From: jamalin@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Nadeem Jamali)
Subject: Re: Repost: Re: Is Islam and Pakistan?
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:21:45 GMT

In article <l9srceINN9if@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.231246.11402@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> jamalin@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Nadeem Jamali) writes:
>>
>>What's so amoral about sticking to the tradition of calling oneself
>>Muslim??? If one's perception of Islam allows him to be less fanatical,
>>he/she doesn't become obliged to renounce allegiance to Islam. 
>
>Well, if someone calls himself a Muslim then s/he should also
>be prepared to be treated according to the laws of his/her
>beliefs! 
>
>You may have disagreement at the interpretation of a principle but
>this disagreement can not make you beyond the law. It is as if a 
>US citizen who benefits from social security but at tax time
>balks at paying the IRS taxes! If you are a US citizen you 
>have to pay the taxes (period).
>
>You have every right to disagree with the penalties levied
>by IRS. However, the disagreement can ONLY be valid if
>you can show within the rules of IRS that you are exempted.
>TO get an exemption, you can't apply Pakistani tax laws.
>What BB and liberals want to do, is akin to invoking Pakistani 
>rules to get exemption from IRS penalties. They must realize,
>if they have any intellectual ability, that exemption can
>ONLY be granted under IRS rules. The way out is not to start
>castigating IRS, but understanding IRS rules and use them
>to your benefit. 
>

BTW, what about the rest of my posting... is this what your Islam
teaches you? First you find some excuse for not replying... when
I apologise, you say you don't have a copy... when I repost, you select
only the portions you like... Following is the part you chose to 
ignore. As is clear, you ignored MOST of the posting... looks like
everything you don't have an answer to is unacceptable language for
you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

That elected leaders of Pakistan have had to use religious cover to
save themselves is because of the assumed supremacy of Islam over people's
wishes. That Pakistan is shown to the world as a fundamentalist state is
assumed enough for Pakistan's power hungry military to justify removing a non-
fanatical elected government. If late Bhutto was scared of something then
it was the assumed justification that the army would get to topple him...
which despite all his last minute manipulations (including the acts you
mention) it did. Your reference to Benazir Bhutto's using a scarf I find
only a reflection of your political preferences.

>
>Problems with Pakistan will end the day the hypocritic bureaucracy and
>army (all elitist) and politicians (landed aristocracy) debunk "Islam"
>as a false front. Why is it necessary for the elites to use the Islam
>card? why can't they leave the islam card with the "Mullahs". After
>all if Mullah's and their agenda is not popular, who will listen to
>them! People will simply throw them off. Why worry about the people?
>If  elites are correct in saying that  people do not want Islam then
>they should not fear people.
>
>If on the other hand, people do want Islam. Find it powerful enough
>to sway their feelings, and are moved by it, then why all this complaint?
>After all, democracy calls for respecting people's wishes!

The people like to call themselves Muslim... what gives you the right to
suggest that they don't. Their beliefs are what their beliefs are. No body
has a right to come and tell them that irrespective of what their real
beliefs are, given that they prefer to call themselves Muslim, they aught to
believe in something else.

>
>NOTE:
>====
>Only those people need fear the "blashphemy law in Islam", who want
>to keep a front of Muslims, like Salman Rushdie, and then insist on
>ridiculing it. I can guarantee that no one who decides to rupudiates 
>Islam, and does so by openly relinquishing his name and other priviliges 
>which go by being a Muslim, will not be harmed by any one.
>
>If Salman Rushdie had clearly stated on his book that he was NOT a 
>Muslim, no one would have bothered him. After all, Dante wrote 
>worse things then him! 
>

You Sir, happen to be sick. If someone criticises something that doesn't
happen to be something he/she agrees with, what's your problem?? Unless,
one's intension is to hurt someone's feelings, how can he/she be blamed for
something.

That one choose to call (him/her)self Muslim and chooses not to be fanatic,
is an individual's prerogative... no body has a right to stop him/her.

What you fail to recognise is that in that person's perception, you
are not on the right path. Why should that person go in the defensive?? Why
don't you call yourself something else if you don't want to share the word
Muslim with more normal people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am particularly interested in what you have to say about the second 
paragraph of my posting in question: "The people like to call ....
they aught to believe in something else".

Nadeem

-- 
Nadeem Jamali                                     jamalin@newton.ccs.tuns.ca
						 
School of Computer Science			  
Technical University of Nova Scotia		  (902)420-7882