THE article under the abovementioned caption had appeared in the Magazine, September 25, 2005. The writeup did not provide a pleasant reading. It seemed that the writer had off loaded all his prejudices against the President of Pakistan, forgetting that it was not the president, but Pakistan that had been represented at the UN and the USA. Pakistan was a part of India and all the kings, rulers and emperors ruled India while sitting in Delhi. This part of our country was feudal-ridden territory. So had been the cultural lives of the Muslims in India. They had been simply soldiers and artisans. On the other hand, Hindus had the domination over the state affairs, just like the cabinet ministers of today and de facto rulers of India.

Therefore, to compare Musharraf with Manmohan Singh would not help us to overcome our inferiority complex, which the writer seems to be suffering from. A nation of thousand years of existence and a nation of half a century statehood cannot be put perripass.

There was not need to refer to the case of Sarbat Sindh. Obviously, the case was subjudice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and now decided still with an option of mercy petition before the President of Pakistan. Why should we be overwhelmed by India’s media publicity? Of course the President of Pakistan had lost his temper with reference to the rape cases. That way his image had been tarnished but we should not flared up to invite international media attribution. In this respect the White House had refused to get involved in the dispute (Dawn, September 28).

Let us remember that when the president is abroad, he represents Pakistan and not his individual personality. Man may come and go but the country is always there.

GHEEWALA A.G.M.
Karachi
 

The saint of Sehwan

APROPOS the letter of my fellow writer, Manzoor Hussain Kureshi (October 2, 2005), Shahbaz Qalander and Jalaluddin Rumi had their groundings in the Ismaili universities of Alamut. Shahbaz Qalander propagated the Maulaie creed that is widely practised in Sindh.

There are certain historical discrepancies in Mr Kureshi’s composition that want rectification. For one, Imam Rukhnuddin Khurshah was not the Grandmaster of the Gardens of Alamut that are described by the Italian traveller Marco Polo, (Professor Phillips Hitti, History of the Arabs, Page: 447). Rukhnuddin Khurshah was the reigning Imam when Alamut succumbed to the might of the Mongol army of Heleku Khan, in December 1257. Rukhnuddin was executed immediately after the conquest of Alamut by Heleku Khan and contrary to what Mr Kureshi states, he could not, therefore have played any role after the fall of Alamut.

Sheikh Saadi passed through Alamut after the terrible destruction, and testified how brutally the savage Mongols had vandalized Alamut. Rukhnuddin Khurshah’s son Shamsuddin Mohammed succeeded his father and counselled the Ismailis who had escaped the slaughter by fleeing to Uzbeckistan where they kept a low profile 1801.

MOHAMMAD AZIZ HAJI DOSSA
Karachi

 

Right to know

THIS is with reference to Amar Jaleel’s article Right to Know (October 16). If someone tries to find solutions to the problems that may occur in everyday life in the present times according to religious injunctions, it is not presumed in good sense. Ironically, religious scholars and clergies are more interested in criticizing others’ faith and not giving due attention to preaching Islam through love and tolerance.

It is the keen responsibility of ulemas to find out the solutions of problems pertaining to present burning issues. In the past, religious institutions rendered great services and were viewed with respect. But now they are not getting fruitful results and they are reluctant to join hands in conveying to the masses the real understanding of Islam.

Syed Mehmood Hassan
Hyderabad