Nerdy Nymph!

I have no idea about Afghanistan. I'd have to look it up.

BIRD!

It was too cool a bird not to share.

that is one adorable long-legged little bird...

"The Clover and the Plover can be told apart with ease..."

I knew you'd like the birdie.

OMG. That little bird just made me melt!

(see icon)

hee hee hee hee hee!

Can anyone tell me how and why Pakistan defends it's religious intolerance in the government? I can't find it and I need to write a paper regarding it.

yes, i can.

but i'm not certain what you mean.

Are you asking about persecution of Christians and other non-Muslim religions in Pakistan and why the Pakistani government doesn't do anything to stop said persecution?

Here's some links about the connections between the Pakistani government and radical madrassas in Pakistan:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FC10Df06.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2003/11/000215print.html

Pakistani Intelligence ties to Islamic radicalism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

Pakistani blasphemy law used in attacks against Christians:
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/Pakistan-blasphemylaws.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/751803.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_laws_of_Pakistan

hope the links help.

They DO. I have to have my paper reviewed in 45 minutes, but we don't submit the final yet.

..and mainly I'm looking for why despite being a member of the U.N. and their own constitution stating for religious freedom that they never do anything to change the oppression.

Short answer is that Musharraf cannot crackdown on Islamic radicalism too heavily due to his somewhat weak hold on power. He can trust the Army but he can't trust the ISI, the intelligence bureau.

Links:
"Critics have accused Musharraf's government of appeasing the religious vigilantes _ despite concerns that pro-Taliban hard-liners, intent on enforcing a stringent version of Islamic law or Shariah, are gaining sway in Pakistan."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900836.html

No pressure from the US to change behavior
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502073.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
(the author of this article very much knows his stuff, is an authority on current pakistani politics and islamic radicalism)

overview of Musharraf's current political problems:
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070801-094058-2587r

"President Musharraf faces a difficult task -- promoting an increasingly prominent role for women in government while keeping at bay the conservative tendencies within the clergy and the hard-line religious community." about women but some other info as well. check the links on the side also.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/bbaede32-3722-4bb2-b884-91869daa6224.html

please let me know if there's anything else I can help you with in this project or any future ones as well.

That's what I was getting off of the last ones. Hmm. You are great at finding information, it's no wonder Ali hired you back in the old day.

So there are no real answers, huh?

I'd say the answer is partially historical. Musharraf allows the persecution of Christians in Pakistan because he allowed the clerics of the Islamic fundamentalist Deobandi school to open madrassas as they felt like. This caused the radicalization of a large section of the Pakistani public, mainly young men. Now, if Musharraf were to move against the clerics and their followers, stopping them from prosecuting Christians, there'd be riots in the streets. And at this point, Musharraf doesn't want riots in the streets.

Actually in the paper I wrote I didn't focus at all on Christian oppression. The only group named specifically are the Ahmadi Muslims, cause they get hit the hardest.

Ah. Huge mistake and assumption on my part. My very bad.

No bad. It's natural to assume I would focus on that which is more familiar and closer to me. I originally chose Pakistan because of information from Christian freedom international. The paper is to show lack of religious freedom, though, and the Ahmadi just make a better example.

so it's all bad all you all the time!
if you'd told me that you were concentrating on the Ahmadi sect, i would have had the opportunity to learn about them. cuz i'm not familiar with them.
all bad all you all the time!

=P


Read up on them, it's interesting. They're not even allowed to refer to themselves as Muslim 0_o