Nizam-i-adal approved

[wtf]

But coming back to the point of ensuring that we take the wind out of the sails of the extremists - should Pakistan consider implementing Shariah throughout the land?

No, because once you give away your legal system, they'll ask for your legislative and executive bodies next. After you have Shariah, you still won't have a heaven on earth, and for whatever ills that remain, Taliban will continue blaming the Democratic government. They'll demand an Emir be appointed. Once you replace the Prime Minister with an unelected Emir, they'll start replacing government executives with "purest of Muslims".

Alternately, they will claim that Pakistani government's Shariah is a corruption of real Shariah and demand that their Shariah is implemented.

I am not saying that none of this will happen (catastrophy scenarios), but since you are talking about giving your country away, I am saying that they'll want all of it. I am not making this up either, this is exactly what they did in Afghanistan.

Taliban is not after Shariah. They are after freedom and power to implement their views.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I agree with wtf. The Taliban's puritnanical thrist will never be satiated. They will keep demanding the "true" sharia.

 

[wtf]

Events in Pakistan cannot be detached from Afghanistan, hence the suggestion of 'leave Pakistan alone' holds no meaning without a military disengagement of the West from Afghanistan.

If US disengages from Afghanistan now (while Taliban still has guns), they'll just go in and recruit more Afghans and invade Pakistan with a greater army. While Taliban has some 2000-10000 armed recruits, they'll come at you with hundreds of thousands. That is not leaving Pakistan alone, that is leaving Pakistan to the dogs. (Sorry for the expletive, but the expression "leaving to the dogs" is a common one). Meanwhile, all the problems that people in Swat are facing, they will be transferred to entire Afghanistan.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the 2005 Pak-Army deal with militants in Swat, it is that if you back down under gunfire, the enemy will just come at you with greater force.

Is there any indication that a headless amorphous force will simply go away when US withdraws from Afghanistan ?

 

[alamgir]

MQM is in the parliment of Pakistan not UK
and it is not against shaira it is against Taliban's shariah
i think we have seen a lot of incidents in swat after this shariyah rule
women are not allowed to go inside a market
and that flogging issue

then how you can explane the rally of mqm in london.....

MQM stage rally against murder of Baloch leaders
LONDON, April 13 (APP)-The activists of MQM staged a rally outside the Downing Street residence of British Prime Minister against the murder of Baloch leaders in Pakistan and urged the authorities to arrest the culprits without further delay.

Addressing the party supporters by telephone who came from different cities of UK, the MQM leader Altaf Hussein condemned the tragic murder of the Baloch leaders and termed it a conspiracy to destabilise the country.

He called for unity to strengthen the country and confront the challenges facing the nation. The MQM leader lauded the role of the Baloch leaders during the Pakistan Movement and described them as patriotic and loyal.

The UK-based leader said the provincial autonomy was one of the steps to address the grievances of the smaller provinces and had this autonomy granted much earlier, the country would not have faced the current problems.

Hussein pointed out the survival and integrity of Pakistan has been jeopardized and the country needs to come together to fight those subversive elements attempting to harm it.

He called for robust measures to check the spread of Talibanisation and said MQM was against Nizam-e-Adl in Swat. He criticised the destruction of women education institutions in Swat and said his party could never support such elements who flog women.

He further said that on the one hand Taliban are spreading terrorism in the name of Islam and making suicidal attacks against law enforcing agencies and official buildings and killing officials while on the other hand in UK , Pakistanis are being hauled up in the name of terrorism which is creating a bad name for the country.

Later members of the Rabita Committee led by Salim Shehzad presented a petition at the Downing Street.www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73474&Itemid=2 - 15 ore fa

 

[Bane Blade]

^^^^Srilankan protesters have protested so has the PTI and PPP so why can MQM not do so Westminster is seen as a good and neutral partner to alot of countries and parties as well as movements so why not MQM this doesn't show anything with regards to MQM being a UK party, I only wonder why they abstained instead they should have voted no so they could show their true support.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All I can say to that is BULL SH*T!!!! Then you'll just have to suffer a western neighbor with BIG GUNS!!

Oh I am sure we will - I am under no illusions that the US intends to [pack its bags up and leave any time soon.

I am merely pointing out, as part of this hypothetical exercise of 'leave Pakistan alone', that the entire premise falls flat on its face when one looks at the accompanying impact of the NATO presence in Afghanistan.

I pointed out that the Western presence served as a catalyst for the explosion of the Taliban and other extremist groups in Pakistan. This catalytic effect has imposed significant costs on Pakistan and will continue to do so, whether the West 'leaves Pakistan alone or not'. In engaging with Pakistan the West nullifies some of the effects of its presence, and therefore, theoretically, strengthens the hands of the Pakistani state vis-a-vis the extremists.

In a situation where "Pakistan is left alone'' the significant costs Pakistan suffers from the Western presence in Afghanistan tilt the situation further in favor of the extremist, not against them, and that makes the entire exercise of 'leave Pakistan alone' (if done in the pursuit of some sort of 'self correction' of the state) self-defeating and flawed and more than likely a failure.

The only situation in which a policy of 'leave Pakistan alone' stands to work is one in which the destabilizing influence of the Western presence in Afghanistan is also removed - because that takes the extremist magnet (the US) out of the equation, and therefore strengthens the hands of the Pakistani state in its fight against extremism by removing one major raison d'etre of the Taliban.

Do I expect the US to leave? No

Do I expect the US to possibly pursue a 'leave Pakistan alone' policy in the future? Yes, but in that case, without a stabilized Afghanistan and a continued US presence, such a policy would be counterproductive given my reasoning above, and likely strengthen extremism in Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A line of thinking straight from AQ propaganda

The Taliban denigrate their opponent and suppress and censor criticism and opposition by declaring them 'apostate'.

People like you and some in the West choose to brand those dissenting with their view point with some label of 'Al Qaeda'. The idea behind both is the same.

-- you can choose denial if you want just don't imagine any success peddling it around here. Afghan Talib were themselves products of Pakistani Madaress - if anything you have the relationship wrong - it was and is in Pakistan that the ideological motivation and justification were created, in Pakistan where Islamist terrorist training has been conducted - and now istead of correwcting these to be in concord with the spirit and the needs of our time and circumstance, you offer that we blackmail with them.

Oh I have in no way suggested that the Afghan taliban were not created by Pakistan, or that the Pakistani taliban were created by the US - I am merely pointing out that the rapid rise of these taliban organizations and the rapidity of the spread of this cancer in Pakistan was made possible by the impact of the US invasion of Afghanistan, much like the rapid rise of extremism in Iraq.

That catalytic effect of the US presence in Afghanistan continues to this day, whose impact in a hypothetical scenario of 'leave Pakistan alone' I attempted to explain in my response to TS above.

There is nothing more to my analysis, especially not the connotations you are coming up with.

 

[Bane Blade]

Oh I am sure we will - I am under no illusions that the US intends to [pack its bags up and leave any time soon.

I am merely pointing out, as part of this hypothetical exercise of 'leave Pakistan alone', that the entire premise falls flat on its face when one looks at the accompanying impact of the NATO presence in Afghanistan.

I pointed out that the Western presence served as a catalyst for the explosion of the Taliban and other extremist groups in Pakistan. This catalytic effect has imposed significant costs on Pakistan and will continue to do so, whether the West 'leaves Pakistan alone or not'. In engaging with Pakistan the West nullifies some of the effects of its presence, and therefore, theoretically, strengthens the hands of the Pakistani state vis-a-vis the extremists.

In a situation where "Pakistan is left alone'' the significant costs Pakistan suffers from the Western presence in Afghanistan tilt the situation further in favor of the extremist, not against them, and that makes the entire exercise of 'leave Pakistan alone' (if done in the pursuit of some sort of 'self correction' of the state) self-defeating and flawed and more than likely a failure.

The only situation in which a policy of 'leave Pakistan alone' stands to work is one in which the destabilizing influence of the Western presence in Afghanistan is also removed - because that takes the extremist magnet (the US) out of the equation, and therefore strengthens the hands of the Pakistani state in its fight against extremism by removing one major raison d'etre of the Taliban.

Do I expect the US to leave? No

Do I expect the US to possibly pursue a 'leave Pakistan alone' policy in the future? Yes, but in that case, without a stabilized Afghanistan and a continued US presence, such a policy would be counterproductive given my reasoning above, and likely strengthen extremism in Pakistan.

Although I agree with most of the things you say I think that the Pakistani governement has been labeled heathen already by the terrorists so even if the US left I doubt that we will actually properly be able to sort out the trouble.

 

[jeypore]

I am merely pointing out that the rapid rise of these taliban organizations and the rapidity of the spread of this cancer in Pakistan was made possible by the impact of the US invasion of Afghanistan, much like the rapid rise of extremism in Iraq.

The status quo remains, what ails Pakistan comes only and only from outside. Mr. Am, Why not look at in a way that the Pakistanie forces and the administration was not focusing on controlling these people from the get go. Instead there was more crying for the money, which US accomadated. And after few years US did audit on the money, went all to the Indian defense fund. Not one single penny went to the defence for pakistan against these talibs. One can only cry wolf for so long, and I truly suspest that days are numbering for the civil war.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Although I agree with most of the things you say I think that the Pakistani governement has been labeled heathen already by the terrorists so even if the US left I doubt that we will actually properly be able to sort out the trouble.

I agree - whether the world stays engaged with Pakistan or not, the extremists will not accept the current system.

The question then revolves around what will strengthen the hands of the state in this fight. A disengagement from Pakistan, with a NATO presence in Afghanistan fueling the insurgency, weakens the Pakistani state, since all the destabilizing factors remain in place, but stabilizing factors in the form of IMF, ADB and FoP loans/aid are removed (assuming constructive utilization of a significant amount of this aid, which may yet be the case since the GoP appears to be formulating specific projects to attract this AID).

So, I do not see how a disengagement from Pakistan alone improves the situation. It must be a regional disengagement, or, as the US seems to be suggesting now, a regional engagement.

One crucial aspect of this regional engagement remains missing however - US mediation between India and Pakistan, not necessarily on Kashmir, but on getting the two sides talking again and removing Pakistani concerns on the possibility of Indian aggression if its military reorients to the West.

This mediation or engagement may in fact be going on behind the scenes (though there are no signs as of yet that this is the case), to cater to Indian sensitivities, and may not show any result until the Silly Season in Indian politics (election time) is over, but is a crucial aspect of regional engagement that should not be ignored by the US.

 

[Bane Blade]

India would never guarantee a ceasefire because they would suggest that this gives the Kashmir Mujahidin to attack them leaving them vulnerable. Though even if we do concentrate to the west I see examples of our armed forces fighting to a stand still then as a Pakistani what should I expect of them if they fail again in different places and then what will our countries position be.

 

[Interceptor]

Sufi asks Taliban to lay down arms

Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Brandishing of weapons prohibited; support to Army, amnesty for Taliban captives pledged; PM’s role hailed

By our correspondent

MINGORA: Terming the Army the defender of the country and the nation, Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Maulana Sufi Muhammad on Tuesday asked the Taliban to lay down their arms after ratification of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation 2009 by the president.

“The TNSM will extend unflinching support to the Army,” he said and added that he would continue efforts to bring peace back to the Malakand division and other parts of the country. He said a general amnesty would be announced for all those prisoners who were in the captivity of the Taliban at a public meeting soon.

He said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani played an appreciable role in getting the regulation approved by the president. On the other hand, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) spokesman for Swat Haji Muslim Khan asked the militants to lay down arms. “Henceforth, no one is allowed to take weapons even into the Taliban headquarters in Mamdherai,” he said while talking to The News by phone.

He also directed the Taliban to cease brandishing any weapons in public places, and anyone defying the orders would not be a Talib. He said that in all the districts of the Malakand division Qazis would be deputed and all decisions taken according to Islamic laws.

He said that the future line of action would be decided in the wake of approval of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation in the light of the decision of its Shura. Our Batkhela correspondent adds: The TNSM chief said that the Taliban had vacated Buner district and only local Taliban were present there.

During an exclusive chat with The News at the TNSM office in Amandara, he said after the promulgation of the regulation, independent Qazis would be appointed in the Malakand region who would decide cases according to the injunctions of Islam.

He said the federal and provincial governments fulfilled the decades-old demand of the people of Malakand to enforce Shariah rule there. He said the Taliban had abandoned their patrolling in Swat and after the promulgation of the regulation they would fully cooperate with the law-enforcers.

He hoped that the promulgation of the regulation would herald peace and prosperity in the Malakand division and durable peace would be established in the region, including the Swat district.

Agencies add: Shariah courts on Tuesday formally started functioning in Swat after the enforcement of the Shariah justice system. These courts had started functioning in six Tehsils of Swat, including Bari Kot, Kabal, Matta, Khwazakhela, Bahrain and Babozai from March 12, 2009 but owing to delay in signing of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation by the president, their powers were very limited. However, after approval of the regulation, these courts will have full powers.

Chief of Tehrik-e-Taliban Swat Maulana Fazlullah has said the central government has won the hearts of the people of the Malakand division and the Taliban with enforcement of Shariah. Talking to a private television channel, Fazlullah said the Taliban will extend full cooperation to the central government.

Meanwhile, imposition of Islamic laws to blunt a gathering Taliban rebellion will protect militants accused of brutal killings from prosecution, a hardline cleric who mediated the peace plan said on Tuesday.

Asked on Tuesday in a television interview if the new courts would hear complaints from Swat residents about Fazlullah or his followers, Sufi Muhammad said they could not. “We intend to bury the past,” he told the channel. “Past things will be left behind and we will go for a new life in peace.”

Asked if the Taliban would enjoy such immunity, a provincial government minister only pleaded for calm so that peace could take hold. “Everyone should understand what we have gone through and what kind of hardship people in Swat have suffered,” Wajid Ali Khan said.

“We can look into any disputes and controversy at some later stage.” Sufi Muhammad said his followers would tour all districts of Malakand, including Buner, to “ensure peace”. He also said the courts would interpret civil rights according to Islamic principles. “Women will have full protection and rights under Shariah. They will live a better life — but behind the veil,” he said.

Meanwhile, Federal Minister for Special Initiatives Lal Muhammad Khan has said neither the Taliban are going to march towards Islamabad nor they are recruiting local people. Swat peace pact would prove to be an example to ensure peace in other areas of the country, he said while speaking on a point of order raised by the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) Parliamentarian Marvi Memon in the National Assembly on Tuesday.

PML-Q MNA Marvi Memon told the Lower House that the Taliban were recruiting local people in Buner and had intention to march towards Islamabad. The government should stop recruitment of local people into the Taliban force by establishing its writ in Buner, she said.

Minister for Special Initiatives Lal Muhammad Khan, who hails from the Malakand division, denied the accusation, saying the news items appeared in a section of the press was baseless. After signing the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation 2009 by President Asif Ali Zardari, he said implementation on it has been started and the whole nation deserves congratulation in this respect.

Awami National Party (ANP) MNA Pervez Khan said the president had endorsed the Nizam-e-Adl regulation 2009, therefore, debate on it should not be held any more. The provincial government is responsible for implementation of the regulation, he said.

Sufi asks Taliban to lay down arms

 

[Bane Blade]

Finally some good news I am glad to see the army will be respected, even the PML(N) agrees so

http://www.pmln.org.pk/news_detail.php?id=1323

 

[burton]

Oh I am sure we will - I am under no illusions that the US intends to [pack its bags up and leave any time soon.

I am merely pointing out, as part of this hypothetical exercise of 'leave Pakistan alone', that the entire premise falls flat on its face when one looks at the accompanying impact of the NATO presence in Afghanistan...

Hi AG

New member here. Sorry if this seems a bit direct but I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, based on your above post.

Put simply, how soon would you like to see an ISAF withdrawal from Afghanistan? I mean, what would be a desirable timetable in your opinion?

Also, how important to you is the status/readiness of the Afghan National Army? The reason I ask is that to put it bluntly, nobody imagines that the ANP are, at present, 'up to the job'. Bearing this in mind, do you still advocate a 'sooner-rather-than-later' ISAF withdrawal...

If this is off the thread topic, I apologize. But I would really like to know what you think...

burton

 

[SSGPA1]

Some posts are worth reading but most posts are childish and rude. This explains why Pakistan is in this crap today.

If there is a referundum in Pakistan about implementing Sharia then atleast 70% (includng myself) will vote in it's favour.

Problem is that we have never done a study on Sharia laws and their implementation in present day Pakistan. This study is supposed to be done by our National Assembly with the help of alims, scholars, lawyers and members from other walks of life.

This law implemented or imposed in Malakand lacks any study. It also have ideologies/ interpretations of uneducated Talibans instead of Islamic alims and scholars.

I hope that peace comes back and brothers in Malakand are willing to review their intrepations of Shariat with more educated scholars in Pakistan.

I also hope that both Zardari and Nawaz Sharif learn that gaining popularity by such stunts will not make them leaders.

Leaders guide people and make tough decissions, Zardari and NS took guidance from emotional people of Pakistan instead of guiding them.