‘Doomed’ dialogue: TTP faction demands rewriting of Constitution

[SQ8]

REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN SOUNDS SO MUCH BETTER

It always was Republic of Pakistan, up until the fundoz changed it back in the 70's. A fact!

There was not much Islamic in the Islamic republic part to begin with. The only recorded Islamic republic of which general concepts are still not skewed too much is the first one, and that too was an implementation of the Quran's directions for that particular time period with its tradations and norms. An exemplar on how Y should be done based on X conditions. Hence, when X is not the same then neither can the gauge for Islamic republic be.

In either case, just republic wont go either. With our national delusions and rather confused state it should be either Surreal Republic of Pakistan or Confused Republic; anything less is inaccurate but then so is Islamic Republic.

 

[Dillinger]

We can explore that in Naswarville. What is a more relevant question, is one that was put up in a recent discussion with friends; that certain sections of Pakistan might break off if Taliban appeasement becomes the norm? or are Pakistanis in general pushovers when it comes to religious force.

On a serious note. They are punching above their weight, they are in no position to make such demands.

 

[Anotherangle]

A) The interested-in-war party will always make demands that are not possible to meet, and it does not mean that we do not get the fighting elements talk; getting them to talk and put down weapons (at least some of them) is a brilliant strategy. Only Pakistan media (and maybe military high command) can think it as not a strategy or giving up every thing. This is their intelligence level: no body can do any thing about it.

Usually, humans intelligence is not so low, so it means they are serving the enemy interests (for money perhaps) that want(s) to continue the war in Pakistan until at least Afghanistan stabilizes and does not remain a place to hide for those harboring anti-US thoughts. There are also those who are terrified and want to serve US interests without being asked, and there are some who are just following popular media.

B) If there is one reason for terrorists being present on Pakistan soil, it is not Islam but the strategy of our military that backfired. And those who want to make Pakistan secular should come out in open and face public instead of hiding on net and using social media.
@jaibi I do not know which type of social scientist you are, but if any ethnic community basically founded, identified or united on a religion, then that religion is part of that community and can never be separated- how much it is practiced depends on many variables (if you understand the term.)

 

[Hyperion]

What I've observed is that Pakistani's in general have become pushovers. Look at it this way, so much bad news, bad publicity, bloodshed, bad economy for so long, it's certainly going to take a negative toll on the psyche of people. Majority of population at the moment has become "khair hai, iss say to burra nahi ho ga na", or "Sir". Add an AK47 to the matrix, and you get "G".

We can discuss this a hundred different ways, however, the fact remains, we are doomed. There is absolutely no hope. I'm a realist, what's happening now in Pakistan is a civil war, therefore, what can we do about it? As individuals we have several options, and as a nation we have very few.

We can explore that in Naswarville. What is a more relevant question, is one that was put up in a recent discussion with friends; that certain sections of Pakistan might break off if Taliban appeasement becomes the norm? or are Pakistanis in general pushovers when it comes to religious force.

 

[Secur]

In what context you askin', mate?

Does my friend see any difference , any at all between both at the moment ? What is it if not usual attention seeking ? What do the Taliban even control to boast and make some statement without even holding any real power ?

 

[Secur]

We can explore that in Naswarville. What is a more relevant question, is one that was put up in a recent discussion with friends; that certain sections of Pakistan might break off if Taliban appeasement becomes the norm? or are Pakistanis in general pushovers when it comes to religious force.

What happened to the liberals after the Islamic revolution in Iran ? The most brief and simple answer to that question lies in the answer of this one . People will sometimes give their country , but not the freedom , that isn't hard to understand .

 

[Mujahid Memon]

Fantastic! Sooner or later Pakistanis will have to enjoy implementation of Sharia.

I wonder how a Muslim country can even follow a constitution not in accordance with Sharia.

Yes we will implement Sharia, the real Sharia defined by Quran and Hadith, not the one defined by khawarij TTP

 

[jaibi]

A) The interested-in-war party will always make demands that are not possible to meet, and it does not mean that we do not get the fighting elements talk; getting them to talk and put down weapons (at least some of them) is a brilliant strategy. Only Pakistan media (and maybe military high command) can think it as not a strategy or giving up every thing. This is their intelligence level: no body can do any thing about it.

Usually, humans intelligence is not so low, so it means they are serving the enemy interests (for money perhaps) that want(s) to continue the war in Pakistan until at least Afghanistan stabilizes and does not remain a place to hide for those harboring anti-US thoughts. There are also those who are terrified and want to serve US interests without being asked, and there are some who are just following popular media.

B) If there is one reason for terrorists being present on Pakistan soil, it is not Islam but the strategy of our military that backfired. And those who want to make Pakistan secular should come out in open and face public instead of hiding on net and using social media.
@jaibi I do not know which type of social scientist you are, but if any ethnic community basically founded, identified or united on a religion, then that religion is part of that community and can never be separated- how much it is practiced depends on many variables (if you understand the term.)

I am a psychologist, that's the type of social scientist I am.

Now that that's out of the way, coming to your question, you think that being Muslim means one thing? Right? We should implement the Sharaih? Right? Ok, what is the Sharia? Do you know that there are various interpretations of it? One does not agree with the other. So who's should we implement? I will let you know of an example, the place from where I did my A Levels has law programmes and we had a seminar on Islamic sources of law and boy, oh, boy, was that an eye opener: it broiled down to a brawl over the authenticity of a number of Ahdees which were considered legal by a number of Salafi scholars but not by a few others and none at all by the Shia sect. I was surprised to see people get so heated and not relenting and that's the point: faith is about belief, you really cannot argue over it. If you do, it gets ugly.

However, law by consent-authority, which is the base of modern civil systems can work, let's say that we would put laws into place which have 2/3rds support of the parliment and we'd implement it, that takes away that problem and as a nation we can use the Quran for our guidance.

Thirdly, true religion will always remain a part of the identity but that's it, it will remain a part. For example, other sources of identity still play an influence: Lahori, Punjabi, Pakhtuun, Sunni, Shia and so on. So it's not just the singular source of identity and that's why you have problem when you make it so. Look at Isreael, it was created for Jews, irrespective of their denominations, so were we, the denominations do not matter. The Jewish scriptures influence the State of Israel but so do secular philosophies, they don't have a problem, why do we? I'll tell you why: because we are convinced that our interpretation is the correct one and on that we are divided and fooled. They don't. So shouldn't we.

 

[khanz4996]

i think pakistan constitutaion is outdated anyway. how can you run a 2013 model TV on 1973 Manuel??? i think pakistan constitution should re-written again and system changed as well.

 

[jaibi]

Does my friend see any difference , any at all between both at the moment ? What is it if not usual attention seeking ? What do the Taliban even control to boast and make some statement without even holding any real power ?

It's actually textbook terror tactics, they hold our people hostage and have them convinced of their power and it comes from symbolic defiance and attacks. That's what it is, if there's no media there's no terrorism. It's broadcasting the message over and over and over again to every eye in the country. It magnifies the attack.

 

[Secur]

i think pakistan constitutaion is outdated anyway. how can you run a 2013 model TV on 1973 Manuel??? i think pakistan constitution should re-written again and system changed as well.

Lets accept the one eyed Mullah Omar as our new founder of the nation , what say you ? Put his face along with the current TTP chief on the currency of new Talibanistan with the caption ' In Taliban we Trust ' and eradicate all those who do not agree with our ideology ?

 

[khanz4996]

Lets accept the one eyed Mullah Omar as our new founder of the nation , what say you ? Put his face along with the current TTP chief on the currency of new Talibanistan with the caption ' In Taliban we Trust ' and eradicate all those who do not agree with our ideology ?

Yeah food for thought.TTP and Afghan T are 2 diff orgs first differenciate between them then comment

 

[jaibi]

@khanz4996 nice to meet someone who can think sanely and not on dogmas @Secur yar I'm serious let's ask the army to raise an anti-talib force and let's sign up @Hyperion and @Armstrong

 

[SQ8]

On a serious note. They are punching above their weight, they are in no position to make such demands.

Or are they?

As I see it Right now, the Pakistani Establishment is facing both political and PR challenges which means their say isnt what it used to be. The polity of Pakistan is in a fluid state and can be pushed either way and public opinion on important issues is skewed beyond a median.
With the need to please both sympathizers and the establishment the current government is caught in political manoeuvring to keep its mandate(which is supported by electables who do wish for a theological state not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban for their own political and personal gains). At the other end, we have an entire province(apart from its capital city) ready to embrace a Sharia state as long as they get peace with it. Long story short, the majority of people in Pakistan do not see the Taliban as cancer or a dangerous animal; they see it as blessed milk giving us lactose intolerance because of this nasty habit of working for the Americans or the efforts of RAW/MOSSAD and so on. Therefore, the blessed milk may go ahead and threaten with impunity as the people are too afraid or too undecided to voice anything against them.
Ideas such as giving the Taliban an office are direct indications that leaders and people are willing to accept them as a legitimate power with control over the state and hence denying the sole writ of the state of Pakistan over its land. Such measures make sense in a place like Afghanistan where there is little government so to speak beyond Kabul and other power centres. But here it signifies a trend of removal of the state of Pakistan and its replacement by another body.
It signifies that a large section of the Pakistani people from sections that grind sugar cane and cover shawls to sections that listen to rock and roll are supporting(through votes and will) to accept that their national identity and ideology are now lost and the state of Pakistan is as such defunct. There are throes of resistance to these ideals but they are either silenced through political pressure or by the threat of bombs and bullets courtesy of the extremists.
The whole idea of the silent majority is actually quite true though.. but not only are they silent; they are paraplegic and apathetic to the conditions around them and are prepared to suffer any eventuality as long as their basic Maslow's tier is met.

A funny example to what might happen in the worst case in Pakistan might be Star wars episode III.. the way the Sith took over the Republic through the government itself.

However, a positive route might be that the current PM has indeed smartened up a bit and has built a good relationship with the COAS; them both being businessmen realise that money cannot be made in such conditions. They continues to keep ambiguity with the Taliban by coercing the US to hit their leadership behind the curtains and be anti-drone to keep the citizens of KP satisfied. They order the hunting down of extremist leadership outside of KP while keeping the Taliban contained through a mixture of military force and smaller peace deals that exploit tribal dynamics.
Eventually, after securing the rest of Pakistan and urban KP to a certain extent will a cleanup of the Taliban as entirety be possible. But this is a five year deal and requires a continuation of policy; something which all Pakistani leadership considers an alien concept apart from that on India.

 

[Anotherangle]

I am a psychologist, that's the type of social scientist I am.

Now that that's out of the way, coming to your question, you think that being Muslim means one thing? Right? We should implement the Sharaih? Right? Ok, what is the Sharia? Do you know that there are various interpretations of it? One does not agree with the other. So who's should we implement? I will let you know of an example, the place from where I did my A Levels has law programmes and we had a seminar on Islamic sources of law and boy, oh, boy, was that an eye opener: it broiled down to a brawl over the authenticity of a number of Ahdees which were considered legal by a number of Salafi scholars but not by a few others and none at all by the Shia sect. I was surprised to see people get so heated and not relenting and that's the point: faith is about belief, you really cannot argue over it. If you do, it gets ugly.

However, law by consent-authority, which is the base of modern civil systems can work, let's say that we would put laws into place which have 2/3rds support of the parliment and we'd implement it, that takes away that problem and as a nation we can use the Quran for our guidance.

Thirdly, true religion will always remain a part of the identity but that's it, it will remain a part. For example, other sources of identity still play an influence: Lahori, Punjabi, Pakhtuun, Sunni, Shia and so on. So it's not just the singular source of identity and that's why you have problem when you make it so. Look at Isreael, it was created for Jews, irrespective of their denominations, so were we, the denominations do not matter. The Jewish scriptures influence the State of Israel but so do secular philosophies, they don't have a problem, why do we? I'll tell you why: because we are convinced that our interpretation is the correct one and on that we are divided and fooled. They don't. So shouldn't we.

You assumed I want to impose Islamic law, this is not a scientific way to answer; any way, I didn't invite your narrative; I already answered and put a full stop on the debate by saying,'the practice depends on many variables' and this statement can be changed into a book and that's why I wrote 'if you understand what variable mean in my sentence'.

I think you invite those to your institutions who follow your line of argument as you also revealed your seminar experience (which in my view is a very, very limited exposure to Islam); mine is different. I am among those who are invited to give a talk to (A level) secondary and graduate students.
(and please take this as a friendly note boil down is not broil down, at least in the dictionaries I have)