In order to check if there was any religious implication of the New York 9/11 terror event of 2001, I decided to compare the share of major world religions before and after that event. Data compiled from the 2008 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica gives the following picture:
Adherents of % of World Population by Year
Religion 1996 2001 2006
Christians 33.7 32.9 33.2
Muslims 19.4 19.7 20.4
Hindus 13.7 13.4 13.3
Buddhists 5.6 5.9 5.85
Jews 0.239 0.236 0.231
From the above table the following trends can be interpreted:
• The share of Christianity which was declining between 1996 and 2001 turned into a discernible increase between 2001 and 2006. Christianity gained.
• The share of Islam continued to grow at an accelerating rate as before. Islam was not affected.
• The decline in the share of Hinduism was slowed down, probably due to reduction in conversion rate to Islam.
• The advance of Buddhism turned into decline.
• The Jewish share continued to decline as before.
The future historian, who might also compile similar statistics and corroborate it with the military activity of the Christian nations during the period, might be tempted to conclude that during the early 21st century Christianity was spread on earth with the help of bombs and rockets.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Limits of Authority
In a democratic set up the parliament is sovereign with he limitation that it can only make laws or take decisions and actions in the interest of the people it represents. If any of its actions results in national loss, the rulers lose their right to govern. The European definition of sovereign meaning autocratic king does not apply to an Islamic democracy based on the Caliphate tradition of public accountability for the head of state or government.
The members of the assemblies, senate and president take an oath to act in public interest and not for personal gain. So any law (act of parliament or presidential ordinance) made for personal gain of current or ex-legislators or which tends to eliminate or diminish expectation of public gain is not a law but a conspiracy.
The Supreme Court has the right to interpret laws, and it should do so not only in the light of constitutional and legal provisions but also uphold the fundamental objective of public good.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow a new span of 120 days for parliament to endorse lapsed ordinances is tantamount to assuming that they were promulgated yesterday. It could have made sense if the parliament had done so in the first 120 days of its formation. It can always introduce a new bill incorporating the contents of a lapsed one.
Since all the sitting judges were persecuted by ex-general Pervez Musharraf, they should not participate in his personal trial. A tribunal of unbiased judges could be formed if investigations show that he deserves to be tried.
The constitution contains an oath for military officers. If they have not taken it so far, they should be made to do so now to give them constitutional legitimacy. There should also be a similar oath for civil servants.
A UN team is investigating the death of Benazir Bhutto. But independent analysis has begun to point to the mind-boggling possibility that the IMF may have done a deal with Asif Zardari and arranged her brutal elimination.
The chairman of Pakistan Steel Mills has been sacked for corruption and PM Gilani has ordered an enquiry into misdealing starting from his own office. Why not from the president's?
Every year every citizen has to declare all his or her assets to the FBR and elected representatives submit a similar declaration to the EC. Have the president and all ministers and advisers of the present government done that? I f not why not ask them to do it post haste and make it public?
During his tenure as PM Nawaz Sharif had started a fund for national development to which everyone had contributed in local and foreign currencies. Why not start a new similar fund into which all patriotic Pakistanis should contribute at least half of their foreign assets? It could go a long way in resolving the financial crisis.
Nowadays the government is buying everything from Dubai. It should disclose the detailed identity of the suppliers in Dubai.
The members of the assemblies, senate and president take an oath to act in public interest and not for personal gain. So any law (act of parliament or presidential ordinance) made for personal gain of current or ex-legislators or which tends to eliminate or diminish expectation of public gain is not a law but a conspiracy.
The Supreme Court has the right to interpret laws, and it should do so not only in the light of constitutional and legal provisions but also uphold the fundamental objective of public good.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow a new span of 120 days for parliament to endorse lapsed ordinances is tantamount to assuming that they were promulgated yesterday. It could have made sense if the parliament had done so in the first 120 days of its formation. It can always introduce a new bill incorporating the contents of a lapsed one.
Since all the sitting judges were persecuted by ex-general Pervez Musharraf, they should not participate in his personal trial. A tribunal of unbiased judges could be formed if investigations show that he deserves to be tried.
The constitution contains an oath for military officers. If they have not taken it so far, they should be made to do so now to give them constitutional legitimacy. There should also be a similar oath for civil servants.
A UN team is investigating the death of Benazir Bhutto. But independent analysis has begun to point to the mind-boggling possibility that the IMF may have done a deal with Asif Zardari and arranged her brutal elimination.
The chairman of Pakistan Steel Mills has been sacked for corruption and PM Gilani has ordered an enquiry into misdealing starting from his own office. Why not from the president's?
Every year every citizen has to declare all his or her assets to the FBR and elected representatives submit a similar declaration to the EC. Have the president and all ministers and advisers of the present government done that? I f not why not ask them to do it post haste and make it public?
During his tenure as PM Nawaz Sharif had started a fund for national development to which everyone had contributed in local and foreign currencies. Why not start a new similar fund into which all patriotic Pakistanis should contribute at least half of their foreign assets? It could go a long way in resolving the financial crisis.
Nowadays the government is buying everything from Dubai. It should disclose the detailed identity of the suppliers in Dubai.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)