-
Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.
A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai
For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."
The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!
-Ferishta, 1560–1620 -
Admin Khan, don't you think what he said was right in that and in the present scenario ?
This is one of my favorite videos in my computer for a long time. -
There has been this consistent view from other side of the Indus that Afghans fighting the Russians/Americans are front-line troops for Islamabad. Unfortunately this means that Pashtun lives as a whole are expendable; that our aspirations and potential for peace and development don't matter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tor_khan View Post
دا درواغ وایي
هر یو کس د ادعا کولی شي د سیاسي هدف لپاره
خو رښتیا دا ده چه دی خلکو کله هم په افغانانو باندی اثر نه دی لرلی
دوی سرف هلته جلال اباد کښی پوسټرونه لکول په ځنو ځایونو کښی
دوی نه افغانان ډیر د جرمني لپار وجنګیل او دواړه جرمنیان یی یو ځای کړل
خو رښتیا ده چه ټولو وکټله، خو د افغانانو د وینو پر سر.
Comment
-
Originally posted by بریدمل View Postدرواغ پکی چیرته ؟ دا نه منی چې په افغانستان کښی چې څومره جنګونه تیر شوي دي په دي کښی پاکستان د نورهیوادونه سره خپله ګټه کتلی ده ؟ په دی خبره کښی څه شک شته ؟
Comment
-
my view of ziaulhaq is of disdain. i cannot say if it was his intention that afghanistan suffer they way it has. it begins with his vision of islam, the flogging, hand amputations of sinners was flawed in execution, a cart-before-the-horse scenario.
the implementation of certain aspects of sharia penal codes was challenged by the saudis (the experts in sharia penalties of flogging, amutation, decapitaion
); the saudis stressed to zia that before implementing the punishments, provide the (honest) institutions of social support for your people, and improve their lot, get them out of poverty and misery, which breeds crime, and if the people still commit crimes then you can apply sharia penalties. he flogged hundreds of the poor, and petty criminals, yet executed only one rich landowner. okay this is one of the reasons I find zia foul.
Back to the video clip, it is a tiny skit from the whole bloody scheme events, and out of context this can be perceived as pakistan's genuine support of afghanistan. far from it.
had ziaulhaq offered pakistans troops to join in an allied force to fight against russian invasion, it would have been a different story, genuine act of support of afghanistan; like the allied forces did against nazi germany's invasion of poland, france, belgium etc. (as in pak soldiers in their uniform, side by side with mujahidin in their longis and pakols, on the front lines against russians)
rest of the events, like the disasterous schemes of ISI to train the mujahidin, which where riddled with actions that primarily addressed pakistan's own security concerns - that is what this video has highlighted in retrospect.
the rest:
the brain washing of afghans, the refugees and proto-mujahidin, is another consequence of his flawed policies and lack of control of his officers, military and secret services, whether intentional or not is insgnificant to the damage caused to afghanistan.
the foreign aid money siphoned by the pakistanis instead of being fully utilised for the afghan refugees, the mal-treatment of afghans by pakistani authorities, is again a reflection of pakistani individuals and their corruption, is perhaps not due to zia but endemic problem of his country.
he was a mohajar, he was a soldier who rose throught the ranks - hence an under dog who had to bite harder, bark louder to be felt and heard. He, by ZAB's poor judgement, took command of the army and then the country. a general runs an army, not civilians. he was the wrong man, a misguided zealot who contributed to the suffering of afghans, my feeling is that it was not his intention, he only knew the military overview of the region and lacked the broader vision of a genuine stateman that he imagined himself to be, and his knowledge of islam appeared to be that of a village mulla.Last edited by torkham; 08-19-2012, 01:45 AM.Comment
-
Well, he was an Islamic minded person no doubt and he was a very sincere person unlike other Pakistani politicians and generals, one example of such generals we can see now sitting in London can't dare to come back.Originally posted by torkham View Postmy view of ziaulhaq is of disdain. i cannot say if it was his intention that afghanistan suffer they way it has. it begins with his vision of islam, the flogging, hand amputations of sinners was flawed in execution, a cart-before-the-horse scenario.
the implementation of certain aspects of sharia penal codes was challenged by the saudis (the experts in sharia penalties of flogging, amutation, decapitaion ); the saudis stressed to zia that before implementing the punishments, provide the (honest) institutions of social support for your people, and improve their lot, get them out of poverty and misery, which breeds crime, and if the people still commit crimes then you can apply sharia penalties. he flogged hundreds of the poor, and petty criminals, yet executed only one rich landowner. okay this is one of the reasons I find zia foul.
Back to the video clip, it is a tiny skit from the whole bloody scheme events, and out of context this can be perceived as pakistan's genuine support of afghanistan. far from it.
had ziaulhaq offered pakistans troops to join in an allied force to fight against russian invasion, it would have been a different story, genuine act of support of afghanistan; like the allied forces did against nazi germany's invasion of poland, france, belgium etc. (as in pak soldiers in their uniform, side by side with mujahidin in their longis and pakols, on the front lines against russians)
rest of the events, like the disasterous schemes of ISI to train the mujahidin, which where riddled with actions that primarily addressed pakistan's own security concerns - that is what this video has highlighted in retrospect.
the rest:
the brain washing of afghans, the refugees and proto-mujahidin, is another consequence of his flawed policies and lack of control of his officers, military and secret services, whether intentional or not is insgnificant to the damage caused to afghanistan.
the foreign aid money siphoned by the pakistanis instead of being fully utilised for the afghan refugees, the mal-treatment of afghans by pakistani authorities, is again a reflection of pakistani individuals and their corruption, is perhaps not due to zia but endemic problem of his country.
he was a mohajar, he was a soldier who rose throught the ranks - hence an under dog who had to bite harder, bark louder to be felt and heard. He, by ZAB's poor judgement, took command of the army and then the country. a general runs an army, not civilians. he was the wrong man, a misguided zealot who contributed to the suffering of afghans, my feeling is that it was not his intention, he only knew the military overview of the region and lacked the broader vision of a genuine stateman that he imagined himself to be, and his knowledge of islam appeared to be that of a village mulla.
Zia used to offer salah five times a day with tahajjud in time. He used to carry Quran all the time where ever he used to go, he really wanted to implement Islamic laws in Pakistan but there were some hurdles in the shape of the international community pressures and the internal shia rivalry. Shia thought that the islamic system will be used against them thought it was not like that.
You are right, though he had come from a military background that is why he just want to give orders. But amazingly he was a person he used to consult with the religious people from all schools of thoughts on Islamic issues and he used to listen to them with care.
You are right he did not use army against Russians but poor pashtuns, it was because he could not fight openly, even Americans could not do that way but fought it indirectly. But fighting the Afghan war don't you think he did something good. If he would not fight that time what would be the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan now ? Don't you think half of our people would have been non Muslims now and most of them would have been secular minded who don't believe in religion ? Don't you think Russians wanted to bulldoze everyone like Nazis ?
I think that time his decision to support people fighting the Afghan war was cry of the day. May be it was Allah's decision.Comment
-
نه مقشد می نه دی چه و وایم ته درواغ وایی، ضیآلحق درواغ وایيOriginally posted by tor_khan View Post
بلکل یی درسره منم چه د نورو په شان پاکستان هم ګټه وکړله.
خو څه ګټه یی وکړله؟ یو دا چه د روس او کامیونیزم نه بچ شول خو اسلي ګټه یی
دا وه چه د مهاجرینو پر سر یی ډیری پیسی وګټلی.دا هم رښتیا ده چه ضیآلحق وایلی
وو چه کابل دی وسوزول شي او کابل هم و سوزیدو خو مطلب نه دی چه د ضیا
پر خبره یی و سوزولو بلکی هغوي(حذبونه) خپله دا کار یی وکړو.
زه هم په کابل کښی ومه کله چه "مجاهدین" کابل ته را داخل شول
او د ضیا نوم می اول وار په جلال اباد کښی واوریدو.
او هغه هم کله چه زمنږه قافله ودریدله ډوډی خوړلو لپاره.
حامد ګل هم دا ادعا کوي چه حقاني فکر د پاکستان په شانتی دی.
دی په وایلو دا پاکستان ته سیاسي قوت ور په برخه کوي.
بلی خاو نه د کرزي رجیم د دوی دا ادعاوی نور هم قوي کوي
او وایی چه سراج الدین حقاني پاکستانی دی،خو دا ټولو ته معلومه
ده چه حقاني څوګ دي او د کوم ځای دي.
قیصی به بیا کوو اوس زمه چه پراټی وخورمه اوس د اختر
لمونځ نه راغلی یمهComment
-
-
ضیآلحق او اسلام؟Originally posted by torkham View Postmy view of ziaulhaq is of disdain. I cannot say if it was his intention that afghanistan suffer they way it has. It begins with his vision of islam, the flogging, hand amputations of sinners was flawed in execution, a cart-before-the-horse scenario.
The implementation of certain aspects of sharia penal codes was challenged by the saudis (the experts in sharia penalties of flogging, amutation, decapitaion ); the saudis stressed to zia that before implementing the punishments, provide the (honest) institutions of social support for your people, and improve their lot, get them out of poverty and misery, which breeds crime, and if the people still commit crimes then you can apply sharia penalties. He flogged hundreds of the poor, and petty criminals, yet executed only one rich landowner. Okay this is one of the reasons i find zia foul.
Back to the video clip, it is a tiny skit from the whole bloody scheme events, and out of context this can be perceived as pakistan's genuine support of afghanistan. Far from it.
Had ziaulhaq offered pakistans troops to join in an allied force to fight against russian invasion, it would have been a different story, genuine act of support of afghanistan; like the allied forces did against nazi germany's invasion of poland, france, belgium etc. (as in pak soldiers in their uniform, side by side with mujahidin in their longis and pakols, on the front lines against russians)
rest of the events, like the disasterous schemes of isi to train the mujahidin, which where riddled with actions that primarily addressed pakistan's own security concerns - that is what this video has highlighted in retrospect.
The rest:
The brain washing of afghans, the refugees and proto-mujahidin, is another consequence of his flawed policies and lack of control of his officers, military and secret services, whether intentional or not is insgnificant to the damage caused to afghanistan.
The foreign aid money siphoned by the pakistanis instead of being fully utilised for the afghan refugees, the mal-treatment of afghans by pakistani authorities, is again a reflection of pakistani individuals and their corruption, is perhaps not due to zia but endemic problem of his country.
He was a mohajar, he was a soldier who rose throught the ranks - hence an under dog who had to bite harder, bark louder to be felt and heard. He, by zab's poor judgement, took command of the army and then the country. A general runs an army, not civilians. He was the wrong man, a misguided zealot who contributed to the suffering of afghans, my feeling is that it was not his intention, he only knew the military overview of the region and lacked the broader vision of a genuine stateman that he imagined himself to be, and his knowledge of islam appeared to be that of a village mulla.
ټوقی مه کوه.
زما ضیآلحق پر دی بدی شي چه د پلستینیانو پر قتل کښی یی
لاس لرو،په جوردان کښیComment
-
He was such a nice muslim guy..so sincere..he used to hold a quran all the time and he would even give salah 5 times a day... yet he didnt go to jihad himself...loL he even wanted to implement sharia in pakistan...but didnot suceed maybebecause his imaan wasnt strong enough or people did not supprt it...Comment
-
At that time he was holding two positions army chief and president. You can't fight when you are running the country as well. Even if he was a chief of army staff, you know chief of the army staff does not fight.Originally posted by Jamaludeen View PostComment
-
Friend and Jamaludeen: I have not judged Ziaulhaq's aqida or imaan, indeed he may have been a very pious Muslim, he shall be judged by Allah(ST). i remember he banned alcohol consumption in officer's mess's which was common in pak military. So he espoused Islamic values.
my opinion is that this pious five timer Muslim is also capable of making mistakes and for not going far enough, for a muslim leader and general, sitting next to Muslim brothers being invaded. my family and I, and other friends sat displaced in Pakistan (i am sure it is inconsequential, we could have been displaced through Iran) and observing in the media our afghan fighters resisting the Russians. Pakistan was not involved in the fighting; Zia raises this concern in the clip when he says:
‘with their freedom is our freedom’ and then something I didn’t understand, then,
‘khuda na khasta if they(afghans) have shikast/defeat, then the next number is us(Pakistan)’ So the shikast he referred to was shikast of afghans.
So as an individual he was a considered devout Muslim, as for a leader, he was not enough, his governance was lacking, because the support he received from the Americans was substantial, but the camps provided in Peshawar and elsewhere could have been funded by Pakistanis without American aid.
Question arose, where did the money go?
Pak secret services: Gen ZH ordered, ’march right!’, ISI sauntered left. And due to lack of governance Zia was saying one thing, what transpired later was something else.
Question, what is Pakistan’s agenda?
Fighting the Afghan war? Did Zia or his troops fight in the Afghan war?
The Americans? They just funded, delegated a war for their purpose.
What would happen if Zia not ‘helped’? Well America would have found another personality in Pakistan to channel their support, surreptitiously through Gwadar, Balocihistan, Kandahar. There are many in Pakistan who would have participated in the American plan.
Bredmal: The Zia Jordan/Israel incident I heard about it but can’t comment on.
I am willing to accept that it was not his intention to have an ulterior agenda, but the people he was in charge of (military/SS) certainly did, sadly the buck stopped with him. It is my contention he was the wrong man because he lacked the skill-set to be the General (who was helping his brothers), because in doing so so many suffered. He, I think, suffered visions of Sallauddin.
(BTW I was in Pakistan when Zia was in power, and recounting what I heard in the press and in the majlis).Comment
-
-
Torkham, i respect your view.. but there is no point..guessing..options...
fact remains.. you can either be a good muslim or not..
you can't be a good muslim in personal life..and not be one as a leader...Comment
Tweet
Comment