Adil Najam
This picture is carried today by both Dawn and Daily Times. Dawn’s title is “Still Heroes” and the caption reads: “Bronze statues of Quaid-i-Azam, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Allama Iqbal put on display at the Science and Technology Expo-2007 being held at National Memorial Museum in Shakarparian in Islamabad.”
A visit to the Museum is on the top of my ‘To Do’ list when I return to Islamabad end of the month. I hope they are still there.
My first thought on looking at the picture was to note how both Jinnah and Iqbal are wearing suits here (this penchant of ours - me included - to dress up these guys in the garbs of our desires has been has been quite a remarkable historical see-saw!). My second thought was to wonder what the folks at Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa might have to say - or do - about this. I hope there is significant security against vandalism here.
But even more than that, I wonder what these three men are sitting there thinking about what is happening today in the country they helped conceive. Late at night when the museum is closed and the statues come alive and walk about, what is it that they sit together and talk about?
[quote]For the last time, Law was written to PREVENT PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM,[/quote]
What is ‘PREVENT PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM’ exactly? Aren’t there 72 or so sects already who call each other kafir? But first what is PLAGIARISM OF ISLAM or for that matter PLAGIARISM OF A RELIGION? Are you talking here of western law studied at Loyola or something else? Who decides when it is PLAGIARISM OF A RELIGION? If it is left on majority they will always decide in their own favour. There has to be a fairer way to decide it. In US/West/International Law how many examples have you seen where majority is given free hand to prohibit any minority from not professing their faith because majority considered it PLAGIARISM?
[quote]the religion in the name of which Pakistan was created. [/quote]
Can we leave emotional bits to a side for now? What has that got to do with anything? You are a lawyer let’s talk principals and laws and leave slogans for politicians and Mullahs.
[quote]What part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan do you not get?[/quote]
The part that was created by the same Mullahs who opposed Pakistan in the first place and shouted Kafir e Azam and Na-Pakistan when Pakistan was being created.
Nazir, at this time the muslims are the most prosecuted minority in the west. Second I know atp will gladly chop my post but here is the answer. The sect you are so vehemently defending here was a Freemasons/Illuminati conspiracy agaisnt mulsims of subcontinent. And till today they play very well in the hands of western powers against Islam in general and Pakistan in particular.
Adnan
Thats a good one. thanks for sharing.
[quote]Mr. Nazir, please consult a lawyer some day. I am an L1 constitutional and corporate law major at Loyola, [/quote]
You are a lawyer (of sorts), let’s consult you.
[quote]There is no issue of humanity and human rights when it comes to faith-based plagiarism. [/quote]
According to what law? Proof this. How many in US have been put in prison for going to church or doing other Christian rituals while majority Christians did not accept them as Christians? People who live in west know very well that your claim is false. People freely believe what they want to believe and can express to a large extent what they want to and no one puts them in prison even if majority disagrees with them whether religiously or otherwise. So don’t go ahead and make any false statements.
Please go ahead and prove me wrong with examples where people have been put in prison because they professed a particular faith peacefully despite being considered heretic by the majority.
[quote]Muslims in other countries wouldn’t practice islam and claim to be practicing Christianity, would they? [/quote]
An interesting question here is why would a person be adamant to practice a faith which he/she does not really believe in and will continue even under pain of punishment? In all likelihood they probably DO believe the faith to be true whether you agree with them or not.
But whether a Muslim does that or not is entirely on that Muslim and to that he/she is completely entitled to under freedom of faith which does not define what set of beliefs you need to have, in the same as Islamic teaching of “no compulsion in religion�. God has already decided this question for us. So let’s not try to be more God than God Himself.
[quote]and if they would, and this action of them would therefore alter the definition of Christianity or whatever the state religion is,[/quote]
Whether it does or not is a separate question. Christianity has been changed by many people over centuries just like Islam has, so this is not entirely new or surprising. But the question we are dealing with is what rights people have. So in principal if a Muslim for some reason decides to have some different beliefs he/she has perfect right to it. As this is between him/her and his/her God. This is not a political issue that we need to handle politically.
[quote]then yes, I would agree for a ban on anyone who claims to amalgamate the two different religions. [/quote]
You are confusing yourself. So much for being a lawyer. Question here is not what *you* would agree to or not. Question is what rights does a person have and what is a person allowed in matter of his/her right of practicing a faith peacefully. We know from certainty living in the west that law will act (or not act) differently from your own personal idea about the subject.
Dear Mahi,
Stanley Wolpert actually is someone who believes that both Jinnah and Gandhi, despite their human failings, were trying to do the right thing… and that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who, because of his impetuous temperament, brought disaster to the subcontinent… and that British made a mistake listening to Nehru and Patel instead of Jinnah and Gandhi….
However… reading H M Seervai’s book… I am forced to conclude… that Gandhi had a major role… equal to, if not bigger than, Mr. Nehru’s in the disaster. H M Seervai, as you may be aware, is one of the greatest constitutional lawyers produced by India and a true patriot… his estimate, painful and upsetting to himself even, is that Maulana Azad was the only person in the Congress willing to do the right thing.
So read it… and I am sure you’ll get a fresh perspective on things.
Dear Sulman,
The point my dear friend that unfortunately missed you in entirety is that principle of citizenship and issue of fundamental rights exists independently, whether the state is founded on cultural, ethnic or any other form of nationalism… which is why a Non-French speaking French citizen should have the same rights as a French speaking French citizen … so on and so forth We wish to hold the State of Israel (of which you are supposedly a supporter) to the same principle when it comes to Arab Israelis which form 1/8th of the Israeli population.
Even if - in blatant disregard of the fact that in 1940s they were considered Muslims and their votes were sought on that premise- it was decided to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim .. you cannot- as per the Fundamental Rights Chapter of Pakistan’s constitution- force them to not call themselves Muslims… even if the state continues to consider them so. Thus… not only was the constitutional amendment wrong … but even after the amendment there was no justification for the PPC 298 C … which violates the Pakistani constitution and the fundamental human rights of the said community.
FYI Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was a politician… and he admitted that he was merely playing politics when he did what he did… As for Kasuri’s father… he had quit Bhutto’s cabinet in 1973…. a whole year before the passing of the said amendment…
And finally whatever your objections against Ahmadis… you cannot say that simply because Pakistan was created in the name of Islam (which is a dubious and historically inaccurate statement but let me humor you) that Ahmadis should be declared Non-muslim. The fact is that Ahmadis were considered Muslims by Jinnah and the Muslim League, whereas those against Ahmadis were also against Jinnah and the Muslim League. Indeed… Pakistan did not have claim to the Gurdaspur region (about which it still raises a lot of hue and cry) had it not been for the Ahmadi population which brought the over all Muslim population in the majority there… At the very least, the 87% Muslim electorate which became the basis of Muslim League’s claim as a representative body of Muslims included Ahmadis. So what has happened in Pakistan is the denial of the very principles that Pakistan was created on.
So the issue is multi-layered… and in a fair court of law you cannot win your case… unfortunately… judiciary in Pakistan went to hell some 20-30 years back.
Haha!
Well said Adnan.
@Sulman/Jabir: You guys can never convince our psuedo jinnah expert mr.Hamadani. I have experienced him a lot so do remember what Imam Sha’fi[RA] said once:
I debated a scholar and beat him. Then I debated a layman and that layman beat me- he had no knowledge of the principles and texts. I had nothing to say.
Cheers :-)