech Prize”. Only a fool could miss the heavy sarcastic undertone.
Now let us see how our genius from the Urdu Press spun it shamelessly:
And to think that this crook has signed off as a “Pakistani Muslim”. Is this what a Pakistani Muslim is about? Lying, control freakery? Now I was not aware of the fact that I am a Qadiani… may be Quaidiani (i.e. follower of Quaid-e-Azam) but not a Qadiani… but I frankly have no sectarian affiliations in faith (and to me personally there is no difference between Mirza Qadiani or Maulana Maududi… though the latter’s fitna has hurt Pakistan infinitely more than the former’s). But if this is what a “Pakistani Muslim” is like, I’d rather be something else – anything else. Atleast a Non-Muslim doesn’t make a mockery of Islam like the author of this piece. Shame on you Mr. Siddiqui! Indeed shame on Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Fitna e Maududiat and its McCarthy-ism.
Now frankly it does not matter to me for barking dogs seldom bite. But what it does prove is that Pakistan’s Urdu press consists of a bunch of liars, crooks, cranks and madmen who will lie like there is no tomorrow and spin like Abdul Qadir. And it proves that Jamaat-e-Fitna-e-Maududiat is still active against Pakistan just like the 1940s when it abused Quaid-e-Azam and Pakistan like no tomorrow. That puts little ol’ me in distinguished company.
Filed under: journalism, Karachi · Tags: Cranks, Crooks, Daily Ummat, Jamaat-e-Islami, nobel prize, Nuggets from the Urdu Press, Urdu Press, yellow journalism
236 Responses to "The Dishonest Crooks of Our Urdu Press"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim
said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu... - tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
- Skeptic
said Fingolfin,
Why blame the mullahs? The real proble... - PMA
said Dr. Jalal & Dr. Bose both are academician &... - Rex Minor
said Rajtoo,
I have no problems with your statements... - Mubaraka
said Mr. AKB
Can you please point out which article of... - yasser said no comments plz
- Skeptic said I read somewhere that Manto wrote thrice to Ismat...
@Rashid
Yup…Ghulam Ghous Hazarwi said that…He was against PNA…the alliance against Bhutto and left JUI for his alliance with JI….
@Majumdar
The Doctor is Pakistani but US Citizen
@Gorki
About your wistful musings and PMA’s prompt parking of tongue in cheek: remind me quickly about what Hayyer-garu said about Majumdar “leading with his chin”?
The, errm, razor’s edge of intellectual discussion, in a matter of speaking; Majumdar’s chin and the extreme boundaries of speculation that you reached. One can’t help wondering – is it time to, what’s the phrase for this occasion, back up a bit?
PMA Sahib, Archaeo,
Thanks guys for looking out for me.
However I think PMA Sahib is overreading what I wrote. He too only only focussed on half my remark and missed the point.
Having been happily married to the woman of my dreams, who still make my heart beat faster whenever she enters the room, I have no use for any concubines (either of the right hand or otherwise.)
Here is what I had written:
“The psychiatrists get to have all the fun and get away by saying things like the above and yet all of us lesser folks risk a sexual harrassment law suit even if we hinted such a thing around polite company.”
Which to me should translate into “You as a psychiatrist may be able to say such things but for the rest of us who have to watch every word, let us not go there, even in jest.”
Thus it should be obvious that my comment was only limited to the luxury of making such remarks without fear (not musing for anything.)
(Those who hold senior administrative positions in the US will relate to the context since even remarks like above are taken very seriously these days, and people have been sued for less)
Regards.
JI Ex Chief…the Ex geography lecturer..Mr. Qazi has declared Dr. Hoodbhoy as Raw and CIA agent…in Express News Programme while responding Dr. Hoodbhoy revealed that during his US visit Qazi Sb in his speech at brookings Institution started it as ”I feel it like my own country ”
Express News TV propgram Front Line October 23, 2009.
Jamaat Islami leader Liaquat Baloch:
17th constitutional ammendment was political decision, it could be WRONG, and it could be REVERSED!!!!
I wonder what Liaquat Baloch has to say about 2nd constitutional ammendment which was also a political decision, and why it could not be reversed???
2nd ammendment was not entirely and solely a political decision contrary to the 17th ammendment…which was the will of a dictator.
that was one of the finest example of wisdom of zulifiqar Ali bhutto and national assembly.
that was the finest example of “IJMAH” of the nation.the whole nation was behind this amendment
that was also the finest example of preserving and protecting the islamic ideology of pakistan.
whole islamic ideology is based upon the finality of the Nabi e Kareem(salallaho alehe wa aalehi wasalim) and that ideology was protected well on time by the muslims of pakistan.
(Alhamdulillahay rabbil aalameen)
@dr jawwad khan
Your: “2nd ammendment was not entirely and solely a political decision”
So, you do accept it was at least partially political decision. You accept how religion was used to meet political aims.
Your: “that was one of the finest example of wisdom of zulifiqar Ali bhutto and national assembly.”
So, a person like ZAB did a great service by TRASHING and bringing respect and honor of Kalma-Shahada value to ZERO. Of course ZAB did NOT know how upset and angry Rasul Allah SAWS was when he heard from his Sahabi (companion) who killed an enemy in the battle who recited Kalma-Shahada to save his life.
Your: “that was the finest example of “IJMAH” of the nation.the whole nation was behind this amendment”
So, in your opinion “Ijmah” of nation was SUPERIOR to direct injunction of Holy Quran, where Allah SWT has instructed Muslims NOT to even call anyone Kafir who even says “salam” (muslim salutation). And you agree with “ijmah” that took authority and responsibility of Allah SWT to decide who is a Muslim and who is Kafir.
Your: “that was also the finest example of preserving and protecting the islamic ideology of pakistan.”
Islamic ideology of Pakistan was/ is a land for people who recite Kalma-Shahada. Does one need to curse 100s of people with whom you disagree to be accepted as a Muslim???
Does Shia needs to curse Sunnis and its sub-branches to be accepted as Muslim; and Sunni needs to curse Shia and its sub-branches to be accepted as Muslim??? Is Kafir vs Kafir declarations is “Islamic ideology” of Pakistan???
Your: “whole islamic ideology is based upon the finality of the Nabi e Kareem(salallaho alehe wa aalehi wasalim) and that ideology was protected well on time by the muslims of pakistan.”
Using your standards EVERY MUSLIM including YOU, EXCEPT Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members are in VIOLATION of finality of prophethood on Rasul Allah SAWS. People like YOU are DENIERS of finality of the Nabi e Kareem(salallaho alehe wa aalehi wasalim). ONLY LAM members hold REAL AND HONEST BELIEF OF FINALITY OF NABI-E-KAREEM. Where as people like YOU hold belief that Jesus (Isa AS) will DESCEND in Physical form from sky, like some thing dropping from sky. YOU yourself is denier of finality of prophethood on Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and you have audacity to question others!!!
Read what Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) said:
When Z.A.Bhutto was on trial he was accused of being a “Muslim in name only”. This accusation was levelled by the Lahore High Court Judgment against him of March 1978. Bhutto was very bitter about this, as he has himself stated in his book “If I am assasssinated” which you can download easily from the website:
www dot bhutto dot org
I also have the following reference from the time when he appealed against his death sentence to the Supreme Court:
“He [Bhutto] said that it was an acknowledged principle that the person who recites the Kalima is a Muslim, and no one has the right to call him a non-Muslim. Citing an instance, chairman [of the People's Party] Bhutto said that Abu Sufyan, a great enemy of the Holy Prophet, was brought to him. He claimed to have recited the Kalima, but the Holy Prophet’s Companions argued that he had not done it with his heart, and they wanted to kill him. But the Holy Prophet said that as he had recited the Kalima, he was now a Muslim, and could not be harmed.”
(Urdu Daily Masawat, Lahore, Wednesday 20 December 1978, front page, column 1)
He said this in reply to the accusation that he was “a Muslim in name only”.
So before the end of his life Bhutto discovered the true definition of a Muslim and himself presented it in court.
Dr Jawwad Khan, howcome you do NOT accept definition of Muslim presented in court by the same ZAB, who you praise for his wisdom???
My fellow Pakistani Citizens:
The EVIL TREE of declaring fellow reciters of Kalma-Shahada as Kafir (non-Muslim) was planted OFFICIALLY by ZAB in 1974. That tree has spread throughout Pakistan and is constantly producing its fruit. And its seeds are getting implanted in every nook and corner of Pakistan. In Pakistan, in reality, Respect of Kalma-Shahada is EQUAL TO ZERO. No one cares when one reciter of Kalma-Shahada is killing another reciter of kalma-shahada. Because this recitation of Kalma-shahada is ONLY verbal and NOT from heart. Unless this evil tree is uprooted and destroyed from its roots i.e. 1973 constitution (2nd amendment) this tree of evil will keep on producing and spreading its seeds in Pakistan. I am afraid Allah SWT may not totally physically disintegrate Pakistan, and with it Pakistan’s 1973 constitution goes into trash. And when there is no Pakistan (God forbid) there will not be any 1973 constitution and there will not be 2nd constitutional amendment of 1974. Will people like Dr. Jawwad Khan be happy than???
FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT A QADIANI.
@Rashid
ONLY LAM members hold REAL AND HONEST BELIEF OF FINALITY OF NABI-E-KAREEM. Where as people like YOU hold belief that Jesus (Isa AS) will DESCEND in Physical form from sky, like some thing dropping from sky. YOU yourself is denier of finality of prophethood on Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and you have audacity to question others!!!
and you think this makes you better than your adversary in this argument!? you’re no better. you’re just as narrow-minded, bigotted and intolerant. just more mistaken about your own reality.
i see you’ve been warned before by the moderators. either desist from using this blog for such name-calling and sectarian point-scoring.. or find another blog.
@Bloody Civilian:
My friend you MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE in the paragraph. I quote here:
“Using your [dr. jawwad khan] standards EVERY MUSLIM including YOU,——-are in VIOLATION of finality of prophethood on Rasul Allah SAWS”
Bloody Civilian, PLEASE do NOT do this.
By you taking out the most important point, you totally distorted my meaning and message.
I call it DISHONESTY. This is the attitude of Mulla-Mafia that is KILLING Pakistan and Pakistanis.
Now if i point out Mulla-Mafia reality on a NEUTRAL FORUM, why are you upset with this fact.
Are you trying to replicate Pakistani Mulla-Mafia attitude on this forum??? Are you trying to stifle an opinion that you may not like???
How to Establish a Solid Islamic State: Maududi shows a brilliant way to establish a solid Islamic state:
“Send notice to the population that they must announce within one year whether they should be considered Muslims or non-Muslims. After that one year, all children born to Muslims will be considered Muslims. All those who register as Muslims will be forced to observe the worships and rituals of Islam, five prayers a day, Friday prayers, 2.5 percent charity well-documented, fasting in the month of Ramadhan, Pilgrimage to Makkah for the affluent, sacrificing a sheep or goat at least once a year etc. Then whoever falls short of these obligations of Islam, will be beheaded.” (Murtad Ki Saza, Punishment of the Apostate, August 1953, pg 76).
Please note that many Mullahs considered Maududi a heretic apostate. He might have been the first to be put to sword. If this brilliant concept of Maududi is implemented, all the Muslim population of that ‘solid’ Islamic state will walk around without heads on their shoulders.
Jamaat Islami clearly reflects the personal opinions of certain peoples, and not necessarily of Quran. By extension, the Pakistani society and its thought is magnification of such ideas.
The paucity of logic in such a thought is reflected in its Constitution. Lets not forget that articles of constitution are developed by voting-in the populist ideas. These articles are NOT written by courts where a neutral judge weighs both sides for their logic and evidence.
Constitution of Pakistan 1974, has a catch-22 in it. It undertakes to declare certain schools of thought as non-Muslim, while it itself lacks the very definition of a Muslim. Such lack of integrity and that too of a Constitution is laughable.
Yet it is not laughable, because any effort to define a Muslim and that too in its Constitution can potentially result in a blood bath in Pakistan. Now that is ironic yet even more laughable.
This Constitution by its spirit is in violation of Quran when read in light of the following verse:
[Hence,] O you who have attained to faith, when you go forth [to war] in God’s cause, use your discernment, and do not – out of a desire for the fleeting gains of this worldly life – say unto anyone who offers you the greeting of peace, “Thou art not a believer” for with God there are gains abundant. You, too, were once in the same condition – but God has been gracious unto you. Use, therefore, your discernment: verily, God is always aware of what you do. {Translator: Muhammad Asad}
Historically Jamaat Islami has always been at war against the people that said Constitution singles out.
[above posted from another site]
@Rashid
hardly a fig leaf… especially when you went on the way you did tearing even that fig leaf into shreds.
i really don’t care much for who is what in terms of religion and have no interest in imposing any identity on people other than the one they choose for themselves. i don’t give a damn whether you call me a ‘kafir’, ‘muslim’, ‘mullah’ or whatever. i didn’t care for the kind of exchanges between you and Lutf either. once again, you were both as bad as each other.
i have little time for a discourse that includes examples like: Because this recitation of Kalma-shahada is ONLY verbal and NOT from heart. [..] I am afraid Allah SWT may not [sic?] totally physically disintegrate Pakistan
you can read my stand/views in my posts on these threads. but, if you don’t mind, i’d rather ignore the rants where you tell people whether they are true followers of muhammad or mirza ghulam ahemd or not.. and how 170million pakistanis deserve to be destroyed by bolts of lightning according to Prophet Rashid.
… my stand against 2nd amendment is based on the fact that it is the most despicable breach of a fundamental human right. i do not mind you arguing, if coherently, that it is un-Islamic too. but i do not see why democracy itself has to be attacked. even more importantly, what i care least for is when you think – all prophet-like – that you know that the parliament of ’73 were a bunch of sinners. what are you contributing to the argument there?
MANY OF WHOM DID NOT QUALIFY to even become members of that parliament according to 1973 constitution (as they were practicing vices according to Islam. Ref: Article 62 of 1973 constitution)??? Those kinds of politicians decided who is Muslim and who is Kafir!!!
so those not practicing the vices you claim to be a witness to do have the right?? i find your claim that the quran is more important than democracy just as dangerous. that is why i have no time for arguments like “What is important for you Holy Quran or Politicians” that takes sovereignty away from the people and gives power to those who claim that it is their job to interpret the quran, or that their interpretation is better than all others. my remedy for one wrong is not to replace it with another.
Geo TV program, Mere Mutabiq October 24, 2009.
Dr. Israr Ahmad:
When Allah punishes nations (Azab-e-Ilahi) He divides them into groups and they kill each other.
Today in Pakistan Muslims are killing Muslims.
Value of Kalma-Shahada = Zero.
Pakistanis need to restore respect of Kalma-Shahada to end this mayhem and killing of Muslims.
@Bloody Civilian:
“so those not practicing the vices you claim to be a witness to do have the right??”
I guess you are not aware of ZAB public speeches in which he said, “yes, i drink alcohol”
And according to article 62 of 1973 Pakistans Constitution, it is a vice and ZAB did NOT qualify to become member of National that authored/approved the said constitution.
” i find your claim that the quran is more important than democracy just as dangerous”
I NEVER made such STUPID claim. In fact, i am saying 2nd ammendment to 1973 constitution was ULTRA VIRES act of National Assembly.
Pakistan National Assembly and its members should have NEVER dealt with issue of declaring a Muslim as non-Muslim.
my question was: does a pious (in your view) membership of the parliament have the right to do what was done? you’re telling me that ZAB was this or that by his own admission. what is the relevance? was ZAB drinking alcohol a criminal act at the time of the 2nd amendment?
re-read article 62 and tell me if it is at all workable. tell me how, as drafted, it does not apply to both muslim and non-muslim members. who decides what is an ‘Islamic Injunction’ and what is not if not – once again – the dreaded clerics (after all it is not insisting on convictions by a court of law, so is in violation of ‘innocence till proven guitly’)? how can you base a criticism of 2nd amendment as something as insidious as article 62!?
as for your second claim, i’ve already quoted your own words: “What is important for you Holy Quran or Politicians”
” as something as insidious as ” = on something as insidious as
… about quoting dr israr, the less said the better.
Today in Pakistan Muslims are killing Muslims.
Value of Kalma-Shahada = Zero.
what about value of human life??? what does ‘kalma-shahada’ have to do with value of human life??? what are you trying to say?? those who don’t say ‘kalma-shahada’… their life is of lesser value??
what kind of stupid argument is this?
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 1:00 am
“my question was: does a pious (in your view) membership of the parliament have the right to do what was done? you’re telling me that ZAB was this or that by his own admission. what is the relevance? was ZAB drinking alcohol a criminal act at the time of the 2nd amendment?”
BC, I already said enactment of 2nd amendment by parliament was ULTRA VIRES (Latin word meaning, beyond the power or means (of) : beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority). Constitution of former USSR had an article which said, there is NO God. That does NOT mean there is or not God. It was Ultra Vires act of USSR Dumas.
ZAB’s alcohol drinking at time of 2nd amendment was grounds for his DISQUALIFICATION from parliament membership, so does many other PPP members.
PPP religious minister Kausar Niazi, nicked name “Maulvi Wisky”.
“re-read article 62 and tell me if it is at all workable. tell me how, as drafted, it does not apply to both muslim and non-muslim members. who decides what is an ‘Islamic Injunction’ and what is not if not – once again – the dreaded clerics (after all it is not insisting on convictions by a court of law, so is in violation of ‘innocence till proven guitly’)? how can you base a criticism of 2nd amendment as something as insidious as article 62!?”
Of course neither ZAB nor other members of parliament had conscience and morality to resign from parliament when 1973 constitution with article 62 passed. It is amazing you are asking me why Conscience of parliament members was dead. Why they did not resign or so called religious leaders demanded their resignation. You should be putting these questions to those dead souls. I am making the same point that those morally corrupt members of parliament instead of letting Supreme court/ judge decide, they took upon themselves to act as judge. In fact in their case prosecution, jury/bench and executioner were one and the same party.
“as for your second claim, i’ve already quoted your own words: “What is important for you Holy Quran or Politicians”
Holy Quran does NOT allow politicians to decide faith of a Kalma-Shahada reciters. In matters of faith HQ is important, NOT politicians.
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 1:50 am
… about quoting dr israr, the less said the better.
Dr. Israr Ahmad quoted Holy Quran verses to support his assessment/ claim.
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 1:57 am
“what about value of human life???”
Human life has great value. Unfortunately, In Pakistan it has NO value. It did NOT have value when Kalma-reciters (Ahmadis) were KILLED in 1974 and their dead bodies were lying in streets in different cities of pakistan. For THREE days NO body was allowed to bury them. Dogs were eating them. Their bodies were mutilated. These incidents repeated year after year. Later Christians became victims too. Today, one Muslim is killing another Muslim.
“what does ‘kalma-shahada’ have to do with value of human life??? “
If Pakistanis start valuing and keeping Kalma-shahada in high esteem, they will NOT kill a fellow human who recites it. Regardless, how much he differs with him.
“what are you trying to say??”
I am saying those who respect Kalma-Shahada from their heart, they do NOT kill another reciter of Kalma-Shahada.
“ those who don’t say ‘kalma-shahada’… their life is of lesser value??”
I NEVER said that. Rather I say, reciters of Kalma-Shahada are required to be MUCH MORE TOLERANT, PEACEFUL, LOVING than non-reciters. And true reciter of Kalma-Shahada values life of non-reciters as much he values his own and his reciter Muslim brother’s life. Life of every human being is of GREAT VALUE and EQUAL.
“what kind of stupid argument is this?”
If you had read my posts carefully, you would NOT have asked such a STUPID question, expected form an IMBECILE person.
Rashid:
I wouldn’t want to interfere in a discussion on the practice of faith, or the discourse of political figures in Pakistan more than three decades ago but your comments implied that key figures of the latter category failed in the former, and for that reason their acts were incompetent; implying thereby that there was an illegitimacy of praxis.
That is the issue I think that BC is posing to you.
It was Ultra Vires act of USSR Dumas
only if it infringed any one’s HUMAN rights. otherwise, it could only at most be a potential wrong against God. you have no locus standi (only God does). whether you choose to see it as ultra vires of God’s law or not, is no more than your personal opinion.
or so called religious leaders demanded their resignation
so had the ‘religious leaders’ (whatever that means and whoever they’re) done that, you’d have been happy. putting them above the people and giving them the power to decide who is and is not in breach of article 62 is nothing other than more of the same that you’re protesting against. but you obviously keep missing the point i’m making.
re. alcohol, it’s a purely technical issue: which came first – 2nd amendment or criminalisation of alcohol? if the latter came second, then does the law, as drafted, have retrospective effect?
Rather I say, reciters of Kalma-Shahada are required to be MUCH MORE TOLERANT, PEACEFUL, LOVING than non-reciters!!
so its a comparative standard? what do you think non-muslims do to prevent the killing of fellow humans (i.e. other than reciting or respecting the ‘kalma-shahada’)? i’ve no issues whatsoever with your source of inspiration. i object to the comparisons bordering on prejudice.
….Rashid, i’m absolutely posing you the question that Hayyer has kindly formulated for us. you keep saying two apparently conflicting things:
1. the politicians were not good muslims as per article 62 (and you clearly have implied who decides that – “or so called religious leaders demanded their resignation”.)
2. for politicians/parliament to delve into religious matters or define what is or isn’t true faith or good religious practice is ultra vires of parliament’s powers, according to you. but nothing you say suggests that you believe that it is so not because it is in breach of a fundamental human right, as accepted by the UN and the world community. since you think it is something only the courts (i.e the Supreme Court) ought to (or could) have decided, one can conclude that you don;t think it was upto the ‘relgious leaders’ to make a final decision on this matter.
my point is that only the courts, ultimately, can decide about breach of article 62, as well. my objection is to the glaring inconsistency on your part where you’re happy to allow the ‘religious leaders’ to usurp the power of both the people (ie Parliament) and the court (ie rule of law) when it comes to article 62. i put to you that exactly the same rule of law and principles of democracy apply to the insidious article 62 as do to the 2nd amendment. in the name of consistency, if nothing else, you ought to be objecting against either being decided by anyone other than the courts.
@BC
Very enlightening Indeed…
rashid, i should add two points/clarifications perhaps pre-emptively:
1. in a system where Parliament is supreme, no act of parliament can be ultra vires; it can only be illegal. in a system with no written constitution, the scope of illegality is reduced even further.
until 1985, parliament was supreme and sovereign since the Objectives’ Resolution had no legal effect. even since then, sovereignty theoretically/conceptually belongs to God, but Parliament has provided no practical, legal means for God to exercise it. in fact, Parliament considers the people (meaning parliament) to be (absolute) trustees of that sovereignty. parliament has not bound itself in law to the opinions or verdicts of the Islamic Ideology council. it is only legally bound to follow the courts of law (until it chooses to legislate a court decision into impotence). Zia was ‘clever’ enough to not only keep the sharia court subservient to the supreme court but give it no greater power than providing an opinion.
2. any reasonable court would not take more than 20 seconds in throwing out the kind of subject matter that the 2nd amendment deals with.. hopefully applying a suitable deterrant against any future attempts to waste the court’s time. it is the other extreme of your verdict on the Dumas: a claimant moving the court to declare the moon to be made of cheese.
as for you calling me an imbecile, i can only hope it is not your professional opinion.
@Aliarqam
Thankyou.
if i could ask to be enlightened myself… what did you exactly mean when you said “100 Yahudi, 1 Maudoodi”?
@Bloody Civilian:
Let’s make it simple.
Do you consider 2nd constitutional ammnment fair in spirit of justice?
Please answer Yes or No.
Thanks
@Bloody Civilian:
One more question for you.
Qadianis (whose current Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad) lives in UK.
Hold belief that those who do NOT consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib as messenger of Allah, like all previous messengers from Adam AS to Rasul Allah SAWS are non-Muslim (Kafir). And thus Qadianis are NOT allowed to offer prayers behind any such Muslim Imam, offer funeral prayer of any such Muslim, and marry any such Muslim. Actually, there leaders such as Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad etc have used very STRONG language for such Muslims.
If Qadianis had majority in Pakistan, they would have done the same that Pakistan National Assembly members did in 1974 i.e. Qadianis would have declared non-Qadiani reciters of Kalma-Tayyaba that includes all Sunni, Shia and of course members of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as Kafir (non-Muslim). Do you think such act of Qadianis would have been fair, and not a violation of human rights?
@Rashid
if only you yourself had kept it that simple you’d probably have avoided doing the cause the damage that you’ve done.
i’d give you a ‘clue’ if you promise to stick to your day job: go back and read the opening sentence of my post of October 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm.
regards
……. i don’t need you to tell what they believe. i don’t give a damn about what they believe or what you think about it. i have no time for you trying to tell them (e.g. Lutf) how they are wrong. that makes you just another takfiri-type mullah in my eyes. the only thing i’m interested in is their, your and everyone else’s right to believe what they wish and call themselves whatever they want to.
i’m even more interested in upholding rule of law and supremacy of law and parliament over everything and anything else (esp over what you call ‘religious leaders’.. of whatever persuation).
they would have done the same
unlike you, i don’t believe in ‘guilty until proven innocent’. nor do i believe in ‘pre-emptive strikes’. i resent your bringing religion into public law and putting and over and above parliament ie your whole stand vis a vis article 62. similarly, the wrong of 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘kalma-shahada’. it’s a most despicable breach of a fundamental human right because of the area or subject it enforces itself upon… not because of the particular conclusion it reached. that is why, i disagree with your stance and see your argument against the 2nd amendment to be no better than the vicious danger that is at the core of and realised by the 2nd amendment itself.
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“1. the politicians were not good muslims as per article 62 (and you clearly have implied who decides that – “or so called religious leaders demanded their resignation”.)”
I am no one to say who is good or bad Muslim. All I am saying, according to article 62 they were not qualified to remain parliamant members.
Article 62 of 1973 constitution:
62. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless :-
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;
Ref: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part3.ch2.html
“2.—-but nothing you say suggests that you believe that it is so not because it is in breach of a fundamental human right, as accepted by the UN and the world community.”
No, I believe 2nd ammendment was BREACH of a fundamental human right, as accepted by the UN and the world community. If my reply gave opposite impression, I did not mean it.
“since you think it is something only the courts (i.e the Supreme Court) ought to (or could) have decided,”
At least if case was tried in an impartial court, as was case in Supreme court Singapore, and Supreme Court, Cape Town, South Africa, defendents get chance to present their point of view/ defend themselves. Just the way Muslims got chance to defend themselves against Makkan (i.e. Kafirs) in court of Ethopian king/ Judge who listened both parties in life of Rasul Allah SAWS (watch movie ‘The Message’). And in an impartial court proceedings are public.
“one can conclude that you don;t think it was upto the ‘relgious leaders’ to make a final decision on this matter”
Yes, deciding whether a reciter of Kalma-Shahada i.e. is a Muslim or not, is ONLY up to Allah SWT. Per Holy Quran, when a Muslim converts from Islam to another religion then it is up to Allah SWT to decide and deal with that person. I.e. there is NO punishment of apostacy in Islam. ‘religious leaders’ have no authority. Regardless they are sunni, shia or Qadianis.
“my point is that only the courts, ultimately, can decide about breach of article 62, as well.my objection is to the glaring inconsistency on your part where you’re happy to allow the ‘religious leaders’ to usurp the power of both the people (ie Parliament) and the court (ie rule of law) when it comes to article 62.”
No, this is NOT what I mean. Rather I say, NO Muslim and in particular ‘religious leaders’ has the right to decide who is good or bad muslim and who is in breach of article 62.
“i put to you that exactly the same rule of law and principles of democracy apply to the insidious article 62 as do to the 2nd amendment. in the name of consistency, if nothing else, you ought to be objecting against either being decided by anyone other than the courts.”
NO one should be deciding faith of anyone. At the very least any such matter should be decided by an IMPARTIAL court. As was the case in court of Ethopian Christian King, Supreme court of Singapore, Supreme court of South Africa etc.
“putting and over and above parliament” = putting it over and above parliament
@Rashid
you repeating your stand vis a vis article 62 would not make me respect it.
you say “I am no one to say who is good or bad Muslim.” yet you have no shame in hiding behind the controversial article 62. just because it is convenient. you think it is strengthening your argument against 2nd amendment when it is actually weakening it, rather pathetically: “All I am saying, according to article 62 they were not qualified to remain parliamant members.” what happened to due process?? so humble little rashid is “no one to say who is good or bad Muslim” but he is competent authority, doing away with the need for due process, pronouncing guilty verdicts under article 62!
and yet you go on to yet again contradict yourself: “NO Muslim and in particular ‘religious leaders’ has the right to decide who is good or bad muslim and who is in breach of article 62.” what else have i been saying! pshhh!
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“All I am saying, according to article 62 they were not qualified to remain parliamant members.” what happened to due process?? “
Yes, they all should get the due process. They all have the right to it.
I am saying the authors of article 62 should have VOLUNTARILY APPLIED the said article, on themselves. My be I am expecting higher standards of consciences then their electorates. Oh my naivety!
VOLUNTARILY APPLIED the said article
how do you know whether they were (potentially) in breach of article 62 or not?? then, how do you know whether they did or did not ‘voluntarily’ apply the said article to themselves?
as for your characterisation of a 170 million people, i have even less respect for such arrogant generalisations.
you’ve only given the example of bhutto’s admission about drinking alcohol. i’m asking you the third time: when was alcohol criminalised? was it supposed to have retrospective effect?
62. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless :-
[..]
(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;
if you’re relying on bhutto’s own admission, then it couldn’t have been common knowledge before that. in case of ‘maulana whisky’… what about whether ‘common knowledge’ is correct or based on incorrect hearsay?
far more importantly, who decides what the Islamic Injunctions are and who interprets them? what about ZAB’s own view and interpretation of these so-called Islamic Injunctions? then, how do you know he did not voluntarily apply article 62 to himself?
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;
what if a member does not consider drinking to be prohibitted in islam or for it to be a major sin?
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen;
admitting that you drink is honest, isn’t it?
(this has been just to illustrate how your assumptions are just that)
October 26, 2009 at 11:14 pm
VOLUNTARILY APPLIED the said article
“how do you know whether they were (potentially) in breach of article 62 or not?? then, how do you know whether they did or did not ‘voluntarily’ apply the said article to themselves?”
Your above questions are answered in your next 2 questions.
“you’ve only given the example of bhutto’s admission about drinking alcohol. i’m asking you the third time: when was alcohol criminalised?”
Holy Quran/ Islam criminalized alcohol almost 1400 years prior to passing of 1973 Pakistan constitution. Government of Pakistan criminalized it in 1977.
“ was it supposed to have retrospective effect?”
Read:
Article 2 of 1973 constitution:
2. Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy making by the Government.
Ref: http://www.vakilno1.com/saarclaw/pakistan/Consitution/part_1.htm
Pleas pay attention to: Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law
Had some body brought it to court of law, and then we would have known it better.
Your other questions are redundant.
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Your comment:
“is that article 62 is, in essence, just as bad as the second amendment. applying it ‘voluntarily’ does not change that fact”
I 100% AGREE WITH YOU. BOTH article 62 and 2nd ammendment are STUPID.
Authors and signatories of 2nd ammendment did NOT cared for article 20 either:
Article 20 of 1973 constitution:
20. Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions.
Subject to law, public order and morality:-
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; and
(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
Ref: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html
PROPOSITION FOR BLOODY CIVILIAN
From your posts you seem to be an attorney at law. Am I correct?
If your answer is Yes, and you are practicing in Pakistan, preferably in Islamabad and licensed to appear in Supreme Court of Pakistan. I may hire you.
I need attorney in Pakistan who can petition to Supreme Court, preferably to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to order Government of Pakistan to make Public proceedings of 1974 trial of Ahmadis that resulted in enactment of 2nd Constitutional Amendment. It has been more than 35 years since the amendment passed.
I think, Pakistan’s official secrecy act expires in 25 years.
Justice Hamud Ur Rehman commission report on cause of defeat in 1971 war, that contained Pakistan’s national security issues was declassified and made public few years ago.
Let us work together for justice. Let the truth come out in public. Let’s see what all i.e. Yahya Bakhtiar, politicians, members of national assembly, Qadiani Jamaat representative their Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement representative Abdul Mannan Omar said and assess if ZAB decision was just or clear example of travesty of justice.
This proposition is also open to Yasser Latif Hamdani.
· @Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 11:14 pm
VOLUNTARILY APPLIED the said article
“how do you know whether they were (potentially) in breach of article 62 or not?? then, how do you know whether they did or did not ‘voluntarily’ apply the said article to themselves?”
Your above questions are answered in your next 2 questions.
“you’ve only given the example of bhutto’s admission about drinking alcohol. i’m asking you the third time: when was alcohol criminalised?”
Holy Quran/ Islam criminalized alcohol almost 1400 years prior to passing of 1973 Pakistan constitution. Government of Pakistan criminalized it in 1977.
“ was it supposed to have retrospective effect?”
Read:
Article 2 of 1973 constitution:
2. Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy making by the Government.
Ref:
Pleas pay attention to: Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law
Had some body brought it to court of law, and then we would have known it better.
Your other questions are redundant.
@Bloody Civilian
October 26, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Your comment:
“is that article 62 is, in essence, just as bad as the second amendment. applying it ‘voluntarily’ does not change that fact”
I 100% AGREE WITH YOU. BOTH article 62 and 2nd ammendment are STUPID.
Authors and signatories of 2nd ammendment did NOT cared for article 20 either:
Article 20 of 1973 constitution:
20. Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions.
Subject to law, public order and morality:-
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; and
(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
Ref:
re. art. 2
it is no answer to my questions. it’s just another example of the problem. the fact remains that other than the courts and parliament itself – in clear supremacy to the courts and all else – there is no other competent authority to decide or interpret ‘quran and sunnah’ under the constitution and laws of pakistan.
… important to note that parliament has put itself under no legal obligation to proceed with any such process of interpretation or implementation.
courts = supreme court, strictly…. it being the constitutional court.
2nd ammendment proceedngs.
BC,
How we can force GOP to make public proceeding of 1974 trial of Ahmadis.
Please my post:
Rashid
October 27, 2009 at 1:26 am
@rashid
you can go to the court with the contradiction with art. 20 (re. “freedom to profess” as per own choice not blocked or interfered with by the state). even if the court agrees with you that there is a contradiction or conflict, there is no guarantee that either the article or the amendment will be struck down by the court as a result. but it will certainly be a moral victory.
as for your ‘proposition’… i’m afraid i’m only a student of law, unable to help you.
regards
QUESTION FOR LAWYERS ON THIS FORUM
Can 2nd amendment be challenged in Pakistan Supreme Court?
If yes, how?
Pakistani political pundits opinion:
NRO, even if passed by National Assembly, can be easily and successfully challenged and struck down by Pakistan Supreme Court. If this is the case then why not 2nd constitutional amendment.
I really look forward to reply to this post, especially from YLH and BC.
Thanks.
@BC:
“i’m afraid i’m only a student of law, unable to help you.”
Dude, were you engaged in some moot court exercise?
@Rashid
i’m no expert of pakistani law, so you best post that one to YLH. under british law the court cannot force parliament to do anything. what happens inside parliament is nobody else’s business and is for only parliament to regulate or do with as it pleases. so hamood-ur-rehman is no anlaogy at all, since he nor his commission enjoyed the privilege or supremacy that parliament and its members do as to what takes place within parliament.
whether the court could enquire into the procedural details of the voting process is also extremely doubtful. it is for the speaker to do so, in each house. once the amendment has presidential assent (which is as good as automatic), it;s the law.
do read art. 239. esp the following sections which correct the wrong impression i had and gave in my previous post:
(5) No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.
(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution
… you could argue that parliament is wrongly trying to give itself the authority of a constituent assembly under these sections, but whether and how that should persuade the court is beyond the grasp of a mere student like myself.
re. NRO
it is not an act of parliament. so does not apply.
@BC,
Thanks for your legal input.
“so hamood-ur-rehman is no anlaogy at all, since he nor his commission enjoyed the privilege or supremacy that parliament and its members do as to what takes place within parliament”
Are you saying that Pakistan Supreme Court can not force GOP to release in-camera (confidential) proceedings of 2nd amendment, even if the usual secrecy act time period (say 25 years or 30 years) has expired?
Please clarify it to me.
Thanks.