Talk:Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Wiki Project Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to Politics of Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents

[edit] Military career during 1971 war

Zia must've been quite a senior general or commanding officer during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 with India. But there is astonishingly no mention of his role or participation or accomplishments during that war (unarguably the greatest turning point in South Asia's history since the partition in 1947). Not even a single sentence is mentioned, though some tidbits about him being a tank commander during the 1965 war are present. Somebody with knowledge should probably expand this article. 220.225.2.107 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations required in the death section

The Death part contains this sentence, which, in my opinion, need citation. This is as follows:

Other groups who have fallen under suspicion include the Afghan Communists and Shi'ite separatist groups operating within Pakistan.

What does that Shi'ite separatist groups mean and please also mention the source.

[edit] Layout mess

Layout is now a mess. text at end needs to be cleaned up and moved up.

[edit] Removed POV stuff

There is probably some amount of neutrally-describable facts in the the following section of the article which I have excised. Nevertheless, it is such blatant editorializing that I felt obliged to remove it. Phrases like "it is an interesting fact" are major red flags that what follows is not fact at all, but merely opinion. Note that I knew nothing about the topic at hand before stumbling upon this article, but I knew at a glance that this content violated the NPOV policy. If you want to put it back, it will need to be phrased in a more neutral fashion. That is, it would have to written such that Zia ul Haq himself would have to agree that it neutrally described him.

It is an interesting fact of the history of Pakistan that all army dictators have promised to clean up the "corruption" in civilian politics and have in fact promoted corruption, horse-trading, turn-coatism and even blatantly bribed time serving politicians to gain a semblance of popular support.
Zia did the same. Before the execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Pakistan boasted a quasi civil government under the heel of the Martial Law, with ministers drawn from the Jama'at Islami, the Pakistan Democratic Party, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, various miniscule factions of the Muslim League -- all parties which repeatedly failed to garner any appreciable popular vote at the polls.
Another interesting feature of Zia ul Haq's rule was a brutalizing of Pakistan's society through what his government called "Islamization." In the name of Islam, legislation was enacted, which according to many scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, had nothing to do with Islam and its injunctions. Such legislation militated against the minorities, women, and the under-privileged strata of society.
In Pakistan, Zia's eleven years of rule are most often remembered for the public whipping of political dissidents, absolute censorship of the press, the country's acting as a conduit for money and material and training ground for the so-called Afghan Jihad, the proliferation of hard drugs and arms, and a hitherto unknown and especially vicious variety of sectarian and ethnic violence.

Nohat 07:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed more PoV stuff

What is not commonly known, although fully documented in the Pakistan and international press of the day,
is that the votes cast in the referendum through which Zia secured his Presidency were a mere two per cent of
the total registered vote at that time.

Another very important, and equally fully documented fact is that in Bhutto's trial on the charge of allegedly
conspiring to murder a political opponent, which alleged conspiracy resulted in the death of the opponent's
father, due process of law was totally bypassed.

Zia's Islamization too, was widely seen as a ploy to prolong his dictatorship, and many of the edicts and
amendments to the constitution of the country had literally nothing to do with Islamic Jurisprudence or Sharia.

The most lasting effect of eleven years of Zia's militray rule in Pakistan have been a vast increase in hard
drugs consumption, traffic and export, gun-running, and deep schisms in the body-politic of the country.
Exacerbating sectarian, ethnic and linguistic differences was a stock tactic for keeping the people at bay
during Zia's rule.

Again, some of this could probably be merged into the article in a NPoV way, but an anonymous user stuck it at the end of the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC


[edit] Condolences and Tributes by world leaders

I am not sure if the condolences bit is relevant to an encyclpedia article. Condolences and tributes are sent by world leaders(on anothers death) as a matter of protocol. Furthermore, they are more reflective of the respective country's foreign policy designs rather than that leaders personal views regarding General Zia. Any Comments?

Sandbreak 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I am not sure who is trying distort history by painting this guy as a saint, who is most hated personality in Pakistan and is generally considered to be the source of all the problems Pakistan is currently facing. If some of his deranged supporters think that used Wikipedia, they will turn the wheel of history, and using lies, will be able to disinform Pakistan and rest of the world they are mistaken. His actual resume summmary is as follows. He is generally known as Zia-ul-Batil, and was known as the Mad Monk of Pakitan. He used religion to perpetuate his illegimate rule and was resposible of derailing Pakistan from democracy. Was reposible for murders of thousands of political activists belonging to Pakistan Peoples Party. Was recruited by CIA to derail Pakistan from democratic path and overthrow of Z.A. Bhutto's elected government, and stop Pakistan from acquiring nuclear capabilities. This page and Z.A. Bhutto's page needs a complete overhaul, new set up and a new persona, and I will do this job pretty soon. Supporters of Zia-ul-Batil need to be taught a lesson in history, and new Z.A. Bhutto's page will do this historic duty!

[edit] Zia and Ahmadiyya

One aspect of Zia era which sticks out like a sore thumb is his hatred for Ahmadiyya community. Strangely enough no mention has been made of anti-ahmadi ordinance and outlandish laws in it of which you can not find any example in modern world. Zia had a personal hatred for Ahmadis which is evident in his attempts to arrest the leader of the community in 1984. This aspect of his rule should be included in the topic. Khokhar976 15:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Zia did that to cover his Ahmedi background. His British-era military service records revealed that he had declared himself Ahmedi and got a letter of recommendation from Qadian to get a good job in military. The anti Zia elements raised hell upon this discovery. His associates first tried to defend him by saying that it was impossible to get a good job in military during the British rule without a letter from Qadian. Then they claimed that many of the top military officers from British era were either Ahmedi or had a letter of recommendation from Qadian. They went to show how easy it is to get Canadian or European immigration if someone has a letter from Ahmediyya leader. Woodbridge, Toronto, Canada is full of immigrants who got by obtaining a letter from Ahmedi leader.
Despite these measures anti-Zia elements still consider him a covert Ahmedi. Hassanfarooqi 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this for a fact that Zia's wife had an Ahmadi background. She comes from an Indian Immigrant family in East Africa. So it is very much possible that he was loosely connected to the movement in his younger days. The letter from Qadian sounds a bit far fetched. In united india of 1930s onwards, the british attitude towards Jamaat became increasingly cold towards Qadian, so much so that Ahrar were given free hand to hold a Jalsa there. But, it is also a fact that being an Ahmadi is almost a certificate of good citizenship. That is why you will find western government having no problems with granting assylum to them. The letter you refer to is not of recommendation, but of confirmation that the assylum seeker is an Ahmadi. Which in turn confirms that He/she is suffering from Zia made laws of Pakistan. Every ahmadi suffers from them. They are very much universal in their applciation. Khokhar976 08:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that an Ahmedi does not suffer until he poses as a mainstream Muslim which is against Pakistan's law. Yet a letter gets him immigration rightaway and welfare subsequently. Compare this to other minorities such as Hindus (post Babari Mosque demolition) and Christians (post 9/11 backlash) who have genuinely suffered by the hands of fanatics. However Hindus can't get immigration in Hindu dominated India or Christian dominated Canada that easily. You community still enjoys the status of most preferred community by British and their subject countries Hassanfarooqi 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Infact out community enjoys the status of most preferred in all nations except for bigoted mullah-led regimes and nazis. Even Musharraf had to accept (despite the hanging sword of MMA) that Ahmadis are patriotic Pakistanis. Recently Nazis in east germany had a problm with our community, but German government supported us. Same goes everywhere else in the world. India has a legal system which protects everyone. What happens in pracitce is a seperate affair. But in Pakisan, laws are aimed at Ahmadis to prosecute them. Your saying that "does not suffer until he poses as a muslim" is daft to say the least. Actually the word "pose" is used in the law, which makes it even more laughable. All ahmadis believe to be Muslims. So there is no case of posing, but believing. Khokhar976 08:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go lying again. I said "does not suffer until he poses as a mainstream Muslim". You quoted me "does not suffer until he poses as a muslim". Note the missing word "mainstream". This is typpical of your community. Lying by misquoting. This way you prove that a British rebel Ubaidullah Sindhi was praising a British operative.
Pakistani law has no problem declaring yourself an "Ahmedi" but has a problem pretending to be a mainstream muslim like Shias and Sunnies, which you are not. As per the statement of your leader is Supreme Court, non Ahmedies are not Muslim by Ahmedi faith and therefore Ahmedies are not Muslim by Muslim faith. In view of this statement of your leader, any Muslim majority country has a right to declare you non Muslim. You defy this right by having Masjids like Muslims and Adhans like Muslim to fool simple unaware Muslims.
If believing Mohammed as a prophet but not the last one, gives you the right to call yourself Muslim, then believing in Christ to be a prophet but not son of God, gives you the right to call yourself Christian. Why dont you call yourself Christians, call your worshiphouse churches, and call your Mirza Ghulam Ahmed's saying as Bible's latest testament. I guarentee Pakistan will have no problem with this but do not know how the Christian world would react. Hassanfarooqi 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be no differnce between the rights of a mainstream muslim and a fringe muslim. I claim to be a muslim, a true muslim. You can call me whatever you like, but you can not force me to start calling myself what you wish. Pakistani law forces me not to call myself a muslim. You are trying to justify a law which says that you must curse some other faith before you can be declared as sirkari musalman on your passport. That is the most pathetic law in these times. Here is another "gem" of the law you admire. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C02%5Cstory_2-2-2007_pg7_11 Khokhar976 09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My claiming to be a Christian because I believe in the holiness of Jesus Christ does not make me a Christian and any claim to Christianity would be misleading and deceptive because I do not believe Jesus was son of God (the fundamental belief of Christianity). You belief in Mohammed's prophethood does not entitle you to be a Muslim because you do not believe he was the final one (a core belief of Islam). Your claim to Islam is false and deceptive. If Muslims start calling themselves Christians and the Masjids as Churches luring unknowing Christians, rest assured the United States WILL pass a law disbanding Muslims from calling themselves Christians. If we ignore the law and play with words to declare ourselves as Christians, there will be more specific laws and might ask us to deny that Mohammed was a prophet. Then if we do play with words to imply that we believed in Jesus as son of God (a spiritual one like all humans) etc, they might require us to curse prophet Mohammed. Luckily, none of us call ourselves Christians in the first place.
Per your leader's statement in Supreme Court, you religion IS different than ours. Posing yourself as a different religion than you practice, with an intent to deceive people contitutes of fraud and forgery anywhere.
The seeming stupid law came into force after the following events
- You continued to lie under oath for Muslims passport that you were Muslim, when caught your explanation was that per your beleif you were the only Muslims
- The law was changed to require that you declared that you are not Qadiani but you continued to lie under oath that you were not Qadiani. When cuaght, your explanation was that you were not born in Qadian so you were not Qadiani.
- The law was then changed to require you to declare that you believed in the finality of Mohammed's prophethood and did not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as prophet. You continued to lie under oath that you believed in the finality of Mohammed and did not consider him a prophet.
- Finally you were required to curse Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as this was the only way to seperate yourself from mainstream Muslims.
If you had not been stubborn in making a mockery of the law, such a stupid looking law was not needed. Hassanfarooqi 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"If Muslims start calling themselves Christians and the Masjids as Churches luring unknowing Christians, rest assured the United States WILL pass a law disbanding Muslims from calling themselves Christians."


Someone should seriously considering removing the biases in this article. The sections on "personal wealth" and the "murder of Bhutto" are clearly favoring the PPP opposition democratic movements within Pakistan at the time. Both perspectives need to be presented.

Update: I removed the World Leaders tribute. A "citation needed" request had been uploaded for some 5 months. Combining the long absence of the citation with the possible dubiousness of the content, I felt it would be better to remove the data until proper citations were provided.

Sandbreak Jan 20th '08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbreak (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)