[Hammaduersnes]

SLAMABAD: The parliament unanimously approved the final revised recommendations draft, regarding Pakistan-US relations, submitted by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PNCS) on Thursday.
PCNS Chairman Senator Raza Rabbani, while presenting the revised recommendations in the parliament had said that the recommendations had been drafted unanimously, indicating that there was consent of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman.
Rabbani said that should the parliament approve these revised recommendations, it will signal a new era when it comes to the formulation of Pakistan’s foreign policy and national security. He thanked all political parties in engaging themselves for the preparation of the new revised draft.
The PCNS chairman said that before this review, the foreign policy had been an exclusive domain of the establishment. This was the first time the parliament had decided matters of the foreign policy especially with respect to the US.
“Now the foreign policy of the state is in the hands of representatives of the people of Pakistan,” said Rabbani.
Earlier, Rabbani had announced that the committee had finalised the draft after reaching consensus among all the political parties. However, it was unclear whether Rehman, who was not present at the meeting, had agreed to the revisions.
According to Express News correspondent, the final draft doesn’t include an earlier condition that barred foreign countries from using Pakistani bases. Another condition that called for a ban on operations by foreign intelligence agencies was also removed from the final draft.
JUI-F chief Rehman wanted to submit his dissent note on the final draft and was earlier boycotting the proceedings of the committee, which is reviewing its recommendations regarding Pakistan’s engagement with the United States on the issue of Nato/Isaf supplies. President Asif Ali Zardari, however, on Wednesday held a meeting with Rehman and convinced him to attend the meeting today.
The committee took a two-and-a-half hour break before it finalised the recommendations.
On Thursday, the committee developed a collective opinion, linking the resumption of Nato supply lines to an end to drone strikes in Pakistan.
US looking forward to working with Pakistan after ties re-set
“We have seen that the joint session of the Pakistani parliament has just approved the final recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security. We respect the seriousness with which this review has been conducted. We look forward to discussing these policy recommendations with the Government of Pakistan,” Laura Lucas, a State Department spokesperson told The Express Tribune.
Before the break
Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) submitted three additional recommendations regarding intelligence operators, reopening Nato supply line minus transport of weaponry, and halting drone strikes.
The parliamentarians who attended the bicameral PCNS meeting confided to The Express Tribune that the panel will finalise a fresh draft of recommendations regarding Pakistan-US relations, but are focusing on an additional clause that would “force the US to stop drone strikes in Pakistan”.
“We have almost finalised a new draft that…all parties agreed to,” Chairman PCNS Raza Rabbani told reporters and added that the government is trying to convince Rehman to give his proposals for the new draft.
The JUI-F continued its protest and boycotted the meeting of the PCNS reviewing its recommendations regarding Pakistan’s terms of engagement with the US. The new draft (review) came after the opposition in the joint sitting said that some of the clauses were against the interest of the state.

[MYMcvBgl]

Those dollar donations seem to be working.............is this fazalur rahman a braiwali?

[EliteFranceska]

Those dollar donations seem to be working.............is this fazalur rahman a braiwali?

nope.

it's frightening that you would jump to that assumption.

[Hammaduersnes]

he's a deobandi maulana? why would he then consent to reopening of NATO supply that's gonna be used to help kill more Afghan Muslims?

[MYMcvBgl]

he's a deobandi maulana? why would he then consent to reopening of NATO supply that's gonna be used to help kill more Afghan Muslims?

Oh if he's deobandi than there must be hikmah in his decision [sarcasm]

[Hammaduersnes]

JUI-Fazl and JUI-Sami ul Haq I guess the parties split over their stance on NATO and Drones prior to DPC's formation? Are they both Deobandi?

[levitratestimon]

Oh if he's deobandi than there must be hikmah in his decision [sarcasm]

It is disingenuous of you to bring the Deobandi/Barelvi issue into this thread. Many Deobandis disagree with Ml. Fazlur Rehman and this is a political issue, rather than a religious one. Deobandis disagree with each other on many things, especially when it comes to politics and things besides the deen.

JUI-Fazl and JUI-Sami ul Haq I guess the parties split over their stance on NATO and Drones prior to DPC's formation? Are they both Deobandi?

Yes, both are Deobandis but both are not united because of differences in politics.

[Auzuigcx]

Maulana Ilyas Ghuman (db) Speech The Real Truth About Quaid-e-Jamiat And JUI (Maulana Fazlur Rehman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Qf08HKGWo

[Enfotanab]

It is disingenuous of you to bring the Deobandi/Barelvi issue into this thread. Many Deobandis disagree with Ml. Fazlur Rehman and this is a political issue, rather than a religious one. Deobandis disagree with each other on many things, especially when it comes to politics and things besides the deen.



Yes, both are Deobandis but both are not united because of differences in politics.

But allowing a NATO supply route to be resumed is definitely an issue of deen because of the ruling on those who aid the kuffar against the Muslims. I hope this news is not true otherwise FazlurRehman needs to fear for his imaan.

With regards to Maulana Sami Ul Haq, he is the father of the Taliban and the teacher of Mullah Umar; he wouldn't give his consent to this if his life depended on it

[levitratestimon]

But allowing a NATO supply route to be resumed is definitely an issue of deen because of the ruling on those who aid the kuffar against the Muslims. I hope this news is not true otherwise FazlurRehman needs to fear for his imaan.

With regards to Maulana Sami Ul Haq, he is the father of the Taliban and the teacher of Mullah Umar; he wouldn't give his consent to this if his life depended on it

No, it is not an issue of deen. Otherwise, one can argue that any Muslim who allies with Americans anywhere should fear for his imaan. That would mean that nearly 7 million Muslim Americans should fear for their imaan.

The entire issue isn't as clear cut as we'd like it to be. There are some, albeit insufficient conditions attached to this issue, such as having the US stop drone attacks in Northern Pakistan and to offer apology. It may be that the plan would have gone ahead with even more concessions made had Ml. Fazlur Rehman persisted in his protest against it.

[cenRealliat]

Those dollar donations seem to be working.............is this fazalur rahman a braiwali?

You will be disappointed-- this fazalur rahman is a DEOBANDI.
the people of Pakistan call him "Maulana Diesel" out of love-

[TeksPaisimi]

No, it is not an issue of deen. Otherwise, one can argue that any Muslim who allies with Americans anywhere should fear for his imaan. That would mean that nearly 7 million Muslim Americans should fear for their imaan.

This is definitely an issue of deen... there's a difference between, say, living in the Roman Empire, and voting to allow the Roman Empire to transmit supplies for their war against the Muslims.

Not that we don't have to fear for our imaan... in this place, you never know what some group will say next that you'll have to disassociate yourself from, that'll be skittering on the edges of apostasy.

[Manteiv]

But allowing a NATO supply route to be resumed is definitely an issue of deen because of the ruling on those who aid the kuffar against the Muslims. I hope this news is not true otherwise FazlurRehman needs to fear for his imaan.

With regards to Maulana Sami Ul Haq, he is the father of the Taliban and the teacher of Mullah Umar; he wouldn't give his consent to this if his life depended on it

No it is not a matter of Imaan/Deen. The Gulf Arabs have been supporting and aiding US/NATO wars against muslims for a very long time - most recently Afghanistan and Iraq. What it is and represents is another absolutely shocking and poor decision by the political leaders of Muslim nations. It will be the innocent who pay for these decisions. Whatever concessions were offered to Pakistan, I suspect (and could be wrong) are very poor and will be clawed back in one guise or another. They should not have allowed these routes to reopen - once closed, they should have drawn a line and left it at that - enough is enough. NATO can go ask the central Asians for entrance to Afghanistan - soon they'll want to kick NATO out aswell. The leaders who have allowed for this will have blood on their hands.They are foolish if they think NATO will follow their demands on this new agreement. NATO listens to noone and can easily 'reinterprit' the meaning of agreements to mean something more inline with their policy objectives - that signed piece of paper will make no difference to how they are.

Very bad decision indeed. Would like to see what was offered for this. Also, does the new agreement allow for NATO/US to start CIA drone missions (again) from Pakistan territory BUT attacking sites inside Afghanistan? Will it allow for irregular/mercenary forces on the ground or even just 'contractors' - which is really just trained killers on the ground under different names and guises (anybody remember Raymond Davis last year?). Several questions here that need clarifying.

Allahu A'lam

[Inenuedbabnor]

Fazul ul Rehman was against opening the supply but then he met the US ambassador and the next day he gave his consent. Its as if the US has a magic wand or something =/

[JulieSmithdccd]

Very bad decision indeed. Would like to see what was offered for this.

And do they have any brain to think of some thing called self-sufficiency?
Or alternative alliance to off-set the US pressure?
I hope that next time the drones get those ministers who think life is a cat walk.

[TeksPaisimi]

No it is not a matter of Imaan/Deen. The Gulf Arabs have been supporting and aiding US/NATO wars against muslims for a very long time - most recently Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then they're kuffar if they did that. It is an issue of deen.

http://www.islamibayanaat.com/MQ/Eng...ge-174-229.pdf < read the Tafsir of 5:51.

[Manteiv]

And do they have any brain to think of some thing called self-sufficiency?
Or alternative alliance to off-set the US pressure?
I hope that next time the drones get those ministers who think life is a cat walk.

Absolutely, Pakistan is not without means. It has well-developed institutions and a military to secure the place. They do not need NATO or the US and can take care of their own security. It is also clear that allowing the NATO/US back in to resume operations against Afghanistan is not in their interests - NATO will use it to attack the Taliban and cause mass casualties amongst the people living near the border. The Afghan Taliban have and will be the natural allies of Pakistan long into the future.

But the question is, after all the violence and trashing the US has done, why do they keep allowing these Crusaders back-in? What has the US/NATO offered these leaders?

If Pakistan needed a big foreign power with clout, surely China is the pick - they actually share a common border, have loads of trade and politically have veto power at the UN. It has been a longstanding ally of Pakistan even when NATO and the US turned on it and left it in turmoil accusing it of being a hotbed of terrorists. There is something not clear about this which stinks of corruption. The only conclusion I can come to after considering various scenarios is someone is being offered alot of money or power if they eventually buckle under pressure from US stooges in the Pakistan political administartion.

From the first post, why did they leave out the segment on not allowing US troops/mercenaries/spies on the ground and why was the bit about Pakistani bases also left out of the final draft?

Astaghfirullah, it at times like these, that I feel inside me that our leaders actions, not once but on multiple ocassions, are indicating Nifaaq. Not just in Pakistan but this can be said about many other prominent Muslim nations aswell.

Allahu A'lam

[Manteiv]

Then they're kuffar if they did that. It is an issue of deen.

http://www.islamibayanaat.com/MQ/Eng...ge-174-229.pdf < read the Tafsir of 5:51.

The reason they have supported in the past is because they were duped into it and also partly due to worry of other 'isms' gaining ground in the area. Not because they were against the deen per se. However, I do not believe these worries justified the kind of action they resorted to in allowing for Kuffar troops (tens/hundreds of thousands of them), tanks, airbases, heavy-weaponry of all sorts onto the ground - this comes with its own longterm probelms. Another peaceful route should have been progressed to save thousands, possibly millions (overall death from effects of war) of Muslims from such barbaric destruction.

The case of turning on the Taliban and Mujahideen in Afghanistan was nothing but pure fear of America by prominent Muslim nations. Hardly any credible evidence has been relayed that could stand in a court of law - just pictures of bearded men and hate-filled inuendo about how backwards they are. Most Notably Pakistan, Saudi and the Gulf Arabs turned on Afghanistan.

Its the decisions they are taking in the political sphere which are ruining Muslim nations, its people devastated and ruined through more violence, spilt-blood and more killing. Destroyed infrastructure, literally sending countries and peoples decades back in their development and opening-up age-old sectarian rifts by supporting one-side against another. We need to learn from this otherwise we are going to be in a dark age full of strife for a very long time.

It will be interesting to see if, in the years to come, we suddenly have a more active 'pro-democracy' movement in Baluchistan and other parts of Pakistan. The political elite could not care less but the military may not be too happy for the US to hang around for too long, lest it should stir-up another pro-democracy movement on ethnic lines. Allowing the US back on the ground could be scoring a massive own goal and actually work against Pakistan in the longterm.

Allahu A'lam

[Hammaduersnes]

bro abdulwahhab helping the kuffaar armies in helping kill muslims is kufr, i have never heard otherwise. Just becoz Gulf leaders have done it n continue 2 do so doesnt change rulings, islam isnt dictated by arabs fro
the gulf. There is a reason why theres a growing number of takfeeris who no longer recognize ANY Arab leaders as Muslims, theres a reason why the TTP have made takfeer of GOP n PA becoz of the kufr of our leaders helping kuffaar against Myslums. This was the worst decision the coalition took. It doesnt indicate nifaaq but indicates kufr wallahu Alam

[XzBZB2UV]

No, it is not an issue of deen. Otherwise, one can argue that any Muslim who allies with Americans anywhere should fear for his imaan.

In fact, that's the case.
That of allying with kuffar against the Muslims being kufr is an accepted principle of fiqh, based directly from the Holy Qur'an.
But, one should clearly define what is meant with "alliance":

That would mean that nearly 7 million Muslim Americans should fear for their imaan. No, it's not just about living in a certain place.
It's about - for example - fighting or supporting fighting of kuffar against Muslims.