Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » Opinion, Reviews » Will mainstream media speak for the voiceless?

Will mainstream media speak for the voiceless?

By Amaar Ahmad:

The last counsel by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) right before his passing away was for Muslims to guard against violating the rights of women and the slaves. In the Islam Republic of Pakistan today, that should have automatically meant that the rights of vulnerable and weak are safeguarded zealously. Instead, a declaration of war seems to have been made against the dispossessed and the powerless – especially the women and religious minorities of this country.

The last few years have witnessed a horrific increase in incidents against vulnerable people. To add insult to injury this is often justified in the name of religion one way or another. When it comes to the treatment of women we know that domestic abuse, acid attacks and honour killings have become an utterly ugly but inseparable feature of our society. The few legislative measures that have been taken have not proved sufficient to curb violence against women. This is partly due to the outrageously hypocritical opposition by conservative groups against legal protection for women from domestic abuse. Somehow these groups have always managed to construct religious justifications to block the passing of any legal measures. Their characteristic hypocrisy is especially noticeable in cases of women like Mukhtaran mai or Fakhara Younis. If only the abusers of these women were other than influential Pakistani “Muslim” males, one might have witnessed a complete reversal on their misogynistic position.

The list of the voiceless also includes Pakistan’s religious minorities who seemed to have caught the evil eye of the same religious fanatics. The state apparatus seems hellbent on letting minorities be annihilated in any way possible; it acts with utter indifference when the murderous rampage against the Hazara community is launched and it only becomes an active participant against the Ahmadis (e.g. the murder of Master Qadoos due to police brutality).

The fundamental problem is that a large segment of society has absolutely no awareness about human rights issues and the law enforcement personnel are recruited from this same pool which is unlettered in civic values. The average person is thus untrained, unconcerned and uninformed to even understand the gravity of the humanitarian problem in Pakistan. The other and presumably educated functionaries of the state are are too afraid of political repercussions to get their hands dirty.

Thus in a dysfunctional society as ours, the responsibility to raise awareness and to educate the public about values and ethics rests squarely on the shoulders of media now. State functionaries only fear negative publicity and respond only when the media pummels them. Likewise, given the pathetic quality of public education and widespread illiteracy, again it is the electronic media which exercises real influence on public awareness.

In the void created by a disinterested state is the mainstream electronic media interested in educating the public and becoming a voice of the voiceless?

Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems to be mostly absorbed in a select number of populist topics and mostly avoids taboo issues which deal with women or minorities. Take daily talk shows for example. Show after show only involve silly politicians and senseless “analysts” who confuse more and inform less. You could change the date of a talk show and it will be practically the same as a month ago. The so-called Memogate issue is a classic example of wasted airtime due to misplaced priorities. How does discussing such an issue ad nauseum affect the
cause of the downtrodden?

What is needed is a healthy balance between discussing the regular political topics and the taboo issues. The past few years have shown that constant media pressure can succeed in reversing the inequality between the powerful and the powerless. The media indulges in lip service to women’s and minorities’s issues from time to time. This won’t work anymore. A persistent discussion of human rights issues affecting the voiceless is desperately needed because the future of Pakistan – and by consequence of the electronic media itself – depends on it.

Let us not consider this a western agenda.The mainstream media is dominated by self-styled champions of religion and patriotism. If there is any service to Islam or to Pakistan they could ever do then this would be it.

Written by

Filed under: Opinion, Reviews · Tags: , , ,

200 Responses to "Will mainstream media speak for the voiceless?"

  1. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Amaar,
    “The last counsel by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) right before his passing away was for Muslims to guard against violating the rights of women and the slaves.”
    .
    Why didn’t he ask for abolition of slavery? Is there any rationale for that inhuman business?

  2. Rambler United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Dear Bade Miyan: The Holy Prophet(saw) said: ‘Whichever Muslim will free a slave will be granted complete salvation by God from the fire of Hell.’ Islam teaches freeing of slaves as expiation in many places in the Qur’an, which also teaches that if a Muslim kills another Muslim by mistake, he should free a slave as well as give blood-money. For more information please visit http://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/2011-11-25.html

  3. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Rambler,
    The point still remains: Why not abolish the whole system to start with? There would have been no need for such expiation then. I mean, in the end, it was the Christian Fathers who spearheaded the banning of slavery quoting their scriptures, so it shouldn’t have been so difficult for the prophet to do so in the first place.
    .
    I still don’t get the logic. That’s like saying that one would go to heaven by ridding an opium addict of his habit. Why not disallow the sale of opium? That would still be somewhat allowable knowing that humans are prone to addiction. Therefore, are you saying that the practice of slavery is ingrained in us?

  4. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    By the way, the practice of blood money is quite barbaric. I am not sure how God would allow that sort of nonsense.

  5. salz Pakistan Google Chrome Mac OS says:

    Buy books online in Pakistan with free shipping and pay with cash on delivery. visit http://www.786cart.com

  6. Bin Ismail Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Bade Miyan
    When we examine the subject of slavery, in relation to the Quran, we read: “And what should make thee know what spiritual ascent is. It is the emancipation of a slave.” [Quran 90:12-13]. Thus the Quran declares setting free of a slave or in other words the “reversal of slavery” as a means of spiritual ascent, which is the ultimate goal of religion itself. With reference to the Prophet, we find him teaching that “feed your slaves what you feed yourselves, clothe them with what you clothe yourselves and treat them as your brethren”, an instruction that elevates their state and status both, far above “bondage”. Slavery was an Arab, not Islamic, custom just as it was an American, not Christian, custom till late 18th century. Instead of banning it with a single stroke of the pen, and prematurely leaving the slaves in state of social limbo, Islam made the keeping of a slave so tasking and challenging, that maintaining a slave became more demanding a task than the most extravagant of undertakings. On the other hand, the freeing of a slave was presented by the Quran as a source of God’s ultimate pleasure. Let us also not be oblivious of the fact that 14 centuries ago, there were no arrangements available to accommodate prisoners of war. There were no jails or detention camps. Prisoners of war were therefore accommodated in homes and provided lodging and boarding that matched the comfort of those who took them. Those who maintained them, were on the other hand, reminded that setting a slave free was the gateway to Paradise.
    Regards
    Bin Ismail

  7. Rambler United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Bade Miyan:

    Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery completely. What good did it do to the society, the black slaves had no education, they didnt know any skill, their white masters found it their insult to hire their slaves for the work they once didnt have to pay for. It was only as recent as 1960s that the blacks got equal rights in America. Now what prophet Muhammad did was that he started a process to integrate slaves in the society by commending those who set them free and ensuring paradise for them. He set examples of freeing slaves long before the advent of Islam. Now those who loved the Holy Prophet followed his foot steps and set their slaves free.

    About blood money: Its only done with the consent of the family. If the family of the murdered is not willing to take blood money, then it is not supposed to be offered, even by the law. 2ndly blood money is not as barbaric as you might think. In some cases, if a person kills another person by mistake, i.e. while hunting another person comes out of no where and gets killed, and the person shooting is by no means a criminal, in such a case blood money makes sense. Moreover, Blood money is never accepted by the established criminals.

    Hope this helps.

  8. Sachbol United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Bin Ismail
    Please enlighten us about the rights of owners over slaves in Islam, especially over women slaves , married or unmarried ones. How many slaves of both sexes did person Muahmmad had in his life time ?

  9. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Bade Miyan

    Islam does not forbid slavery but strongly discourages it.
    I think it is because in times of war the victorious Muslim army would either kill or ask the enemy to bail out its prisoners or accept Islam whichever convenient to the other side, or serve Muslims as ”slaves”!!
    Muslim victors are not known to take prisoners and feed them in luxurious jails for years on …..and why should they??? Prisoners are a burden of exchange or subjugation….their fate must be decided quickly in the interest of justice. Otherwise let them spend the rest of their lives in subservience to the victors…something somehow has to be decided because Muslims have to march on and on!!
    .
    .

    I am really at a loss to note that most of the stuff lodged here is by the Qadianis who are all out on this forum to perpetrate their agenda under the cover of Islam or Muslims, at the same time maligning the Muslims and bringing a bad name to Islam by quoting irrelevant and superfluous quotes etc out of context. It is this policy of the Qadianis which puts them under condemnation by all Muslims of the world combined. Will they see to it that they talk about all people of all faiths equitably and stop blowing their own horn about their grievances as if no one else is facing hardships of any kind anywhere in the world! Why can’t they be constructive and come up with positive thoughts which could lay a positive influence on the society rather than repelled as unfairly scooped up to perpetrate their own wishes and unfulfilled whims??

  10. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Bin Ismail

    it is NOT a question of setting free slaves….Bade Mian’s question is quite clear…

    You cannot have it and eat it. You can only free slaves if you have them. it clearly evidences that slavery is permitted in Islam!

  11. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    AKB

    “Slavery is permitted in Islam” in extraneous circumstances – violent war or from preceding times. This would be akin to forced labour for prisoners of war. But this is not the same as saying that “Islam encourages slavery”. Discouragement also does not necessarily mean blanket prohibition. Permission only reflects a need of a time to which there was no alternative.

  12. Rambler United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    AKB, how exactly do you define “constructive.” As far as Ahmadis are concerned, they are doing more constructive work than the entire Muslim Ummah. Please be open minded and learn to live in a pluralistic society. Peace.

  13. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    So if it would have been halal if Indians enslaved Pakistani soldiers in 1971…

  14. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @MilesToGo

    Did’nt the Indians already enslave the Pak soldiers from 1971 for upto 2 years until the Simla Agreement when the “slaves” were released?

  15. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Rambler

    IF the Qadiani’s were ‘constructive” they wouldn’t be wallowing in mud screaming and moaning..as they do here.

    Qadianis are NOT the only minorities in Pakistan or even India but they are cry babies and dishonest as they try to perpetrate their undesired ambitions hiding behind others only to gain sympathy and spread out false alarm. I can bet if it were for the Qaidianis they would prove worst than the Talibans in religious bigotry and hatred for people of other faiths.
    After all they are the product of a Mulla and a line of Mullahs who went out of the mainstream Islam and created their own prophet whom not a single Muslim of the world recognizes even as a sane person.

    .

    It goes without saying that all minorities including the Qadiani’s are living better lives than most Muslims in Pakistan and except for being the the biggest beneficiaries they are also the biggest bigmouths and hate-mongers of all. You will not find many Hindu’s or Christians perpetrating fraud in the name of their religion except the Qadianis…
    who are more Mulla-ish than any other Mullah in the world!!

    .
    Since the Constitution of Pakistan is an Islamic Republic,,,and that is a fact—-no one must defy it or else he will keep crying like the Qadiani’s till eternity when Allah will decide where to lodge them!! Sorry but I note with regret that Qadiani’s are narrow minded and mean in that they create discomfort to followers of all other faiths by their regurgitation and twisting of facts and defiance not only to country’s laws but also the Muslim Ummah. In a way, they are slaves to their own whims and notions,,,much worse than adherents of any other faith.

    May Allah guide them to the right path!

  16. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Syed

    Yes, slavery is permitted in Islam otherwise what’s the sense in freeing one???
    Just do not try to play with words and deceive others….
    moreover, do not quote hadiths or quotes from the Quran,,,have guts to quote from your own so-called prophet…to let others know what your so called prophet was all about.

  17. AKB Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ rambler

    You ARE living in a pluralistic society hence able to puke all baloney here…

    you ought to improve your cognitive senses as you can’t even understand this little fact that the discussion over here is about slavery in islam but on the contrary you jump to ”pluralistic society”.. how riduculous!

  18. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Syed,
    There is a difference between POWs and slaves. It’s helpful to ask an African-American about that difference, if you need to understand it better. While you are at it, also ask him what would he prefer.

  19. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Bin Ismail,
    As much as I am loathe to admit, AKB has got the essence of my question to the T(“You cannot have it and eat it. You can only free slaves if you have them. it clearly evidences that slavery is permitted in Islam!”). Either you wish to skirt that main point, as you always do when such subjects come up, or you don’t get it, which is somewhat hard to believe.
    .
    There will always be justification for slavery by vested interests. It’s no use saying that the prophet was hamstrung by the mores his times. That is just rubbish. If that is what it was, then what was the need for a new religion. He obviously didn’t care for such mores when it came to breaking the idols of Kaaba. Why not call for a blanket prohibition of slavery. And, please, no sugarcoating that awful practice by giving such mealy mouthed reasoning that he advised the humane treatment of slaves, etc. I mean what did you expect to hear from a man whose central tenet was that all men(probably women too) are born equal. That is the least he could do. Treated royally, they were still slaves. It’s been written by authentic scholars that after the abolition of slavery, the condition of African-Americans actually worsened. Still, one never came across pleadings from the same freed slaves that they be enslaved again!
    .
    We dealt with the same issues in 18th century too when, in strict economical terms, it was even more profitable to keep slaves. That, however, didn’t restrict an honest clergyman to question such barbaric practice. Hidebound practices like slavery and in case of Hinduism, sati, required abolition by a stroke of pen. Why did prophet not take such a measure? There is no one to blame but him for the continued practice of slavery in Islamic countries till very recent times. If I remember, a slave could be free the moment he could read the first chapter of Quran. Nothing could be more cruel than that. Even a fool can see the a society that is greased by the sweat and blood of slaves would have a vested interest in keeping them illiterate, which is what happened. How could a prophet miss that simple fact?
    Your quote of the Quranic treatment of slaves sounds much like the “garibi hatao” (remove poverty) slogan that generations have been hearing in our part of the world. It’s an exercise in sophistry and hypocrisy. Let’s not insult our intelligence by pretending it as something else.
    .
    If you do not ask for a blanket prohibition of such practices, that is as good as allowing it or tolerating it.

  20. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Rambler,
    Please put forth your logic to the African-Americans around you and let me know your answer.
    .
    “In some cases, if a person kills another person by mistake, i.e. while hunting another person comes out of no where and gets killed, and the person shooting is by no means a criminal, in such a case blood money makes sense.”
    .
    No it doesn’t. It merely debases life. If you cannot understand this simple logic, you need to see someone other than your local mullah.

  21. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Bade Miyan

    I will take this up:

    “There will always be justification for slavery by vested interests. It’s no use saying that the prophet was hamstrung by the mores his times…He obviously didn’t care for such mores when it came to breaking the idols of Kaaba. Why not call for a blanket prohibition of slavery. ”

    Indeed. The Prophet forbade slavery by declaring that a slave-owner was the worst person in the sight of God. To this effect, a Quranic verse declares that how can a freeman be enslaved when his mother born him free.

    Then, why not a blanket prohibition on slavery? The answer simply is
    that the consequences of freeing every slave would have resulted in a rise in poverty (as slaves were supported by their owners) and crime (they would have to fend for themselves). When thousands of slaves would have roamed the streets resulting in crimes associated with homelessness, hunger and frustration. Continuing slavery in a mitigated form was the least worst option. But Islam mandated that slavery be abolished via a gradualist approach rather via a sudden stroke of a pen. Moreover, these slaves mainly consisted of enemy combatants caught from the battlefield as prisoners of war.

    I ask you how would you emancipate thousands of slaves suddenly and not be prepared for the consequences?

  22. Rambler United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Bade Miyyan, You have every right to disagree. I rest my case.

    @ AKB, I can only be amazed at your animosity towards Ahmadis. The reason I mentioned Pluralistic society was because you bad mouthed ahmadis in your previous comment. How conveniently you ignored that. This only shows the height of your hypocrisy. GROW UP.

  23. MohammadJi United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Syed ji

    “worst person in the sight of God”?

    Can you please tell us which surah in the Quran you are referring to?

    “Islam mandated that slavery be abolished via a gradualist approach rather via a sudden stroke of a pen.”

    Can you please tell us which surah in the Quran you are referring to?

    Abolition of slavery would have increased poverty – for whom? So that was the reason Allah ji did not abolish slavery?

    Slaves would have preferred to be freed ‘gradually’ so they do not become poor?

  24. Sachbol United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Lets hear about the sura in which Almighty send clear injunction that slavery be abolished gradually. Plus Syed Ji, please tell us about the rights and privileges of the owner over married and unmarried women slaves. We know that God is just and clear in the treatment of slaves.

  25. Bade Miyan United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Syed,
    Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the prophet own slaves? He seemed to have no qualms in buying, selling, using the slaves. It seems like a scant comfort to a slave that after making sure that the structure of slavery was left in tact, he was also made to hear these ineffectual homilies.
    .
    In that sense, Abe Lincoln stands taller than the prophet. He had a similar problem where the slavery was not only justified on economical or religious grounds but also on racist stereotypes whereby blacks were considered inferior based on some quasi-scientific logic. He did away with that and I don’t think South crumbled as a result. So, your arguments about the possible repercussions of freeing the slaves are quite simply untenable. There is just no justification. In case of the prophet, it sounds even worse, as if a just and merciful god was telling the slaves that they were resigned to a life of slavery but their position is going to change slowly, for sure. Not cool.
    .
    “Moreover, these slaves mainly consisted of enemy combatants caught from the battlefield as prisoners of war.”
    .
    Hmmm..not very true. The slaves were bought and sold too. In fact, if they were just enemy combatants, at least, they were not thought as an inferior human being or worse, a little better than animals, so their rehabilitation would have been much easier. We did capture 90k Pakistanis in the ’71 war. God forbid but if we were devout Muslims, those POWs would have been slaves. Dang! We could do with a few hands on our farm who could also speak chaste Urdu. Our loss. Damn you, my infidel countrymen! Oh well, I forgot that the Pakistanis are Muslims so they cannot be legally owned as slaves. That beats me for sure. Could you also explain that cute little quirk of the revelations?
    .
    “I ask you how would you emancipate thousands of slaves suddenly and not be prepared for the consequences?”
    .
    Simple. Prohibit owning them in the first place. I’ll tell you the real reason why the prophet didn’t prohibit slavery completely. Let’s leave aside his spiritual outpourings. He also had, like a lot of religious preachers, a fantastic practical mind. His idea was the spread of his faith, this way or that way. If he had banned slavery completely, the ruling elite of the new regions where Islam was to spread would have categorically refused to accept such a faith. It’s that straightforward.
    .
    And, just one more question, if I may: Were you convinced by your own arguments? I am surprised that living in the US, where the pal of slavery hangs over most discussions, you still believe in that garbage.

  26. TAJENDER United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    war on terror is global crusade against muslims and islam.

  27. MohammadJi United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Does Syed ji live in the United States? Reading his comments it seems none of the debates about slavery’s so-called economic and gradualist arguments never happened.

    How can blind faith make some people so blind?

  28. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Bade Miyan

    Unless you answer the question I have raised there is no point in discussion. When India captured 90000 Pakistani soldiers in 1971 why did it held them in bondage for two years during which they were used for hard labour?

    According to your argument that because you cannot take away the freedom of a freeman, hence India should have released these prisoners within its territory immediately after the war. But I assume you are willing to afford freedom from bondage to 90000 men
    with the urgency which you demand from Islam!

  29. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Per Islam, it will be halal for USA to take right hand possessions.

  30. ahem Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    to syed

    India did not put the POWs to any hard work. That is forbidden by Geneva convention. Some India-haters in Pakistan mislead you to increase your hatred of India by telling you such stories.

    The prisoners were held in India because Pakistan was still not ready to take them back due to a feeling of humiliation, which was fresh in their memory. That needed time to subside. India had made it clear that India wanted to get rid of the burden of POWs as quickly as possible. It was pak generals who did not want to face the POWs and kept them out for so long. You think pak generals had the courage to face the pak POWs held in India in 1972-74?

    Z A Bhutto told Indira Gandhi that she must agree to many of his proposals, otherwise he would lose face and the pak generals would kill him. She conceded to many of his demands out of pity for him. Anyway the pak generals later blamed him for the east pak debacle (completely denying their own much bigger guilt) and killed him.

    I wonder what Z A Bhutto will have to say about it all today if he came back and talked.

  31. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @MilestGo

    Isn’t the whole world a right hand maiden of the US already – Islam or no Islam?

    Isn’t Kashmir also a right hand ‘halal’ possession of India?

  32. ahem Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    to syed

    For Kashmir it is safer and more dignified to be right-hand possession of India than of imperialist China or sunni-fascist Pakistan or Saudi wahhabi Arabia. Many kashmiris know that too. Very often a people have strived for freedom only to land in the prison of someone far more ruthless, tricky or primitive.

  33. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Syed

    Whole world is made up of kuffar and Muslims. House of allah and house of kuffar. Please do not dilute this distinction. It is haram.

  34. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ahem ji

    “India did not put the POWs to any hard work. That is forbidden by Geneva convention. ”

    Hahaha! In which world are you living? I know personally of relatives in the army who were captured in East Pakistan and suffered what they suffered. The victors rarely respect Geneva Convention.

    “The prisoners were held in India because Pakistan was still not ready to take them back due to a feeling of humiliation, which was fresh in their memory. That needed time to subside. ”

    So why did not India release these men in its bondage immediately within its own cities like Calcutta? It is not right to hold right hand possessions as you believe. These freemen could then come to Pakistan whenever it was ready. But instead India held them in bondage for 2 years. At least these men should have been set free by India – they may not travel to Pakistan but they could still roam around in India. Why the hypocrisy?

  35. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    You know Allah’s punishment for committing shirk…

  36. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @MilesToGo

    When losers are beaten in arguments they try to hide using idiotic arguments. I guess you belong to House of Idiocy.

    @Ahem ji

    So if Kashmir can be in possession of India why object if another country also wants to own it – with safety and dignity?

  37. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @MilesToGo

    You know Hanuman’s punishment for Paap.

  38. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Hanuman is pagan kuffar god – its all false.

  39. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @MilesToGo

    Oh really! Try telling that to yourself.

  40. ahem Germany Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    to syed

    POWs are nowhere allowed to roam around. They are always kept in the confinement of compounds. Furthermore the new state of Bangladesh also had its reason not to allow the pak POWs to return to Pakistan.

    The atrocities done by pak army in east pak naturally resulted in angry reactions by people. So it was safer for the pak POWs to remain in special camps.

    You ask: “…if another country also wants to own Kashmir…”

    Which is that other country that wants to own Kashmir? Aren’t pakistanis saying that they want a referendum in Kashmir? Do they not know that such a referendum can be held only after Pakistan retreats from the part of Kashmir invaded and occupied by Pakistan in October 1947 (that is the condition in the UN resolution)?

    You as a pakistani are quite indoctrinated into lies and half truths.

    Pakistan wants the boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan as marked by british rulers, but refuses to acknowledge the boundary of Kashmir as marked by those same british. The UN maps continue to show the british-time Kashmir boundaries to which Pakistn does not want to agree. So the referendum cannot be held until the boundaries of Kashmir are agreed to by Pakistan, as delineated in the british and UN maps. That is why your Musharraf hit upon the “new” idea of letting the UN resolutions on Kashmir fall. He then tried to present it as Pakistan’s “wonderful” peace move. In reality he had realized that Pakistan will have to give up its pak-occupied Kashmir first if the UN resolutions are upheld.

    Don’t be a Pakistan fanatic and believe in all the lies indoctrinated into you by your rulers and mullahs.

  41. Sachbol United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Indians as kuffar people never boast of perfection which is bestowed upon on belivers only so any comparison is bot right and useless.
    Syed ji, please do enlighten us about the rights and privileges of slave owner over female captives, slave etc. What are the final injuncions of your Godhood Via Prophethood in this important matter in Mission Islam ? AFAIk, Muslims are to follow the Sunnah on this path and who may know better than Syed of holy Arabian descent.

  42. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Ahem

    “POWs are nowhere allowed to roam around. They are always kept in the confinement of compounds. Furthermore the new state of Bangladesh also had its reason not to allow the pak POWs to return to Pakistan…The atrocities done by pak army in east pak naturally resulted in angry reactions by people. So it was safer for the pak POWs to remain in special camps.”

    By your own logic, the aggressors who had murdered Muslim women and men and had committed grave atrocities between 610 – 628 AD should also be held in captivity and did not have a right to freedom.

  43. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Sachbol

    “Indians as kuffar people never boast of perfection which is bestowed upon on belivers only so any comparison is bot right and useless.”

    So don’t Indians claim to be inheritors of the oldest civilization and culture in the world? Isn’t a Muslim most certainly “malich”, “paleed”, “achoot” and “shudr”?

    Sachbol mian, obviously there isn’t a single Muslim as intelligent as an Indic like you! You have figured out Islam inside out!

    Pleasse enlighten us on how to reach nirvana through walking the slums of Bombay and among the millions of Achoot.

  44. Sachbol United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Being a POW dont automatically translate as guilty or aggresive party.
    A War by Deception normally result in many POWS which can be used for many nefarious purposes to the benefit of the victor who get to write the history.Basic human question is about the rights and priviliges of slave owner over female captives, purchased or possessed by the right hand . This is the area where divine injunction play huge part and determine the pure essential nature of nature’s one and only perfect group of people.

  45. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Sachbol ji

    First tell me about the Indic practise of “Nayoog” – we will deal with right hand slavegirls later. If you can’t have a child from your wife, does’nt Indic Vedas permit you to let your wife be conceived by another man?

  46. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Sachbol

    By the way, I am still awaiting your answer on how to get to nirvana in India? Enlighten me on this.

  47. Dark Knight Pakistan Safari iPad says:

    I think most of our friends here, have not taken the trouble to even read what Bin Ismail and Syed have argued. I realize that there is not much we can do to undo the bigotry of some, but I will still take the risk of explaining to them. 
    Slavery existed before Islam. Abolishing Slavery was not like abolishing pork or alcohol. Abolishing Slavery involved a massive rehabilitation programme. If it was abolished instantaneously, a substantial number of slaves would have been left to live with a so-called Freedom that would have reduced the quality of their lives to a level far beyond Slavery. The system had to be gradually phased out. We are all witness to the aftermath of the abolishing of Slavery in the US. What Lincoln did more than two hundred years ago was noble but it left hundreds of thousands of former slaves in a state of  unacceptability in the general society. Now, please don’t tell me that Obama is the president. We all have a rough idea of the state of many many African-Americans in the US. A lot has been seen, read and written on this subject and most of our friends here at PTH are well-read enough not to be ignorant of these facts. If in two hundred years, the US has not been able to eliminate the vestiges of Slavery and the blacks have still not been absorbed en masse, the success of the abrupt abolition formula does become dubious. A gradual phasing out was indeed called for and this is precisely what the Holy Prophet did.
    Let’s take recent history into account. After both the World Wars, did all the nations of the “more civilized world” feed and clothe their prisoners of war as they did themselves? After both the Gulf Wars, were all Iraqi prisoners of war extended the same treatment as their captors extend to their family members? After the 1971 war, were all 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war treated the same way as the Indians treat themselves? All this was not Islam. Islam teaches that a slave/prisoner-of-war be lodged, fed and clothed in the same way as their guardians. Islam teaches that freeing a slave is an expiation for most sins. Islam teaches that freeing a slave is a highway to heaven. Thus did Islam phase out Slavery.

  48. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Sachbol

    “Being a POW dont automatically translate as guilty or aggresive party.”

    Either way – guilty or not – a PoW does not have any freedom of his own. The line between slavery and bondage in war is thin. 9000 Pakistanis were held in bondage by India for 2 years. Explain why?

  49. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @Sachbol

    You need to explain and justify “Nayoog” before even examining Islam. Because, as they say, you need to clean up your own mess first.

  50. Syed United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Bade Miyan, Sachbol, Ahem

    I cannot hammer the point that India held 90000 free Pakistani men in bondage for 2 years after the war ended enough. Had the Simla agreement in 194 not been reached, India would have enslaved them forever and used them for prison labour. These men had parents, wives and children. Many would never see each other again all due to their bondage by the Indira Gandhi govt. – supposedly a democratic regime!

Leave a Reply

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>