Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Hagop got a reaction from south-lebanon in Assange Interviews Nasrallah
Salams Abu Muslim,
Do you not think that unlike Gaddafi, Seyyed Nasrallah (HA) has a substantially greater popular base? One can measure this, for example, by looking at Hezbollah's representation in the current Lebanese parliament: 12 seats out of a total of 128 (and not including their March 8 allies).
Surely the people/factions that dislike him and the Hezb, disliked them before the events in Syria? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Hagop reacted in Freedom Of Speech And Apostasy
Gypsy and anyone who's already read OP
Yet how to reconcile this with the fact that we have reports which have the death penalty for apostasy? Please read further here: http://www.tashayyu..../hudud/apostasy
There is only one very weak, desperate argument for curbing Freedom of Speech and that is for the sake of stopping apostasy to spread by convincing more members of the public. But there are a number of strong counter-arguments to this:
- death penalty for expressing one's apostasy turns them into martyrs for human freedom of opinion, which is a God-given bounty
- people can become confused as to why Islam needs to silence dissent so desperately as to kill them - which does not reflect well on the religion
- sometimes, expressing one's doubts and arguing against Islam can lead to a better understanding of Islam and break away the superstitions
- killing an apostate creates unnecessary publicity for a person who spouts falsehood
- dissenters, in fear of their lives, would go underground, even so far as to conspire against the Islamic state which enforces this tyranny over opinion
- nifaq or hypocrisy in opinion and religion can affect other aspects of society too, giving rise to a distrustful, inauthentic and fraudster community.
- in the absence of the Imam, it becomes a tool for arbitrary punishment of any dissent against the ruling interpretation (even if they are scholars)
- it automatically positions the dissenter as somehow confused and needing rational cure, giving the rest of the population - including the rulers - a false sense of superiority.
- it stagnates understanding of religion, preferring the status quo even if it is full of superstition, and it helps prevent any reform
- people who would otherwise express their ideas and stimulate thought would, out of fear, keep silent. This discouragement of novel insight or criticism dulls the public intelligence and leaves them susceptible to private doubts and ignorance and superstition
- by cutting off voices, resentment can become widespread leading to revolts which would then endanger the Islamic state as well as Islam's reputation
- it dictates for the future generations what they must believe regardless of what they think or risk the death penalty, when they also would like to listen to the Qur'an, read the arguments, reflect free from any compulsion and choose as they see fit
- it is a massive vote of no confidence in rational discourse in solving problems, opting for force as the ultimate arbiter of truth
I struggle to find sense in the Laws of Apostasy beyond the exceptions set out in the OP.
Hagop reacted to Gypsy in Freedom Of Speech And Apostasy
The apostasy or the blasphemy laws makes absolutely no sense to me. There are verses in the Quran that supports the freedom of religion. No one can be forced to accept a certain religion/belief. It has to come naturally because you either believe in something or you don't.
And if someone doesn't believe in something, what can you do?
Hagop reacted in Freedom Of Speech And Apostasy
This is about Freedom of Opinion - when it is expressed in Speech - and Islamic law, especially the Laws on Apostasy.
Aside from certain speech like endangering the existence of the Islamic state, slander, racism or insulting the holy icons of religions, especially Islam, where it comes to giving an opinion, I cannot help but see that a person must be free - absolutely free - to believe what s/he finds to be proper, to express it to his/her family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and anyone s/he meets, to argue his/her case in the hope that others agree, and not to fear punishment.
(Please bear in mind that when I say absolute free speech, I do not count those exceptions set aside at the start. Absolute means Absolute in giving an opinion.)
This is not for the sake of liberal values, but for the sake of Islam and Truth. If anyone argues for any - any - limitation on Absolute Freedom of Speech (aside from those special exceptions), they should answer this question: in the absence of the Imam, who is to be the arbiter of when a given opinion transgresses the limitation?
Any arbiter, even if it is the eminent scholars, would be fallible. Is considering music halal, kufr? What about teaching philosophy? Is expressing that the Imams have wilaya takwini shirk? Would it be kufr to believe in wahdat al-wujud? Is a rejector if the Imamat a kafir worthy of being silenced? What about someone who believes that hijab should not be enforced in the absence of the Imam? What about someone who verbally opposes an Islamic Government in the absence of the Imam? What if someone believes that the Prophet received revelation from his subconscious in the form of the archangel Gabriel? Is that Kufr deserving death or silence? How about believing that Adam and Eve were descended from apes? Should all these people be silenced? Some of them? Which ones? By force?
Now, let us consider the time when the Imam is present. Aside from those exceptions, wouldn't any fear of punishment only create a society containing underground hypocrites who are silenced yet conspiring against a state that kills their minds from expressing their conclusions only because they deviate from the established line?
Argumentation only makes sense when one is free to reason through and accept or reject the conclusions. Otherwise, the argumentation is just pretence. A disbeliever in Christianity would find it preposterous if the Church allowed it to convert after a session of argumentation, only to be forced to accept afterwards, regardless of their convictions. It would delegitimise the Church. A disbeliever in Islam would feel exactly the same.
Wouldn't many people be confused as to why Islam either kills the ideas it rejects or, if it resists, kills the ideologue in the hope of killing the idea? Wouldn't some who are religiously weak, uncertain - or have doubts - feel that Islam fears other ideas? And isn't fear a sign of inferiority? Wouldn't this push them to distrust Islam?
Isn't this the difference between Truth and Falsehood that Truth demonstrates itself by evidence, rational proof and clear arguments whereas Falsehood seeps through emotions, illusions, brute force and sophistry?
Wouldn't Islam - by being brutal against dissent - appear too similar to Falsehood?
Wasn't Truth the first to request Absolute Freedom of Speech in the midst of pagan Falsehood, when the latter persecuted the Truth? Wouldn't it be hypocritical and immoral for it to silence Freedom of Speech the moment it has come to power?
Don't all generations - including the future generations - have the right to listen to the Prophets, read their arguments, reflect on their wisdom, and choose like free human beings, a freedom bestowed to them by God? Doesn't this freedom mean accepting the possibility that they may beg to differ? Can we dictate what our children must believe or die?
And finally, isn't the Qur'an most adamant that Muslims are to argue beautifully, listen to all speech, and decide that which is the best? Isn't the Qur'an in its Meccan verses requesting the pagans to listen, not to arrogantly turn away, and not to persecute? Isn't the Qur'an in its Medinan verses patiently tolerating the scheming munafiqun? Isn't the Qur'an eerily silent about punishing apostasy?
Yet, the death penalty for apostasy is a reality. We have it in the Sunna. My question is this: except for the tiny exceptions set aside at the beginning, does it really make sense for anything else?
I find it more damaging to Islam, Truth and peace of mind for Freedom of Speech not to be Absolute.
Hagop reacted to Saintly_Jinn23 in Homosexual Struggle For Rights In Arab World.
I honestly think there does need to be intellectual dialogue on the subject of LBGT rights, particularly in the Post-Revolution Middle Eastern countries, but I also believe in the principle of democracy, that the Middle Eastern people need to decide for themselves, without foreign pressure, what sort of ethics they want their country to uphold.
Contrary to what people think, a nation-state can't just be for everybody, it needs a strong foundation that is not so easily moved in order to survive both culturally and politically. A system of DO's and DO NOTS decided by the society. If the Middle Eastern countries have decided through democratic means that they do not want such behavior as lesbianism and sodomy in their countries, then they have decided that and it is wrong to try to force them to believe and behave otherwise. However, as Muslims, we must be considerate and understanding of people as well as dispense justice and handle social problems in a civilized and dignified manner. If the Arab world decides it wants such behavior as comes with an LBGT community, then that community can rejoice. But if they legitimately decide "no" than I think the LBGT needs to suck it up and deal with it like everyone else in a society that gets the short end of the stick or just go someplace else. Nothing bothers me more than people who lose and then act like spoiled sports cause fate dealt them a bad hand. Likewise, those who feel homosexuality or transsexualism is wrong but society democratically decides to permit it need to suck it up and deal with it as well. I'm Muslim, live in a society where it has become more or less acceptable and perfectly legal, but you don't see me crying over losing, it's not up to me alone.
One thing that bugs me about certain LBGT rights groups tho is I feel they bully people, including other homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals who don't particular ascribe to their political views. Some homosexuals actually don't care about getting married to eachother, or showing up in pride parades in weird costumes, and some feel that the lifestyle they chose is a choice they made of their own moral and individual accord rather than "God made them this way," and that they could have never helped even if they wanted to. And because they think like this, other LBGT groups stigmatize them for not joining up in their movements and rallies.
Hagop reacted to Ali_Hussain in Homosexual Struggle For Rights In Arab World.
I don't want to offend anyone, but most arab guys who try to be 'western' end up looking like homosexuals anyway (tight clothes, open v neck t-shirts, stupid hair cuts etc - though I guess that may no longer the case for Iraq), and by most accounts, pre-marital homosexuality is rife in these countries, though more so in the gulf. The point is, they could easily go by unnoticed, if they wanted to, but a lot of them want to be martyrs for the cause.
Hagop reacted to Marbles in Kashmir Issue
Good post, Hagop. You summed it up succinctly. +1
I couldn't do justice with a topic as complex and multi-layered as this in a few compact words. This is off-topic and quite long, indeed, very long. So skip this post those who don't want to read it.
Jinnah's political trajectory was defined by a gradual but decisive change and, in my opinon, can be described on two fronts. 1) His reaction to Indian socio-politial circumstances and 2) his personal quest for leadership.
Jinnah appeared on the Indian scene as one of the most prominent young Congress leaders, if not the most prominent, in 1910s and 1920s, wholly endorsed by men like Naoraoji and Gokhale, a Zoroastrian and a Hindu respectively, his mentors. He was instrumental in changing the character of Muslim League from an elite club loyal to the Raj to an independence-seeking party, hitherto seen by the Raj officials as counter-weight to Hindu dominated agitation of the Congress, now turned into a potent threat to the Raj, just three years after Jinnah joined the League.
His successes in bringing the League on the same platform as Congress, as a member of both parties, and in framing a collective working method was hailed by one and all. His achievement as architect of the Lucknow Pact of 1916 is held to be of pivotal importance in independence struggle even if one, in principle, objects to the idea of separate electorates as inherently divisive. According to Stanley Wolpert, if Indian demands for Independence stipulated in that plan had continued with a united front created that year, the independence of India could well have been brought forward a couple of decades, with Jinnah's portrait printed on Indian bank notes of a free India. However that was not destined to happen.
Even before the year of Lucknow Pact, 1916, Jinnah had supported political safeguards for Muslims. At first his support for safeguards was to ensure Muslim support to Congress' national cause. The fear, whether founded or not, of being turned into an irrelevant and oppressed minority in Hindu majoritarianism after the British had gone ran strong in Muslim minds. The aggressive and expanding politics of Hindu right-wing movements and parties, like that of Hindu Mahasabha, served to cement those Muslim fears.
Even a hint of proposal of special safeguards for Muslims in political/electoral reforms was met with complete and utter vehemence by Gandhi, arguing that it would set the tone for further division of the religious communities and such constitutionally recognised separate identities would further drive the wedge between Muslims and Hindus. Yet it can be argued that Gandhi's refusal was exactly the sort of attitude which drove Jinnah and Muslims away from the Congress. After the initial success of Lucknow Pact 1916 and it's ultimate failure, precipitated in no less measure by Gandhi, for all the good intentions he had had, embittered Jinnah found it harder and harder to influence Congress policies, which, by 1920, were taken over by Gandhi, aided by his unquestionable popularity among Indian masses.
The repeated failure of Jinnah to persuade his Hindu colleagues of the need to win Muslims to Congress through political safeguards convinced him that Congress was a party concerned only with gaining power on the back of Hindu majoritarianism and that at the expense of religious minorities. Jinnah came to believe that Congress only paid lip service to secularism and communal equality, values Jinnah held in high esteem, and that in practice it neglected both values when given a chance to power. Yet, one must marvel at the great irony that, in time, it was the Congress which came to rule over a secular, if imperfect, India and Jinnah, for all his secularism and his struggle for equality for Muslims, came to preside over a religiously-defined, theocentric polity.
But, again, it did not happen at once. It took at least a decade, from mid-30s to mid-40s, for Jinnah to metamorphose into a communal leader, employing Islamic rhetoric to rouse Muslim sentiment, even going so far as to shed off his English Seville Row suits in favour of sherwani coats and caps identified with Muslims. From deploring a mere mention of an individual's personal faith, he came to see an individual's professed religion as sole or main criterion for determining his political affiliations.
Despite that, the idea of Pakistan remained for Jinnah a bargaining tool to bring adamant Congress leadership to the talking table, as testified by the fact that the much-touted Lahore Resolution, which put forward the demand for a Pakistan, couldn't actually define it: Whether it was a state or states, whether it was a separate country outside India or a semi-autonomous polity within the Indian Union. Jinnah couldn't answer when questioned by the English press. His definition of Pakistan remained vague and illusionary precisely because he never put serious thought into really winning a separate, independent country with international borders outside India.
The Idea of Pakistan retained its importance as a bargaining tool as late as 1946. Jinnah was willing to accept a Pakistan within India, that is, 'a grouping of internally autonomous Muslim-majority provinces within the Indian confederation.' By this time, it was not only Gandhi who opposed it; Nehru, with the consensus of Congress, also rejected it out of hand. The failure of Indian parties to agree on Cabinet Mission Plan drove the final nail in the coffin of a united India.
Now a few words on the personal side:
There was a profound clash of personalities between the two most important leaders of the independence, Jinnah and Gandhi. Their methods and ideas for independence were greatly divergent and perhaps can be said to be antithetical to each other. Jinnah was a staunch secularist who couldn't stand a mention of religious faith in political discourse; Gandhi's every expression was imbued with deep (Hindu) religiosity. Jinnah was a constitutionalist par excellence and a legalist who wanted to win over British by employing their own methods; Gandhi was a mass agitator and in that capacity the leader of a number of massive civil disobedience movements. For Jinnah it was beneath his respect and dignity to be jailed; Gandhi believed if he was let to remain free by the British, it meant he wasn't doing enough for Independence. Both of them absolutely found no common ground in propounding their ways for attaining independence - the goal they had set their lives and minds on.
Jinnah had a high opinion of himself. His meritorious rise through the ranks of Congress and sudden and painful fall after the arrival of Gandhi at Indian scene engendered a dislike of Gandhian politics and personality which lasted all his life. Jinnah couldn't accept a "half naked Fakir", as Churchill dubbed Gandhi, to be at the forefront of the most important struggle for which Jinnah had devoted himself. The seeds of hurt ego sown in the '20s grew into a tree as time flew past. In the years approaching Independence, particularly after a reclusive and soul-searching retreat in England in the early '30s, Jinnah returned to India determined to make a mark on the Independence Movement, and that he did.
The disagreements between Jinnah and the man who become the most important leader of Congress, Pandit Nehru, were no less profound. Nehru was a hardcore socialist who believed in strong central government and universal welfare. This dream couldn't be realised in the uncertainty of an Indian confederation, constituting as it would have been of internally autonomous provinces and perhaps semi-autonomous princely fiefdoms with only defence and foreign affairs in the hands of Centre. He'd rather have a cut up India, but that which would be moulded into his political philosophy, rather than a united India with weak central government, big landowning elite and a backward, poor society.
I venture to opine that, except the Mahatma that was Gandhi who foresaw the horrors of Partition and its continuing consequences, both Jinnah and Nehru (along with Patel), and more generally the League and the Congress, in the final years approaching Independence, became so myopic and lacking in foresight, perhaps even excited at the prospects, that the greater good of their country and people became subservient to their political convictions and personal successes. It was a collective failure and we are still reeling under it in the year 2012.
On Sher-e-Kashmir later. Thanks for taking a look at the blog.
Hagop reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Is Iran Technically A " Fundamentalist" Country?
Y u no post this in "thinker's discourse" section?
Anyway, I'd say no it isn't fundamentalist regime, based on my understanding of religious fundamentalism, as with any fundamentalist movement, it seeks to revive or bring back the founding principles of the religion, and is often puritanical.
The term has many negative connotations, which are not neccessarily valid, as many mistake the term "fundamentalist" with "extremist" and the two are very different.
Wilayat al Faqih to me is not a concept that is going back to the founding principles as such, but one that is trying to reconcile with a contemporary issue, that the Imam is present... yet not quite so at the same time.
I'd say that the Wahabi establishment in Saudi Arabia is fundamentalist - as they believe at least - that they are going back to the Islam as practised by the Salaf, and thus reformed the society they were in by going back to the roots in the strictest and most literal of terms.
The Taliban also can be argued to have been a fundamentalist regime, as they tried to model contemporary Afghan society on the 7th century of the Prophet's time, again with literal zeal.
Hagop reacted to Gypsy in Can Religion And Capitalism Mix?
We should *NOT care about purity of any man made system. If it doesn't work then it needs to be challenge and changed to make it work. And it is not difficult to change something if you have political powers.
I personally believe that root of all evil is politics. Bad politics will destroy the economy, social, religion, education and every single thing on sight.
Hagop reacted to Saintly_Jinn23 in Can Religion And Capitalism Mix?
I understand your position, but it kinda depends on whether or not a regulated capitalist market is technically considered capitalist anymore. The way I see it, if a capitalist society has a regulated market, it is no longer technically capitalist market/economy in the purest sense of the what kind of system the word implies.
Hagop reacted to Saintly_Jinn23 in Can Religion And Capitalism Mix?
Ideally, it should, but the problem is when it sits in one place for too long and the flow is not steady and constant. And if you don't have proper regulations to ensure that doesn't happen and if people who do that are not answerable to the people and a government representative of the people, what's gonna stop them?
What I mean by the flow of money from one point to another is the circulation of money through the market by the selling and purchasing of consumer products and the resources to make them.. So and so buys something this person, and that person buys something from this person, who buys from this person, who buys from this one, who gives the money to this guy, and so on until the money comes right back to where it came from in the first place. The trouble occurs when people start spending in ways that does not create a proper flow of the money. When the wealth doesn't "trickle down" from those who have it to those who don't through their purchasing and paying them for their labor or goods, who in turn use that money to purchase labor and goods from others who give that money to someone else too for labor and goods. If too much money is in the hands of a small number of individuals without them spending enough and letting it flow through the economy, then people "come up dry," because not enough is flowing from the high ground to reach them. When the rich stock up on wealth and refrain from spending enough of it, it's like somebody building a dam and stopping water from reaching another area downstream.
Hagop reacted to beardedbaker in Akhlaq & Sayr Wa Suluk Sub Forum
''many of us believe''?? can you please direct me to the sources of 'ijma' you used to come to this conclusion??
we have a general discussion forum where anything non-religion related can be discussed, but not one dedicated to expose people to some knowledge for soul refinement?!
you for real? sufism being a fundamentally wrong concept? which sufism is that? the one practised by Allamah Tabataba'i?? or you think his mannerism was un-islamic? have you read Nahjul Balghah? what do you call Amir-ul Mu'mineen's sermons on Zuhd? pointless deviant practices??
come on brother, we're grown-ups here. some of us on SC are older than the majority of regular forum users and feel that there's a thirst for some practical irfan knowledge. some of it might be in languages that most don't understand, and we're capable enough to at least translate those sources. I bet if you collect all the contributions relating to this topic you could fill a pages in a forum.
If we need to appoint a dedicated mod for this, I could suggest a couple of names....
Hagop reacted to Muhammed Ali in Akhlaq & Sayr Wa Suluk Sub Forum
I knew that this would be a problem for some of you, because you are anti-irfan. For this reason I didn't use the word 'irfan' or 'spirituality' when suggesting a name for the sub-forum. If you are that concerned about sufis or new age mystics posting on the forum, then call it something like a 'self building' forum.
I don't hold typically irfani views at all but I don't think you can allow your our own personal views to avoid the creation of this sub-forum since many mainstream Shia disagree with your views. Shiachat is supposed to officially respect the views of those well known usuli scholars who happen to promote irfan. If you can allow a person who believes in tahrif (a minority view) to be a moderator and you have other moderators with minority views, then I am sure that you should overlook the fact that some members will post irfani material on that sub-forum.
Hagop got a reaction from Murteza in New Zealand Wants To Ban Hijab
A definition of hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
Where you see semantic games I see methodological consistency (or the lack thereof) on the basis of philosophical principles. I'm not looking for victory, just that societies and individuals act in accordance with what they claim to believe.
As a devout Muslim I believe that Divine Law mandates certain prohibitions (e.g. production, sale and consumption of alcohol, interest bearing loans, eating of pork etc). I also believe that it imposes certain actions (prayer, alms-giving, fasting etc). I believe I'm following God's law as revealed in His Book by doing so. I'm acting based on my principles. I believe that Shariah imposes limits in the personal and public spheres. Therefore it's not ideologically self-contradictory for me to support Iran's application of the hijab law. I accept secular law in NZ, Australia, Britain etc in so far as it does not encroach upon my ability to act upon my principles.
I would only be hypocritical if I claimed to be a secular liberal and supported the freedom to wear hijab in the West but not the freedom to not wear it in Iran (which doesn't claim legitimacy as a secular liberal state).
My argument is not about which system is superior. It's fine if a liberal disagrees with my world view (and sees theirs as the better one). However, if that same liberal argues that one of the reasons for the superiority of their beliefs over mine is the strong protection afforded by liberalism to freedom of religious belief and practice, and then proceeeds to curtail my ability to practice my beliefs, then clearly they are the hypocrite as per their self-professed beliefs.
Actually I don't believe in the wearing of niqab. On what basis do I hold this belief? On the basis that it is not mandated by Divine Law. Whether or not you personally agree with me about the validity of Divine Law, it cannot be denied that I'm expressing an opinion based upon my philosophical belief system (i.e. I'm being consistent).
On what basis do New Zealand's legislators and public seek to ban wearing of the niqab? "I don't like it" or "It looks strange" or "Muslim countries impose limits on dress, so we'll do the same" or "Muslim scripture does not mandate this garment" are not arguments consistent with liberal philosophy. Btw, these very same arguments can be used to ban the hijab. If a liberal argues that the niqab should be banned because it is oppressive to a woman, even if that woman freely chooses to wear it, then this is also problematic from a classical liberal perspective.
You argue that:
So an Australian or NZ citizen, who is Muslim, has no right to critique the foreign or domestic policy of the country in which they hold citizenship, unless they also criticize the policies of some other country from which they or their ancestors might not even originate? Does this apply to non-Muslim citizens of Australia? Do you consider yourself a liberal democrat? If so, do you not see how this is contrary to liberal democracy?
As I said previously to Arash, my question is the following: who is acting hypocritically within the context of their self-professed philosophy?
Hagop reacted in The Non-muslims Fate?
This is a great in depth study into religious pluralism and the varying viewpoints involved in this matter. A very good read into a theological problem that Muslims often face today by members of other faiths and non-believers.
By the late Shaheed Mutahari
Hagop reacted to 5a49 in Exactly 9 Years Ago
Saddam is just another defenition of a person with greed to power.
Living in castles, committing sins, spending a lot of money, killed innocent people, and in the end he died, and no one remembers him, and there he will stand in Judement Day with his head down.
Hagop reacted to Ali Musaaa :) in From Nakshawani To Yaser Al Habib
I have, I have also seen his website. The man is not benefitting Islam at all with some of his decisions. Clearest example would be when he celebrates the death of the wife of the Prophet... This is seriously pathetic. There is no benefit that could be achieved by this and all it does is cause problems with the other Schools by insulting and degrading individuals that other Schools love and respect.
Imagine how many innocent Muslims will see this and think that the Shia are insane, literally. Imagine how we would be treated because of the actions of this individual. No doubt, he is quite learned but I disagree and don't respect some of his decisions that he has made.
Hagop reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in From Nakshawani To Yaser Al Habib
I guess OP is referring to which lecturer he has taken a liking to. Personally I don't find this Yasser Habib fellow to be likeable, he never smiles either, and comes off a bit cold, but that's just my impression based on a few of his vids on youtube. Nakshawani on the other hand appears genuinely like a nice kinda dude, and has a more engaging tone in his talks. Yasser Habib talks too slow mang.
Hagop reacted to King in Kashmir Issue
Who cares? Do you want the oppression to end or just remain bitter about Pakistan's actions in the past and them simply behaving like states usually do. Forget what Pakistan's intentions are, just forget Pakistan all together, it maybe an evil, corrupt and a thief state telling others not to steal. Who gives a damn? What is the best resolution to this conflict? Get a neutral international body to intervene, force an international consensus on India and allow for a Plebiscite to be held. Kashmiris will most likely opt for independence, so let them be. India is oppressing Kashmiris in Kashmir, forget Pakistan and let the UN and International human rights organizations put an end to this ordeal. Pakistan's stance might be hypocritical, but for our practical purposes its current stance happens to be the right one, so let it go dude.
Hagop reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Kashmir Issue
And how many times are you going to ram it down our throat regarding this invasion of Kashmir? Are you looking for a medal or some recognition of some sort?
If you think I am arguing that Pakistan should have all of Kashmir you are wrong. I am dealing with the present fact that the Muslims in Indian occupied Kashmir are being oppressed and want independence. It is for them to decide.
However this Varun character here has spent much of this thread evading the recognition in this fact.
My point of contention is the present situation of Kashmir - you can go on harping about what happened in the past, just as much as Varun harps on about Pakistani war crimes in Bangladesh. But to what avail?
I also never stated that Pakistan were genuinely concerened for Kashmiris either - if you read my posts regarding water security.
That doesn't mean it should be set in stone. If they seek self-determination they should have that right - and yes for Varun's benefit, so too should the Balochis.