NationStates Jolt Archive

Pakistan's Supreme Court has blocked an attempt by a north-western province to enact "Islamic morality laws" reminiscent (according to the BBC) of the former Taleban laws in Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court declared that the bill was unconstitutional. Musharraf himself had opposed the bill, and asked the Court to examine its legality.


President Musharraf, who says he wants Pakistan to espouse an enlightened, moderate form of Islam, has denounced the bill as fundamental breach of human rights.


Now Musharraf's Islamist opponents are accusing the government and Supreme Court of being "undemocratic".

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6182395.stm).

Thoughts?

Northern Pakistan is a land that centralised state authority forgot. The government there is effectively the tribal establishment, not Islamabad.

Musharref's opponents have a point though, he is anti-democratic, (although I must admit that he has done a good job at hiding the fact he came to power through a coup). So if the good general really has a problem with Talebanesque laws being set up in his country I'm sure he would have no compunction against sending in the army to crush the Islamists.

Although I suspect he is not really too bothered - he simply wants to be seen as someone who is opposed to Islamic Radicalism, and a reluctant supporter of democracy. He has learnt a valuable lesson from Saddam Hussein, it doesn't matter how much your people dislike you, its getting on the wrong side of America that you have to worry about!

Musharraf is doing the right thing to try to undo General Zia's damage.

Musharraf is doing the right thing to try to undo General Zia's damage.
I agree. This is a wise move for human rights and dignities.

There is nothing undemocratic about enforcing the constitution of the nation. A modern democracy is not merely the will of the majority - that is nothing but mob rule. Modern democracy is to find the will of the majority and respect the rights of the minority. Musharref did nothing but ask the court to review the legislation, and state that he disliked it - there is nothing wrong with that.

Musharraf is doing the right thing to try to undo General Zia's damage.

Islamisation is often an one-way street. Ataturk remains the only exception.

Although I suspect he is not really too bothered - he simply wants to be seen as someone who is opposed to Islamic Radicalism, and a reluctant supporter of democracy. He has learnt a valuable lesson from Saddam Hussein, it doesn't matter how much your people dislike you, its getting on the wrong side of America that you have to worry about!

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can take almost any thread that has nothing to do with America and end up bashing America. :mad:

Musharraf is doing the right thing to try to undo General Zia's damage.
Agreed.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can take almost any thread that has nothing to do with America and end up bashing America. :mad:
Actually, Pakistan had been the last country to end its support for the Taleban due to American threats and pressure, so, it's fair enough to say that it doesn't want to earn American ire, so it's trying to distance itself from radical and fundamental Islam.

Now Musharraf's Islamist opponents are accusing the government and Supreme Court of being "undemocratic".

They accuse a man who took power via a military coup of being "undemocratic"? What was their first clue?

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can take almost any thread that has nothing to do with America and end up bashing America. :mad:

And it never ceases to amaze me that you can treat every negative comment about the United States like someone just punched your grandmother.

And it never ceases to amaze me that you can treat every negative comment about the United States like someone just punched your grandmother.

Maybe because he's tired of irrelevant bashing.

There is nothing undemocratic about enforcing the constitution of the nation. A modern democracy is not merely the will of the majority - that is nothing but mob rule. Modern democracy is to find the will of the majority and respect the rights of the minority.

Agreed. Protecting civil rights is what laws are for, even if they don't meet with approval from a majority of the population.

They accuse a man who took power via a military coup of being "undemocratic"? What was their first clue?

:D

They accuse a man who took power via a military coup of being "undemocratic"? What was their first clue?

the hat i think

Actually, Pakistan had been the last country to end its support for the Taleban due to American threats and pressure, so, it's fair enough to say that it doesn't want to earn American ire, so it's trying to distance itself from radical and fundamental Islam.

Thank God. That'd just be fantastic if these cooks running around in Northern Pakistan came into power there.

Although I suspect he is not really too bothered - he simply wants to be seen as someone who is opposed to Islamic Radicalism, and a reluctant supporter of democracy. He has learnt a valuable lesson from Saddam Hussein, it doesn't matter how much your people dislike you, its getting on the wrong side of America that you have to worry about!

I guess in this case fear of what we might do is a good thing. ;)

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can take almost any thread that has nothing to do with America and end up bashing America. :mad:



How was that America bashing? Do you disagree with his statement about not wanting to have the US against you?

How was that America bashing? Do you disagree with his statement about not wanting to have the US against you?

I think he disagrees that this particular issue has anything to do with the US government.

I think he disagrees that this particular issue has anything to do with the US government.

and I would have to disagree with that the US doesnt have anything to do with a story involving Pakistan and hard line Muslim fundamentalism in a country bordering Afganistan.

Thank God. That'd just be fantastic if these cooks running around in Northern Pakistan came into power there.

Is Northern Pakistani food really that bad?

Good. I'm glad they blocked this law.

My suggestion to them would be to keep the TERRORIST on a LEASH and they wouldn't have to be so concerned about what the US might or might not do.

Is Northern Pakistani food really that bad?

It's good if you want to paint the wall behind your toilet brown and greenish brown.

It's good if you want to paint the wall behind your toilet brown and greenish brown.
I was able to survive 8 days of Pakistani food before getting diahorrea and losing a stone in weight, I'll have you know.

and I would have to disagree with that the US doesnt have anything to do with a story involving Pakistan and hard line Muslim fundamentalism in a country bordering Afganistan.

But this story is about the pakistani courts deciding whether a law is consistent with their constitution. It is not a story about the pakistani intelligence apparatus or military launching a campaign against the Pushtuns. Having said that, if the US did somehow influence the judges in this case I would have to say that at least the Bush administration did one thing right in the Middle East. I do doubt, however, that the judges called Clarence Thomas in as a consultant in this case. I'd like for the US to be able to take credit for this, I just don't think we can.

I was able to survive 8 days of Pakistani food before getting diahorrea and losing a stone in weight, I'll have you know.

What color was it? Was it all yellowish with bits of brown sludge or was it more yellowish with undigested pieces of food? Please be specific in your descriptions so we can all discuss more intelligently. ;)

It's good if you want to paint the wall behind your toilet brown and greenish brown.

Why not? It will complement the color my new puppy is painting my floor.

Well, I think we can learn a valuable lesson from this: When in a Third World country, don't eat or drink anything.

Well, I think we can learn a valuable lesson from this: When in a Third World country, don't eat or drink anything.

Meh. I did fine in Cuba.

Then again, I was the only one not eating meat. All those who did... had to endure the consequences.

Meh. I did fine in Cuba.

Cuba's got a great health system, so I guess it's worth the risk.

Then again, I was the only one not eating meat. All those who did... had to endure the consequences.

Boil it, peel it, cook it, or forget it.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can take almost any thread that has nothing to do with America and end up bashing America. :mad:

Maybe because he's tired of irrelevant bashing.

One, it wasn't irrelevent, to imply that Musharref opposes Islamic fundamentalism out of the goodness of his heart is naive. Two, its not bashing, I support America's role in moderating the responses of potential dictators.

Try not to make so many assumptions, it makes an ass of u and me.

One, it wasn't irrelevent, to imply that Musharref opposes Islamic fundamentalism out of the goodness of his heart is naive. Two, its not bashing, I support America's role in moderating the responses of potential dictators.

Try not to make so many assumptions, it makes an ass of u and me.

Typical Bushevik kneejerking. If you don't use words like "savior" or "heroic" in the same sentence with "America" or "United States" it's automatically America Bashing to them.

Thank God. That'd just be fantastic if these cooks running around in Northern Pakistan came into power there.

What's the difference?

I am serious.

Well, yeah, Musharraf is clean shaven, dons Armani suits when he is visiting the west etc....and the mullah party leaders wear Salwar Kameez and have henna-dyed beards.

Policy wise there is little difference. Both abuse Islam to justify power-mongering. The Muttahida-Majlis Amal party in the OP story - the MMA - is called the Military-Mullah Alliance for a reason. It was Musharraf who brokered the formation of the MMA to prevent the Nawaz Shariff party (Pakistan Muslim League) to come to power. Musharraf even split the PML to form PML (Q), to facilitate MMA gaining power in NWFP.

All this fighting between the jihadis/mullahs and army is nothing but an internecine war...a falling out of bosom buddies. They both are different sides of the same coin.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has blocked an attempt by a north-western province to enact "Islamic morality laws" reminiscent (according to the BBC) of the former Taleban laws in Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court declared that the bill was unconstitutional. Musharraf himself had opposed the bill, and asked the Court to examine its legality.



Now Musharraf's Islamist opponents are accusing the government and Supreme Court of being "undemocratic".

Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6182395.stm).

Thoughts?

I think Musharraf is a tool to put it simply.

What's the difference?

I am serious.

Well, yeah, Musharraf is clean shaven, dons Armani suits when he is visiting the west etc....and the mullah party leaders wear Salwar Kameez and have henna-dyed beards.

Policy wise there is little difference. Both abuse Islam to justify power-mongering. The Muttahida-Majlis Amal party in the OP story - the MMA - is called the Military-Mullah Alliance for a reason. It was Musharraf who brokered the formation of the MMA to prevent the Nawaz Shariff party (Pakistan Muslim League) to come to power. Musharraf even split the PML to form PML (Q), to facilitate MMA gaining power in NWFP.

All this fighting between the jihadis/mullahs and army is nothing but an internecine war...a falling out of bosom buddies. They both are different sides of the same coin.

Musharef asn't going to be sending of his nukes to us in a shipping container. These guys running around in the caves up there would do whatever necessary to make that happen and I live to close to Long Beach.

Musharef asn't going to be sending of his nukes to us in a shipping container. These guys running around in the caves up there would do whatever necessary to make that happen and I live to close to Long Beach.

The deterrence that works with Musharraf, will work with the Mullahs too.

You will find that the mullahs are a rather remarkably self-preserving kind....no less than the military. Many of the Mullah party leaders children live in the US...much like Bilal Musharraf, living in the US.

Besides it was in the army's watch that nuke proliferation was done to NK, Iran, Libya and who knows where else.

The deterrence that works with Musharraf, will work with the Mullahs too.

You will find that the mullahs are a rather remarkably self-preserving kind....no less than the military. Many of the Mullah party leaders children live in the US...much like Bilal Musharraf, living in the US.

Besides it was in the army's watch that nuke proliferation was done to NK, Iran, Libya and who knows where else.

I think Musharef is pragmatic in that way, mostly because his religion is a show. I don't think these guys in the hills are putting on a religious show. I think they believe what they preach down to their very cores. I'd just as soon keep nukes out of their hands.

Now Musharraf's Islamist opponents are accusing the government and Supreme Court of being "undemocratic".

Thoughts?
When Democracy is going to bring about such laws, it’s time to be undemocratic.

I think Musharraf is a tool to put it simply.

Perhaps he is, but at the moment he is in opposition to something bad, so well done to him.