teqniq
DisMembered
This may be of interest, Juan Cole has a guest columnist on this issue here:- Wainwright: Taseer’s Assassination Lays Bare Contradictions in Pakistani Islam
Pakistan and the Blasphemy Laws..
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
Yup.
The worrying thing is that the once tolerant Bangladesh is now lurching towards a theocracy too with the extension of the Vested Property Act (called ‘Enemy Property Act’ Under Pakistani rule) in the late 1970's which targets the property of non Muslims. Something like 40% of all property owned by Hindus since 1971 has been stolen by forced by the state.
This is especially sad when you consider Hindus and Muslims fought together against Pakistani domination of their land. Very sad.
Personally I think the problem lies with the Hadiths and Qu'ran (obviously). The Muslims desperately need a form of reformation akin to what the Christians went through and I see absolutly no signs of a mass movement on these lines anywhere in the Islamic world.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Isn't this confused by the idea of all the threads of Islam that, ultimatley, all belong to the umma tho? That an attack on one muslim is an attack on all? I work with two Muslims, and they both constantly refer to the 'global muslim family' and on a number of occassions have made statements along the lines of 'an attack on one is an attack on all', and when I questioned one of them about the shia/sunni split he said 'Even they (referring to Sunnis in his case) are still brothers.'
So while the practical aspect of the faith may be that it's fractured like Christianity, many followers do see themselves as a single, global entity.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah, I've always thought 'Wow, your god isn't all that if it gets all upset by me saying he's a paedo or merely saying his name when I'm on the vinegar strokes.'.
I would surmise the the issue of secular and religous identity is a current through many volatile muslim majority states. The former being seen too closely linked to the west because in many cases the west had a hand in creating the borders and provides the imported system of governance. They are largely very young democracies that have no national Consciousness and seem to go down the Dictator route in search of one also. Interesting posts Dylans.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
The ummah is essentially an idealistic myth. The term literally means nation.
In all attempts to put the idea of global Islamic unity into practice or use Islam as a force for national identity or political unity (religious nationalism,) it has proved divisive. There is indeed a contradiction between ideal and reality and on a political level it is often resolved by attempting to impose a single definition of Islam onto others (often by force) This is the source of much of the sectarian violence that is tearing through Pakistan (and other countries such as Iraq ) where the contradiction between myth (global umma) and reality, a bewildering variety of interpretations of Islam) are resolved by declaring alternative interpretations to be un Islamic.
Hence in Pakistan, unity is defined in terms of a particular vision of Islam. In Pakistan's case, the very severe conservative Deobandi school (known as Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom ) as practiced amongst the tribal areas and Afghani Pushtuns (and the Taliban)is the form of Islam that is presented as the ONLY legitimate vision and the only path of continuity of the Islamic ummah. The fate of none deobandi interpretations of Islam in this view should be obvious. They are declared un-islamic and persecuted. Deobandi is hostile to the shia, to the Ismaeli, to the Sufi as well as to smaller Islamic sects such as the Ahmadi who have been brutally persecuted in recent years. And, this is the point, that hostility is justified in terms of the legitimate continuity of the Islamic ummah. Islamic unity yes but on their terms alone.
Only in Pakistan however is this crisis existential. Because Pakistan is unique. It is a country born and built on an idea of religious nationalism. The idea that a religious group deserve a nation state solely on the basis of their religion. Ironically the only other country in the world that shares this honour is Pakistans nemesis. Israel. Also born at the same time, also born as a response to persecution. Also built on the dubious idea that a religious group (the Jews) are a nation. Also struggling with the consequences of its own inbuilt contradictions.
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
Although they share a basic similarity, I would say that they are not the same. Israel has a historical claim to the land since their deportation by the Babylonians and have a two thousand year old history that states that they will eventually return.
Islam, however, has absolutely no such claim on parts of the old India. IMO, this is an artificial country and that I would say is part of the problem, scaping around for a national/religious identity that could never be achieved and we are now seeing it's results in the slow disintegration of the state.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
great post Dylans
The umma counts if its non muslims attacking muslims once the infidels are out the way we can get down to the real buisness of dealing with the wrong sort of muslim
Know a muslim convert through my school who was complaining about the saudi inspired nonsense a group she was involved with but she does'nt consider shia's proper muslims. When the americans went into afgahinstan if they'd been slightly brighter could have had help from the iraninan revolutary guard no love lost between them and the taliban or afgan drug dealers.
various jihadist types had to jump through hoops to support hezbollah when they handed out a shoeing to israel as they are Shia.
"we are all hezbollah" probably would'nt go down to well in northan parts of pakistan.
The umma counts if its non muslims attacking muslims once the infidels are out the way we can get down to the real buisness of dealing with the wrong sort of muslim
Know a muslim convert through my school who was complaining about the saudi inspired nonsense a group she was involved with but she does'nt consider shia's proper muslims. When the americans went into afgahinstan if they'd been slightly brighter could have had help from the iraninan revolutary guard no love lost between them and the taliban or afgan drug dealers.
various jihadist types had to jump through hoops to support hezbollah when they handed out a shoeing to israel as they are Shia.
"we are all hezbollah" probably would'nt go down to well in northan parts of pakistan.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
If there is one single thing people should take from my posts on this subject it is this. There is no Islam. There are many. This is of fundamental importance to understanding not only Pakistan but the rise of global Islamic nationalism in general. Islam should be seen as a multi faceted process. A dynamic and fluid social force that is fused and incorporated with local historical and cultural traditions to produce many competing definitions and interpretations and they are all valid.
The rise of global Islamic nationalism presents a challenge to those interpretations. It presents itself as the one and only correct interpretation and rejects all other interpretions as un-Islamic and it does so in the name of the global ummah or Islamic nation. So we should see it as a battle for the hearts and minds of a billion people. A battle for what it means to be a Muslim.
Further, when people talk of "Islam" and assume it is a single homogenous belief system they are actually conceding to the discourse advocated by the likes of Bin Laden and the global jihadi's. When the EDL talk of "Islam" they are actually using the language of Bin Laden. They agree with him that there is one "Islam" and they agree that his interpretation is the accurate definition. By doing so they empower the global jihadis and weaken those within the "Muslim world" who advocate different interpretations. Those in Pakistan who oppose the Zia Blasphemy laws and who advocate a secular political system are Muslims too and their interpretation of Islam is just as valid. To the Islamic nationalists the reply should be that Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom Islam is not the only valid interpretation of Islam and they don't speak for all Muslims. The tragedy is this battle is being lost.
The rise of global Islamic nationalism presents a challenge to those interpretations. It presents itself as the one and only correct interpretation and rejects all other interpretions as un-Islamic and it does so in the name of the global ummah or Islamic nation. So we should see it as a battle for the hearts and minds of a billion people. A battle for what it means to be a Muslim.
Further, when people talk of "Islam" and assume it is a single homogenous belief system they are actually conceding to the discourse advocated by the likes of Bin Laden and the global jihadi's. When the EDL talk of "Islam" they are actually using the language of Bin Laden. They agree with him that there is one "Islam" and they agree that his interpretation is the accurate definition. By doing so they empower the global jihadis and weaken those within the "Muslim world" who advocate different interpretations. Those in Pakistan who oppose the Zia Blasphemy laws and who advocate a secular political system are Muslims too and their interpretation of Islam is just as valid. To the Islamic nationalists the reply should be that Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom Islam is not the only valid interpretation of Islam and they don't speak for all Muslims. The tragedy is this battle is being lost.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Another killing for the blasphemy law
Shahbaz Bhatti: another voice against Pakistan's extremists dies
Christian member of government warned he would be a Taliban target after speaking out against blasphemy laws
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/shahbaz-bhatti-shot-dead
Shahbaz Bhatti: another voice against Pakistan's extremists dies
Christian member of government warned he would be a Taliban target after speaking out against blasphemy laws
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/shahbaz-bhatti-shot-dead
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
wow, a crusade. really?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
What i dont get is that is 'God is great' and thus all powerful. So why do people decide to judge their fellow human beings and simply not leg Allah do it when the time comes.
Anyone would think they dont trust the big man to make the right decision.
Anyone would think they dont trust the big man to make the right decision.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Yeah, 'cause that worked brilliantly the last time.
Or do you just fancy Orlando Bloom?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Who are you talking about exactly?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
The religious fundamentalists in Pakistan.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Well he's allegedly all powerful, so 'legging him' might be a bad idea?!
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Which ones?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Look, I will freely admit to not knowing much about the political situation in Pakistan..
But .. the fundamental ones!! e.g. the ones that are pro death penalty for blasphemy.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Never go for the wound when you can go for the kill. Christianity managed to kill it's god, so why not?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
The laws themselves are relatively popular (I think), but not really among the political class, not for religious reasons, anyway. The political class in Pakistan are pretty Machiavellian, enough to be able to use these laws to their own ends. A person only has to be accused of blasphemy, and often they are murdered by 'vigilantes'. Having these laws is a very useful tool for the political elite in Pakistan. For them it has nothing to do with fundamentalism. I don't think they would ever allow anybody who was genuinely fundamental into the elite. The blasphemy laws don't really have much to do with blasphemy, or fundamentalism, at least for the people in power. There is a good reason for anybody who tries to challenge the laws ends up dead.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Well we have I think to hope that, what with them being a nuclear power and all.
Three prominent christians have called for a discussion on the blasphemy laws, two are now dead (assasinated) and the third is in hiding. It seems pretty out of control to me.
Awesome stuff, Dylans! Thanks for the read.
On a side not, and as a British Pakistani, all I can say is that Pakistan is *so* fucked it's unbelievable. I've been back a few few times with my folks (although not for a fair while now), and the 'holier than thou' attitude of so many Pakistanis completely disgusts me. Everyone is desparate to be seen as more religious than their peers (friends, family etc). You see it here is well, especially in stricter more traditional families (the cunts that make no effort to integrate into British society and haven't done since they came here in the 60s/70s).
I think Dylans hit it on the head, when he said that the state of Pakistan was built on this contradiction of using Islam as a national identity - this shite is so ingrained, that people equate being Pakistani with being a 'good muslim'. Bollocks, to be sure!
The way I see it, these blasphemy laws as well as countless other pointless laws such as apostasy etc have no place in the modern world, and Islam must be allowed to adapt to the world today. Christianity seems to manage (generally!), but then again Christians have had the benefit of the Reformation, which I firmly believe Islam desparately needs. Although, how do you sell this idea to people that have had 7th century idiology forced on them so long that for them religion, culture and national identity are one thing?
Everytime I hear one of these stories about Islam being used to fuck innocent people over, the (small) part of me that still kind of believes in Islam just dies a little. Islam could be, and also seen to be, a good way of life if it wasn't for the cunts in charge using it to domonate and fuck their own people over.
My post probably all over the place, so I apologise (but I'm ill atm!)
On a side not, and as a British Pakistani, all I can say is that Pakistan is *so* fucked it's unbelievable. I've been back a few few times with my folks (although not for a fair while now), and the 'holier than thou' attitude of so many Pakistanis completely disgusts me. Everyone is desparate to be seen as more religious than their peers (friends, family etc). You see it here is well, especially in stricter more traditional families (the cunts that make no effort to integrate into British society and haven't done since they came here in the 60s/70s).
I think Dylans hit it on the head, when he said that the state of Pakistan was built on this contradiction of using Islam as a national identity - this shite is so ingrained, that people equate being Pakistani with being a 'good muslim'. Bollocks, to be sure!
The way I see it, these blasphemy laws as well as countless other pointless laws such as apostasy etc have no place in the modern world, and Islam must be allowed to adapt to the world today. Christianity seems to manage (generally!), but then again Christians have had the benefit of the Reformation, which I firmly believe Islam desparately needs. Although, how do you sell this idea to people that have had 7th century idiology forced on them so long that for them religion, culture and national identity are one thing?
Everytime I hear one of these stories about Islam being used to fuck innocent people over, the (small) part of me that still kind of believes in Islam just dies a little. Islam could be, and also seen to be, a good way of life if it wasn't for the cunts in charge using it to domonate and fuck their own people over.
My post probably all over the place, so I apologise (but I'm ill atm!)
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I originally posted this in the Afghanistan Quran thread but I don't think it was the appropriate place. So I am reposting it here along with Irobots post that i initially replied to. Both because it is the correct topic and also because my post fits well with others I have posted on the subject here.
A little bit of background. The question under discussion was why Pakistan has been such a disaster in terms of civilian democratic governance whilst India has proved to be so successful. Indeed this is the case. With the exception of a short period of military rule under Indira Ghandi during the Amritsar crisis, India has had civilian government for its entire history. Pakistan by contrast has lurched from failed civilian government to military rule and back again for most of its history. In particular I wanted to reply to the erroneous and frankly racist conclusion that this state of affairs can be blamed on some inherently undemocratic characteristic within Islam. Rather as I argue below, it is religious nationalism where the blame lies. My post was preceded by this very accurate post by Irobot who wrote.
In reply I posted
Yes you put your finger on the heart of the issue exactly. The reason India has been a relaitively successful story in terms of democratic civilian governance while Pakistan has been a basket case is that in India national identity, citizenship itself is defined in political democratic terms. All citizens are Indian regardless of religion or ethnicity. Including, as I pointed out earlier, the Muslim population of India who outnumber Muslims in Pakistan. Think about that a moment .There are more Muslims in the subcontinent who call themselves Indian than those in a nation built for Muslims on the belief that Muslims could never be Indian. The utter absurdity of the entire Pakistan project is summed up in that example.
On the whole, Indian identity is embracing and inclusive. Pakistan however was a separatist project that specifically denied that aspect of Indian identity.As such it was from birth an anti democratic project. Pakistan itself represents the rejection of the secular political democratic ideal of nationhood. It spits in its face.
Jinnah said that Muslims were not and could never be Indian solely by the fact that they were Muslim. Their religion made coexistence impossible and survival demanded separation. (an argument mirrored interestingly by Pakistan's nemesis Israel)While the Indian concept of nationhood embraces diversity, celebrates it in fact. Pakistan denies it and instead presents a notion of nationality based on a supposed religious commonality alone. But once it was born Pakistan faced the problem that its premis was false. Religion is not nation. and in a country like Pakistan religion proved to be a divisive not an inclusive identity when it became the basis for citizenship. Noone could agree which Islam was to be embraced by its citizens and no one could agree which Islam was to be the basis of Pakistans laws and institutions. and the Islam of some was the blasphemy of others. Jinnah initially wanted Pakistan to be a secular state in a bizarre sectarian imitation of Nehru. Years later realising Pakistans existential contradictions Zia attempted to create national identity by imposing a vicious reactionary theocraticy onto Pakistan. Neither succeeded in overcoming Pakistans fundamental flaw however and of course they couldn't because the flaw was Pakistan itself
The very reason for Pakistan was false. In a nutshell Muslims are not a nation (any more than Jews are a nation in the zionist narrative) They are followers of a religion There are Muslim citizens of most countries on the planet and their religious identity and national identity hold no contradiction. To create a country solely on the basis of religion and then leave more Muslims in the nation you are leaving just adds to the absurdity. Worse, most people who voted for Pakistan were minority communities in India. Communities that were afraid for their lives in the escalating communal violence. But these minority Muslim areas were precisely the areas that were not transferred to Pakistan which was based on majority Muslim communities. Thus the people who chose Pakistan remained Indian.
To add a final insult the communities who did pack their bags and leave india to join the geographic areas that became Pakistan, the migrants who were the true believers in the Pakistan ideal(known as Mohijirs) have since declared themselves Pakistans 5th nationality. Even the true believers reject Islam as the basis for national identity.
In Pakistans case, the claim to religious national identity was built on social and political absurdity but on geographical absurdity too. Remember Pakistan initially included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Two wings East and West seperated by a thousand kilometres of Indian territory, two peoples different in every sense but one held together by the tenuous claim that Islam was enough to unite them. A claim dealt a real blow early on when West Pakistan after years of oppressive behaviour committed horrendous atrocities on its "brother" Muslims ( or more accurately "sister Muslims given that mass rape was one of the principle crimes committed by West Pakistan troops) in the East and East Bengal Separated to become Bangladesh.
What a total and utter disaster from day one. If India is a celebration of the bourgeois democratic political ideal. Pakistan is its criminal brother who long ago walked out the door and sits in the shed staring into the house with envy and anger and bitterness and despair nurturing his hurt and plotting to return to burn the house down out of spite .
But this is an important point to bear in mind. The failure of Pakistan is not a failure of Islam in itself. The religion followed of the people of that country is not the cause of the problem. The attempted creation of a nation state with that religion as the sole basis for its existance and the only basis on which to build national identity is the problem. Not religion but religious nationalism. We must be careful here. Anyone blaming Jews or Judaism for the crimes of the Israeli state would and should be called an anti semite. The fault in Israel is not judaism but the religious nationalism at the heart of Israel idea namely Zionism. and It is at Zionism that the finger of blame should point not at Jews. . In exactly the same way, it is religious nationalism not religious belief that has created the mess that is Pakistan. Blame religious nationalism not Muslims for the failure of Pakistan.
.
The best thing that could happen to Pakistan is if it just packed it in said sorry and returned to India (and Baluchistan to Afganistan) where its citizens really belong. In fact I will be bold and make a prediction that Pakistan will cease to exist in the next 50 years. It will either tear itself apart in an orgy of regional blood letting and civil war or in its desperation it will launch a suicidal war against India. The result will be the end of Pakistan
A little bit of background. The question under discussion was why Pakistan has been such a disaster in terms of civilian democratic governance whilst India has proved to be so successful. Indeed this is the case. With the exception of a short period of military rule under Indira Ghandi during the Amritsar crisis, India has had civilian government for its entire history. Pakistan by contrast has lurched from failed civilian government to military rule and back again for most of its history. In particular I wanted to reply to the erroneous and frankly racist conclusion that this state of affairs can be blamed on some inherently undemocratic characteristic within Islam. Rather as I argue below, it is religious nationalism where the blame lies. My post was preceded by this very accurate post by Irobot who wrote.
In reply I posted
Yes you put your finger on the heart of the issue exactly. The reason India has been a relaitively successful story in terms of democratic civilian governance while Pakistan has been a basket case is that in India national identity, citizenship itself is defined in political democratic terms. All citizens are Indian regardless of religion or ethnicity. Including, as I pointed out earlier, the Muslim population of India who outnumber Muslims in Pakistan. Think about that a moment .There are more Muslims in the subcontinent who call themselves Indian than those in a nation built for Muslims on the belief that Muslims could never be Indian. The utter absurdity of the entire Pakistan project is summed up in that example.
On the whole, Indian identity is embracing and inclusive. Pakistan however was a separatist project that specifically denied that aspect of Indian identity.As such it was from birth an anti democratic project. Pakistan itself represents the rejection of the secular political democratic ideal of nationhood. It spits in its face.
Jinnah said that Muslims were not and could never be Indian solely by the fact that they were Muslim. Their religion made coexistence impossible and survival demanded separation. (an argument mirrored interestingly by Pakistan's nemesis Israel)While the Indian concept of nationhood embraces diversity, celebrates it in fact. Pakistan denies it and instead presents a notion of nationality based on a supposed religious commonality alone. But once it was born Pakistan faced the problem that its premis was false. Religion is not nation. and in a country like Pakistan religion proved to be a divisive not an inclusive identity when it became the basis for citizenship. Noone could agree which Islam was to be embraced by its citizens and no one could agree which Islam was to be the basis of Pakistans laws and institutions. and the Islam of some was the blasphemy of others. Jinnah initially wanted Pakistan to be a secular state in a bizarre sectarian imitation of Nehru. Years later realising Pakistans existential contradictions Zia attempted to create national identity by imposing a vicious reactionary theocraticy onto Pakistan. Neither succeeded in overcoming Pakistans fundamental flaw however and of course they couldn't because the flaw was Pakistan itself
The very reason for Pakistan was false. In a nutshell Muslims are not a nation (any more than Jews are a nation in the zionist narrative) They are followers of a religion There are Muslim citizens of most countries on the planet and their religious identity and national identity hold no contradiction. To create a country solely on the basis of religion and then leave more Muslims in the nation you are leaving just adds to the absurdity. Worse, most people who voted for Pakistan were minority communities in India. Communities that were afraid for their lives in the escalating communal violence. But these minority Muslim areas were precisely the areas that were not transferred to Pakistan which was based on majority Muslim communities. Thus the people who chose Pakistan remained Indian.
To add a final insult the communities who did pack their bags and leave india to join the geographic areas that became Pakistan, the migrants who were the true believers in the Pakistan ideal(known as Mohijirs) have since declared themselves Pakistans 5th nationality. Even the true believers reject Islam as the basis for national identity.
In Pakistans case, the claim to religious national identity was built on social and political absurdity but on geographical absurdity too. Remember Pakistan initially included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Two wings East and West seperated by a thousand kilometres of Indian territory, two peoples different in every sense but one held together by the tenuous claim that Islam was enough to unite them. A claim dealt a real blow early on when West Pakistan after years of oppressive behaviour committed horrendous atrocities on its "brother" Muslims ( or more accurately "sister Muslims given that mass rape was one of the principle crimes committed by West Pakistan troops) in the East and East Bengal Separated to become Bangladesh.
What a total and utter disaster from day one. If India is a celebration of the bourgeois democratic political ideal. Pakistan is its criminal brother who long ago walked out the door and sits in the shed staring into the house with envy and anger and bitterness and despair nurturing his hurt and plotting to return to burn the house down out of spite .
But this is an important point to bear in mind. The failure of Pakistan is not a failure of Islam in itself. The religion followed of the people of that country is not the cause of the problem. The attempted creation of a nation state with that religion as the sole basis for its existance and the only basis on which to build national identity is the problem. Not religion but religious nationalism. We must be careful here. Anyone blaming Jews or Judaism for the crimes of the Israeli state would and should be called an anti semite. The fault in Israel is not judaism but the religious nationalism at the heart of Israel idea namely Zionism. and It is at Zionism that the finger of blame should point not at Jews. . In exactly the same way, it is religious nationalism not religious belief that has created the mess that is Pakistan. Blame religious nationalism not Muslims for the failure of Pakistan.
.
The best thing that could happen to Pakistan is if it just packed it in said sorry and returned to India (and Baluchistan to Afganistan) where its citizens really belong. In fact I will be bold and make a prediction that Pakistan will cease to exist in the next 50 years. It will either tear itself apart in an orgy of regional blood letting and civil war or in its desperation it will launch a suicidal war against India. The result will be the end of Pakistan
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Thousands of protestors have begun a two day sit in blocking the Khyber Pass in North West Pakistan in protest at continuing drone attacks
The protestors blocked Khyber Pass, the main supply route for NATO troops in the neighboring Afghanistan, in the outskirts of Peshawar, the capital of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa province.
http://uruknet.info/?p=m77105&fb=1
The protestors blocked Khyber Pass, the main supply route for NATO troops in the neighboring Afghanistan, in the outskirts of Peshawar, the capital of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa province.
.
http://uruknet.info/?p=m77105&fb=1
Similar threads
