how ridiculous is this conversation with regard to human rights? if we change the specific words of some of the comments and feisal's article we can see the naked "isms" (racism, "ethnism", "religionism"):

imagine if an american politician said something like, "we should divide ourselves according to race and religion. in the southeast we've got african baptists, and aryan pentecosts. in the southwest hispanic catholics want to impose catholic rules on everyone, whereas up north we've got slavic lutherans, meanwhile in n.y. and florida the jews, who are really good at business, want to clense christian "temples" of any references to jesus."

he would be (rightly) demonised.

but anybody who talks about pakistan/afghanistan/iraq etc...is expected to be "sensitive" to the "cultural diversity" and "ethnicity" the various groups. i suppose it's just the reality on the ground, but this kind of thinking is medieval. it is small-minded. we're supposed to pander to the bigotry of the "pashtuns" and "baluchis" and so on. apparently these distinctions are very important to pastuns and baluchis and punjabis etc...

the enlightenment freed western societies of this kind of "ism-ism". the "islamic world" needs to catch up.

feisal, you say,
"The Koran does not teach theocracy."

and,

"Thus, it was the job of parliament not only to make laws but also to ensure that all laws were in conformity with the principles of Islam, or shari'a."
_________________________________________

you seem like a "moderate" muslim, but maybe you are so close to the situation that you can't see the contradiction. if "all laws" must conform "with the principles of islam" - THAT'S THEOCRACY. you give me very little hope for a peaceful, humane world with islam in it.

iraq did the same thing with their brand-new constitution. their constitution says, “islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation” and that “no law may be enacted that contradicts the undisputed rules of islam.” they created a religious government...a THEOCRACY. there was no one to stop them. separation of mosque and state is not even on their radar. any potential iraqi jefferson had been killed by iraqi politician/priests. iraqi founders see no incongruity in the fact that the constitution goes on to guarantee “the full religious rights for all individuals.” how is this possible for non-muslims, or the wrong kind of muslims, living in Iraq?

pkkmres

The Indians thinking is based on contempt and apprehensions about Pakistan. They do not accept that "mother cow" can be cut into pieces, which is a reality taken place in 1947.
Now they should look to present day facts.
Strong Pakistan is a defense of India, otherwise history shows that all successful conquerers came to India from North.

Shark2 says "If Pakistan have four nationalities then India have fifty-four - do you wish India be fragmented into that many pieces?"

I think clearthinking's argument makes sense because the resources are separated so that the magnitude of threat is divided. If India becomes host to bin Laden and a majority of Indians support or indifferent to Mullah Omar's and bin Laden's presence in their country I think the logic applies.

I do not think it is a sane idea for the US to aid India with billions of $ if Indians are extremely anti-American (they are not and they do not beg for aid either).

On the other hand to materialize the fragmentation approach all one has to do is stop providing aid in $$$. Why does US taxpayer has to pay for a bunch of people unable to get an economy going just because they prefer medieval madrassas to modern scientific education.

If they can not maintain an economy to stay as a cohesive group then may be they should be left alone so nature can run its own course of fragmentation. We can use those billions of $$ for much better purpose here at home.

Feisal Naqvi

Thank you for replying to my post.

I wasn't disparaging your country, one of the things that I was bringing up is that "theocratic rule" of any sort is wrong, actually it is ungodly, since God gave us free will so it should come from within not imposed from outside.

You wrote, "because if you look at the way people live their lives over here, you will not find the caricatured version of Islam preferred by the Taliban."

I have never been to Pakistan but I am sure that the "average person" does not live the "caricatured version" anymore than the "average person" in the United Sates lives the "caricatured version" that some think is America.

It seems quite a shame that people can't meet people as opposed to power meeting power, doesn't it?

Power comes in many forms both quantitatively and qualitatively.

I wish you well but as anyone with their eyes open should be able to see, the world is a mess, in many ways, and if one cares for others then they should do what they can to help.

Concerning your remark about the "morality police" law in 2005 being overturned, that is good to hear but the truth is that there are many here in the US that would want "morality police" laws enacted.

There are plenty of people all over the world that want to run other people's lives rather than look at their own life.

God gave us free will and it seems as if it is going to come as quite a surprise to some to find out that we are responsible for how we use that free will.

I am thankful that God has a Plan and I am also thankful that God is not even remotely like what so many people seem to think that God is like.

God is Pure Love and that Pure Love will one day "burn" all of the crud, so to speak, away.

We are all God's children, kind of a shame that we can't accept that and act accordingly.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

clearthinking1

I read your posts, your style and reasoning is really foolish.
Do you think if Pakistan is dismantled then India will remain safe either?

If Pakistan have four nationalities then India have fifty-four - do you wish India be fragmented into that many pieces?

First country that will be affected by weaker Pakistan is India - forget your heart burns of the partition and try to be live in the present world.
RSS ideas are as stupid as those in someone in Swat - Pakistan.

Feisal Naqvi

Can you say to whom you are trying to educate? and what is the purpose of this article?

What the people in the west has to do with how many schools of thought you have in Islam.

You want a secular system or an Islamic system in your country, the people of your country have the right to decide.
What type of support you are looking from outsiders and why? Can you please explain.

IT IS TIME TO DISMANTLE PAKISTAN
Paralysis of Analysis at a precarious moment in Pakistan.

I strongly believe that the violence, conflicts, and extremism in Pakistan/Afghanistan are due to the manipulations necessary to maintain the artificial entity called the "Republic of Pakistan". The leaders of Pakistan have always felt it absolutely critical to use Islam as the only available cement to create a Pakistani identity. This has not worked out well for Pakistanis or their neighbors.

The BALUCHIS have oil, natural gas, and ports, and they could thrive.
The SINDHIS have Karachi and well developed business and economic capabilities, and they could live peacefully doing business with the world.
The PUNJABIS have significant agricultural resources to thrive, and a slightly weaker and less aggressive Punjabis may be good for the region.
The PASHTUNS will always thrive and could joing their brethren in Afghanistan. The Durand line doesn't really help anyone today and seems like an anachronism.

The problem is the confluence of Islamic extremism and inverted nationalism of the ISI and Pakistani Military. The ISI/military are perpetually exploiting Islam, narcotics, and ordinary Pakistanis for their own goals. These "leaders" do not have the best interest of the people of Pakistan in mind, and this has made Pakistan an essentially failed and dangerous state.

Legitimate concerns exist about the consequences of the dismantling of Pakistan. I would argue that this would lead to decreased Islamic extremism, decreased terrorism, increased regional stability, and an improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Time is short and the window of opportunity is closing before Pakistan degenerates into increased "Talibanization" and economic anarchy. Paralysis from over-analysis is dangerous right now. It is time for fresh and progressive strategic thinking

Islamic Pakistan as a nation has failed and must be dismantled.

Pakistan as a nation is failing miserably, and it is a failed society based only on hatred.
ECONOMIC FAILURE: Pakistan is bankrupt. Even all the loans from IMF, World Bank, Paris Club, London Club, overt and covert aid from US, and repeated refinancing of the debt have not worked.
MILITARY FAILURE: 4 wars have been lost by Pakistan. Bangladesh was freed in 4 days. The military is demoralized and cannot even control its own territory.
SOCIAL FAILURE: the miserable poverty and exploitation within Pakistan is shocking. The Honor killings and treatment of women is unacceptable.
POLITICAL FAILURE: The military coups, suspension of constitutional law, murders of Bhuttos (father and daughter) reveal no evidence of a modern political culture or democracy.
EDUCATIONAL FAILURE: The lack of modern schools and scientific education shows no potential for Pakistan to develop economically or politically in the future. The madrassas are where terrorists are openly bred.
CULTURAL FAILURE: A nation that looks the other way as terrorists and murders are being trained openly is morally bankrupt. Every Pakistani knows whats been going on in their country, and one must assume they approve of the violence in their heart.

Holbrooke and Obama need to dismantle Pakistan like Holbrooke did with Yugoslavia. 4 Ethnic states - Baluchis, Pashtuns, Punjabis, and Sindhis

Dear Mr. Baum,

Given that I live in the country so easily disparaged by you, and given that my ass is -- quite literally -- on the line, I think we can safely conclude that I am not trying to kid anyone.

The point that I was trying to make is that the fatal flaw lies in the inability of Pakistani Muslims to articulate their views on religion and power, because if you look at the way people live their lives over here, you will not find the caricatured version of Islam preferred by the Taliban. There is, however, a huge ideological disconnect between theory and practice, which disconnect is bridged somewhat tenuously by our Constitution. Unfortunately, our Constitutions keep on getting reworked and overthrown every decade or so, and when they are not being overthrown, they are ignored by our democratically elected rulers.

The Koran does not teach theocracy. You can scan all of Islamic history from the Prophet onwards and you will find precious few examples of theocracies. What you will find in history are your bog-standard monarchies complete with captive religious establishment ready to rubber-stamp everything that the monarch did. However, history and ideology did not evolve side by side because the Islamic concept of a state was entirely irrelevant for the entire period (600-1900). So, when the Muslim countries hit the modern era, their inherited Islamic political science dogmas were basically undeveloped. Now combine public devotion to Islam with an intellectual vacuum in Islamic political science and throw in a Saudi Arabia determined to export its extremism: perhaps that will give you some idea of how Wahhabi extremism was able to expand its influence. And for a more expanded version of that thesis, please see Khalid Abou Fadl's "The Great Theft."

To return to your point about compulsion and religion, one of the federating states in Pakistan tried to enact a law in 2005 which would have set up a morality police who would have gone around forcing people to say their prayers etc., much like the Taliban. That law was struck down by the Pakistani Supreme Court on the grounds that it interfered with freedom of religion. There was no public controversy about that decision (a) because nobody wanted the morality police and (b) the decision was made in a way that was politically legitimate. That in turn shows that well functioning constitutional democracy can stand up -- at least ideologically -- to Talibanisation.

Regards,

Feisal Naqvi

Since the start of Islam,they still do not know,Illah is still the real...

Feisal says:
"Pakistan will not regain the "middle way" of Islam for its people until it can show that a parliamentary democracy can deliver the basic needs of its citizens, and a more articulate Islamic leadership recovers its indigenous voice.”

Why the beating around the bush. Islam has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it cannot meet the demands of the modern world. It may have served the needs of 7th Century desert people of Arabia, but not anymore. Modern secular education is a first step and a constitutional democracy should be the mode of rule with no role for religion in politics. It is that simple!

Jinaah, the founder, wanted a secular Pakistan. But Islam took over in 1956. Now we see what Islam really is.

How come Pakistanis feel no shame in having just 3 percent minorities? And how about the major terror attacks that have some Pakistani connection?

Hmmm, Farnaz notes:

"We Jews, religious and secular, are a simple people. We "believe" in Justice, the responsibility of Human to create a Just world for all Humans."

Ditto for Christians, Pagans, Muslims, Atheists and Baha'ists but that does not change the fact that these religions/cults have significant historic and theological flaws!!!!

The Bahai, now on ccnl's hit list, along with Jews and Muslims, have long been deprived of rights in Iran.

This is a link to a Bahai web site that contains additional links to US, EU, etc., protests over the detainment of the seven leaders, discrimination, etc.

http://news.bahai.org/archive.php?
category=489&year=0&month=0&Submit=Search

If you go to the UN web site, you will find continual protests to Iran on its treatment of the Bahai. Also, see the documentaion available at various human rights web sites.

We Jews, religious and secular, are a simple people. We "believe" in Justice, the responsibility of Human to create a Just world for all Humans.

The problems of Pakistan appear to be related to more Sunni-Shiite conflicts. Well at least the local Baha'ists are not involved. They are taught to avoid politics.

Zia, of the Madrassah Zias, of whom I have posted often. Look, America, and weep. Keep your eyes on Washington. On British Petroleum. On Saudi Arabia. On the oil companies.

It is very, very late in the day.

Finally, the truth about Saudi Arabia, the great friend of the US, Zia, and the Madrassahs. Now, take the next step. Show, what we in the West, call, but do not often demonstrate, courage.

Which great Western democracy supported Zia? Turned a blind eye to the Saudi export of extremism into Pakistan via millions and millions of dollars? Built the extremist Madrassahs?

Hint: Said democracy is in North America.

Additional hints: Said democracy was not alone. Others were in other continent. But said democracy took the lead. As usual.

Consequences: Everybody got, well, you know what they got, and badly. Pakistan, arguably, got it worst.

I'm thinking if you have to rewrite your constitition every 10 years or so, there's a problem.

If Pakistan wants to stand on the world stage, perhaps they should abandon their 7th century Islamic ideology of Sharia legal and political constructs, and maybe (just maybe) consider a true democracy in the context of 21st century values.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing not. Enjoy your life in Islam; I will continue to be EddietheInfidel.

Feisal Naqvi

In your article, it seems rather clear that "What Islam Means for Pakistan", is total control of everything and everybody by the dictates of islam as in a 100% theocratic state even if the particulars are not agreed upon, doesn't it?

If you read your own article, you should be able to see that that is exactly what it says.

You wrote, "But in the long run, Pakistan will not regain the "middle way" of Islam for its people until it can show that a parliamentary democracy can deliver the basic needs of its citizens, and a more articulate Islamic leadership recovers its indigenous voice."

Who are you trying to kid? Yourself or everyone else?

I have seen it written many times that the koran supposedly says, "There is no compulsion..."

Even tho thru the ages, some in Christianity attempted to set up a theocracy which is totally against what Jesus taught, isn't setting up a theocracy exactly what the koran teaches?

There is no "middle ground" when any religion is the law of the land even if some "articulate Islamic leadership recovers its indigenous voice" because all other voices will be squashed.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.