u r a religious minded girl tht doesn't mean tht any person who claims to be following islamic injunctions u shud side with them without critically adjudging...yes musharaf's policies could degrade islam but he doesnot claim to be the flag bearer of islam wht is worse and wht degrades islam more when ppl who claim to be following injunctions of islam and do everything tht they seem is right on the pretext of islam...u mentioned abt ppl not feeling the pain of those who died..can u give any other suggestion if not this...these ppl were in negotiations for long and for quite some time gov was very lenient with them wht they did today they shud have done long time back though even today it didn't really seem like a planned operation...wht i see is this tht the party which claimed it doesnot find it wrong tht ppl shud do suicide bombing and kill many then yes to kill such ppl is not wrong..as for the families of those inside their daughters themselves let them down ...for other civilians i can't say much since i wasn't there but wht i saw was tht they were repeatedly requested to leave the area and its even common sense to not venture in such places where there is firing so if ppl r moving in and out there and they come under cross fire i donot know whom to blame in this...but this had to happen sooner or later and i think they shud go ahead with a complete showdown..enuff of this non sense...

@Laila Mariam

Inorder to understand the act by Govt. of Pakistan of killing innocents ( militants) is justifiable.

Read this article

Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force

The monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force (also known as monopoly on legitimate force and monopoly on force) is the condition of a single entity exercising legitimate power or force over a given territory. Max Weber said that a necessary condition of an entity being a state is that retains such a monopoly. He said, something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."
Therefore, according to this understanding, a necessary condition of something being a state is that it forcibly prevents the private sector from using force, and reserves that function to itself.

There are several caveats which apply to this basic principle:

Weber intended his statement as an observation, stating that it has not always been the case that the connection between the state and the use of violence has been so close. He uses the example of the Catholic Church, which historically placed limits on the absolute authority of the state which effectively were removed by later Protestant thought.
The actual application of force is delegated or permitted by the state. Weber's theory is not taken to mean that only the government uses force, but that the individuals and organisations which can legitimately use force or adjudicate on its legitimacy are precisely those authorized to do so by the state. So, for example, the law might permit individuals to use violence in defense of self or property - in this case the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state. The state might also delegate certain tasks requiring the use of force to other bodies, such as law enforcement to the police.
The word "legitimate" is subject to controversy. To some, it has normative meaning, i.e., that the state should monopolize force. To others, it has positive meaning, i.e., that the people accept the "legitimacy" of the state monopoly.

Support for the monopoly on the use of force
Generally speaking, those who support the existence of the state believe that there should be a monopoly on the use of force, or at least a near monopoly. That is, they believe private force should be prevented or punished unless it is used solely in immediate self-defense from violence. Supporters of the state monopoly argue that if a monopoly on the use of force does not exist, private individuals or groups will, inevitably, arm themselves and use violence against each other and others; thus they claim that anarchy results in more violence than found in even the most violent state. In support of such reasoning, supporters sometimes point to areas and periods where, on their reading of events, this monopoly did not exist (or, in some sense, where there existed close to a "free market" in violence and security), such as modern Somalia, or Europe during the Dark Ages. They contend that such instances show that the attainment by any government of a monopoly on force would have improved the lives of the inhabitants.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes strongly supported a centralized practioner of force, as he believed that that is the only way an orderly society could be maintained. As Hobbes writes in The Leviathan:

For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men.
In some western constitutional democracies, the government may not have an absolute monopoly on the use of force. In the United States, for example, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is frequently read to authorize the existence of armed civilian militias, which could theoretically challenge the government (cf. rebellion) or assist in law enforcement (cf. Posse comitatus (common law)). However, in most of the rest of the western world, the government alone is responsible for the maintenance of the civil order.


Objections to the monopoly on the use of force
Market anarchists are supportive of the use of legitimate force (defensive and punitive force), but they oppose a compulsory monopoly on the use of that force. They believe private sector should be allowed to provide its own police, jails, and courts when crimes take place on private property. In addition they oppose taxation. In other words, they would like to see the state eliminated. They may justify this on moral grounds or on pragmatic ones - that if these security services were supplied in a competitive market, like other services are in a market economy, service would be better and cheaper.

There have been historical records of functional market anarchy in various times, such as medieval Iceland, Ireland, and even what is known as the Wild West. Thus, it can be contended that a monopoly on force is not necessary.

Many of the US Founding Fathers contended that the government should not have a monopoly on defensive, though not punitive, force by advocating a right to private gun ownership.

This is all right but In International relations STATES HAVE NO RELIGION. if we talk about islamic view then the world state has no meaning. Every muslim is the part of global nationhood the Ummah. Musharaf is not fighting against or for Islam. He is just fighting for national interest.

I think the Students of Lal Masjid are creating terror. we must stop them by Encounter Killing or any other way. It is very shameful for us that after every month their is a new cause of Public-Govt. Bettle. Govt has to take steps and complete the operation as soon as possible. The Public always against govt. no matter they are right or wrong so Govt. has to take serious steps for peace.

Breaking News ----Operation at Lal Masjid likely :Sources

Geo TV

@ Dr malik :-

Govt. is entitled to monopoly. it can force all other departments into submission for peace prevailing atmosphere. proportion of violence would also be decreased as against those states in which private use of force is employed to establish writ. i also agree that most brutal civilised society is better than the society in which no monopoly of power exists. however, while estimating that government has monopoly over use of force, we underestimate that corrupt and unpopular government would do more harm than gain, more importantly, they would create atmosphere in which anarchy is result. this is what we are witness in our country. chaos prevails in even most basic departments of government itself like judiciary and administration. media is put to halt, people are threatened to death. what else is definition of anarchy??? what lal masjid is doing is totally wrong not only on the basis of IR theory but also on moralist grounds. they are contradicting with teaching of their own books. they are satisfied that they are fighting for the cause of truth, while truth is cursing them. they want to change system without changing themselves supposing themselves to be pure and spiritualised. i m aware of maderresah system in which poor birdbrain are indoctrinated and brainwashed to meet needs of government for war purpose. i m also aware that in maderrsah young pupils are physically exploited.
voltaire once said every effort to bring peace in this world will fail. while i may not agree with the saying but i know wars have been fought through out ages to maintain peace. how much it is maintained is dependent on how many have been fought and how many more would be added , and how many millions of poor wud succumb to it.

Only God can bless our country. we can only pray !

regards

versatile

AoA

1) Rightly said Dr. Malik; certainly as per international relations, there is no religion of states, however:

i). this is not the international perspective, this is the matter of our own country and would have implications in our society. though foriegn agents would like to use its flair to get their own doctrines approved e.g. islam is a terrorist religion, Pakistan is a rogue state etc.

ii). this has not been practiced in any state. India proclaim to be the biggest secular country and we al know how much secularism is followed in India

iii). Islam is a complete code of system giving ample teachings for all the fields of life including running business of the government machinery. As per Islamic teachings religion cannot be separated from the state business

2) Dear Halima, students of Lal Masjid and adjacent Jamia Hafsa are creatng terror and should be countered even with the use of force. But the problem is not of students only, they are following teachings of their ulema, encounter killing can only be the way to shut down Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsah but who will stop like minded people from creating disturbance in whole country ? We see in t.v. the threats coming from various sections of Ulema that Karakurum Highway would be blocked, problems in big cities like Lahore and Faisalabad and from students hubs of deeni Madaris in NWFP.. .. one incident happened in D.I. Khan when some elements got control of police station......the best way to cope with the issue is to change the mindset of ulema and parents.. A new born baby sees with the eyes of his parents then from the eyes of his teachers. if parents and teachers of the country are properly educated than major problems of the country would be solved automatically.. This was the reason that AnHazrat (PBUH) necessitated for teaching of all sections of society...

3) So far as i m aware the problem started some six months back when CDA started to abolish Masajig build by encroaching state land... some of the masajid were present since long...in this context, we may quote the event of lying down of edifice of Masjid Nabwi, at that time AnHazrat (PBUH) paid amount of the land to legal owners of the land. What does it mean ? it certainly mean that though every land is our land becuase it is GOD's land yet one should purchase the land from its legal owners . Regretfully, the ulema of those masajid proclaimed it attack on Islam (NaozBILLAH). CDA might have made public the events prior to taking action so that the people should have been aware of the first root cause. .... secondly the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsah people took up the task to get certain rules of Shariah enforced by force, these rules explicitly related to debauchery and beard cutting ....

4) the action should have been taken since long and evil nipped in the bud, however, it is crystal clear that present trouble started from the people in Lal Masjid when they shot a Ranger personnel...

i m prime witnes, day before yesterday my younger brother was having back bone pain so we went to hospital, we needed money and it was end of the fiscal year so most of the ATMs were out of order, we passed from the front of Lal Masjid and jamia hafsah and journey of less than a minute in front road i got glimpse of two rifle (one was AK 47 and the other was a light gun like T.T) holders and numerous stick holders, and this was the time of around 23:45 hours...

they were trying to make a state within state and proposed action by the government is need of the hour....

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

I think, the use of force is never the solution of any problem.Our sovereighnty is endangered by the secular extremists more than the religious extremists.The girls and boys in LAL MOSQUE are our brothers and sisters.We are ready to give india as many concessions as possible but are unable to resolve our internal problems.If government uses force, it will be disastrous for the whole country.

__________________
Winners never quit and quitters never win.

Let me share one of my favourite quote,

A Leader of any state can not be observed or monitored on the basis of those good thing whic ordinary people do. For in order to maintain the best state affairs the leader is often obliged to act against morality, act against religion, act against ethics for as long as it is possible.He should not stay away for good but he should also know how to enter into evil and how to do evil if necessity commands.
( Niccolo Machiavelli)

this shows government should follow this moral approach. Following could be the interpretations of this moral approach.

1) It never suggested to work for personal interest rather he should work for National Interest.

2) Did not not suggest any leader to commit any evil at any cost but only if the necessity requires.

3) Role of the religion is as long as it supports the National Interest. This can be elaborated by a most heard sentence.

" Jihad was the offical Doctrine of the western world in afghan war 1979-1989. "

At that thime jihad was needed to counter USSR invasion.

In this context What Govt. of Pakistan (leader) is doing in Lal Masjid crisis is justifiable.

AOA
You r right Mr.Tabassum. But today and now everything is settledown, in the morning these Ulma said that they will fight till their end. But now in evening approx. 750 students surrendered. 170 are arrested and 21 killed. Our rangers were ready outside the LAL Masjid with full prep. but they have done nothing wrong. They were only creating pressure on them. And the result ...... Everything has a good end without much distruction.
So InshAllah Allah Will help us in the betterment of our country.
Thanks