Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Why cant there be a non-muslim Pakistani Head of State?

Pakistani constitution bars non muslims from assuming the role of Head of State and of Republic. The reason being that majority of Pakistani's are muslims (around 97%) so they should have a muslim head of state.

Although it seems logical but it would be even 'more logical' if there were no restrictions on minorities to assume this role constitutionally. Its their right being the citizen of this country. Would a minority head of state be a risk to Islam? give me a break...

What would you have.. a very good administrator (minority representative) or not-so-good-administrator (very pious muslim)? It is totally hypothetical but this is a scenario. That’s why I believe separating religion from politics is a very good thing. Now we cannot have an exceptionally talented (lets say) minority representative as head of state because he should be a muslim.

Some people might argue that even USA would not allow a Muslim President (just as having an African American president is difficult) so why should Pakistan do that? Correct. But the Constitution of USA does not bar the minorities from taking the charge of President. Its not that "you have to have a minority head of state" as its often difficult (minorities are by definition minorities) but at least there should be no bar constitutionally. Every citizen of a country should have this right.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Are you cursed?

The October 8th 2005 earthquake in Pakistan was an unfathomable disaster. More than 73,000 precious lives were lost. But amongst all this gloom and doom - a bright ray of hope and life emerged. Pakistani nation rose up to the occasion in helping their brethren in distress. International community too supported wholheartedly.

Amongst all this was a debate that "why" earthquake occured. From the scientific - movement of the tectonic plates; to the metaphysical - God did it to them. What is really unfortunate is the fact that people actually say that earthquake occured due to the acts of people living there. That they were off the track of religion, were performing bad deeds and thus Allah punished them. I find this totally absurd.

Does it mean that the place where earthquake occured - people therein were corrupt, infidels, performed the worst possible acts? Is it a simple case of saints vs sinners? Does it mean that the rest of Pakistan which was not affected by earthquake; have angels residing. Am I good and they bad? this is the worst possible way of putting things.

The earthquake was and is a very strong test. Test for humans whether they come forward and help others in distress, do they open their hearts for them, do they help the affectees in every possible manner. Or whether they just sit and pass judgments on behalf of God certifying who is good and who is bad. Show humanity please.

[2:155]We will surely test you through some fear, hunger, and loss of money,lives, and crops. Give good news to the steadfast.

I dont like it when people say it like that. So I disregard it.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Good that You are White

Unfortunate. There is this general trend in Pakistan where wheatish/ brownish skin color that we have is generally considered NOT OK as compared to having a fair/ white skin color which is GOOD. I guess part of this relates to the colonial legacy that we have had as the British ruled the subcontinent for some good 200 years. So we consider white skinned people as more bright, intelligent and above all worthy of being shown respect.

Take any advertisement of a skin cream product in Pakistan and it will mostly talk in terms of "It will make you gora(white)". A very famous singer of Pakistan had actually these lyrics in his song "I had a dream last night in which I saw my (future) wife.. she was as black as my fate".

Is it a curse that one is born with a darker complexion? why do we make (almost 90% of Pakistanis feel that they are somehow inferior to the rest? why should anyone around the globe be considered inferior in this respect? Perhaps I'll do the same thing when its my turn?

It hurts me. So I don't like it.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Laws relating to Rape in Pakistan

Horrible. To say the least. The prevailing law was promulgated by a military dictator in 1979, called Hudood Ordinance, to appease the clergy in Pakistan and consolidate his position and rule. He said simply.. if you want Islam.. vote for me! and thats what happened in the referendum! easy :)

This law is totally discriminatory against women. Any woman who is raped - has to prove that she was raped! that requires testimony of 4 Men! and if she cannot.. then she'll be tried for Adultery! how lovely!

Islam mentions 4 witnesses in the verse

[24:4] And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;

Enlighten me. Where does it mention rape? where does it say that a raped woman has to produce four witnesses? What context does this verse has? The result of this falsely derived/ wrongly thought verse is that women find no justice at all. First the raped woman has to face the wrath of society, she has to come up with four witnesses who saw her being raped! then she runs the risk of being tried for adultery if she cannot. Worst, numerous cases have been reported that Police raped these women when they came to report!

This law has to be repealed. Clergy have manipulated the whole scene and anyone objecting to it is termed infidel! told that they are violating Quranic principles! which certainly is not the case. Thus all the effort of repealing this heinous law are sent crashing.

I hate this.

Check These Posts As Well
  • Rape and Adultery Differentiated
  • Islam & Women Protection Bill
  • Thursday, November 24, 2005

    Can one show a person dying or being slaughtered on TV?

    This makes me really sick. Pakistani news channels (2 of them have done this) have been found guilty of this charge. Recently Pakistan was hit by a severe earthquake that resulted in thousands of deaths. There was a lot of criticism on government that they were not doing enough in providing relief to the affectees. A private news channel did something that really shocked me. A reporter and cameraman headed to a remote part of affected area and told the story of family who was hit by earthquake. They actually showed a woman dying on camera! All in an effort to show that "See! we told ya! government is lying! it says it cant reach the affected areas because its difficult but we did it!" (my statement) I cant possibly term them as humans. Could they have not taken a medical team to that area and perhaps could have saved that woman's life? were they obsessed so much with maligning the government that they forgot they had a more "human duty" to do?

    Another TV was covering Al-Qaida and the operation that Pakistan Army is undertaking in the country's tribal belt alongside borders of Afghanistan. The reporter showed a video in which an afghan spy was being shown slaughtered to death. No viewer discretion advised.

    Is this kind of material allowed to be aired on TV? Do we have to see such things to "really" believe whats going on? was it not possible that those grizzly scenes may not be shown?

    I abhor this. So makes me sick.

    Tuesday, November 22, 2005

    Blasphemy Law in Pakistan

    I am a pakistani. and I hate this law! It is used blatantly by so called "protectors of Islam" to do anything! to kill non-muslims, burn their prayer places. This is awful. Islam is not a man made law.. that we have to protect! its the duty of God to protect it! and no where does God say to kill a person or to burn his place of worship because he said bad things about Islam! there are other ways to handle these!
    [16:125] Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance

    This law may not have been made for bad intent but it surely is used for such purposes.

    I hate it. So I don't approve of it.

    If prayers are for God only.. what are other people doing in it?

    Here is the thing.. God tells me to obey Him and to remember Him in prayers (salat). Why on earth do I take the names of other people in "His" prayers? I take the names of Prophet Muhammad, Abaraham e.g.; Prophet Muhammad too would have only remembered God in his prayers right? Prayer is for God only as the basis of my faith tells me such.

    I dont like that. So I dont do so.

    Why only Muslims will enter paradise?

    Now.. I really have a problem with this one. Are we so special that only muslims will be allowed to enter heaven? The rest who dont have the tag of "Muslim" on them .. are condemnded to hell? Does one has to be a "Muslim" per se to achieve this privilige? Cant a Christian for that matter enter paradise?

    I dont think so. God tells me in in Chapter 2 vere 62
    [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve
    So anyone who performs the righteous deeds, believes in one God, believes that he/she will be responsible for his/her acts on the day of judgement - be that person Christian, Jew, Hindu or anyone else - can enter paradise.

    I like what this verse says. So I think so.