You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
No religious party will be allowed to indulge in militancy, says Musharraf
2006-04-17
Perv sez so many things. So few of them actually pan out.
Pakistan does not need any Sipah, Jaish or Lashkar because the “Pakistan Army is the sole Sipah or Lashkar of this country”, said President General Pervez Musharraf while talking to Islamic scholars at the Governor’s House here on Sunday.
Oh, that's a comfort.
You should see the size of their drums.
In the backdrop of the April 11 Nishter Park bombing, the president said that his government would not allow any one party, including religious parties and groups, to indulge in militancy, according to sources.
I thought it wasn't that they were allowing any one party, but that they were allowing all of them...
While exhorting unity among all sects, the president said there was a dire need to create harmony among Muslims. He called upon the scholars to work towards shunning those differences that had been plaguing Muslims and undermining their efforts towards achieving their position and playing their role in the comity of nations. Referring to Shia, Sunni, Wahabi and Deobandi sects, sources quoted the president as saying, “Sometimes I get confused about my own identity as a Muslim and I have to think really hard on which sect I belong to.”
They keep talking about "Muslim unity," but to Muslims, from what I've seen, that means that one sect gets to be preeminent and the others get to be oppressed. Now, I'll be fair and admit that this doesn't apply across the board. In Indonesia, for instance, the moderate version of Mohammedanism only oppresses the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu minorities, and the Arabian-flavored sects aren't yet strong enough to throw their full weight around. The Gulf States also seem to have a handle on their violent impulses toward other Muslims. But in Pakistan they're fighting hard to realign their religious pecking order, with the Shias at the bottom, only one step up from Christians, then the remnants of the Sufis, and the Brelvis a step up from them. Hanafis and Deobandis are elbowing each other for pride of place, and the Wahhabis, with their Arabian backing, are coming up fast.
Responding to accusations claiming the Muttahida Qaumi MovementÂ’s direct involvement in the blast, the president said that he would look into the charges impartially, sources said. Reiterating the Sindh and federal governmentÂ’s position on the nature of the blast as a suicide bombing, the president said justice would be done and the perpetrators of this tragedy would be awarded exemplary punishment. Responding to a complaint that most mosques in DHA (Karachi) were given to religious scholars of a particular sect, the president said he would work towards resolving the issue.
Street fights for control of mosques (and, more importantly, their revenues) are a favorite passtime in Pakland. I think Perv's going to have trouble making them share. In theory, not sharing should be a good thing. The street fights and assassinations are certainly crass, but I don't think that the sects should have to share their holy places. In this country the Catholics don't build churches and then have to share then with the Methodists, though the Episcopalians seem to be working themselves up to the point of street fights over church revenues with their slow-motion schism. But I understand it's difficult to establish a Caliphate when you've got all those different sects, most of them heretical in each other's eyes. There's always the danger somebody's going to nail 95 Theses to the door of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and start a reformation, and then where will the Caliphate be?
Posted by:Fred

00:00