PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Ayaz Amir Nomination Rejected on basis of "NAZRIA PAKISTAN"

(146 posts)
  1. khanamer

    @javed,

    It would be stupid to think that iam a modoodi follower...2nd, modoodi can declare anyone kafir he wants... Just like you... 3rd you seem to be fond of modoodi and seems like you are his follower and consider Quaid e Azam kafir and traitor who divided your bharat mata....

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 19:06 #
  2. khanamer

    @ Ali bhai

    Thanks, i ll put him on ignore..

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 19:08 #
  3. Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 20:28 #
  4. bechari-awam

    I am quite certain, after elections the parties will get together to revert articles 62/63 back to their original form as it was in 1973 constitution.

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 21:27 #
  5. Malang

    اگر ایمانداری سے پوچھیں تو عمران خان ور نواز شریف کو بھی نہ اہل قرار دیا جانا چاہیے .
    عمران خان کو اپنی کتاب میں سٹہ کھیلنے کے اعتراف پر اور نواز شریف کو اپنے بزنس اور کاروبار میں سودی لین دین کرنے اور مشرّف سے جلاوطنی کے معائدہ سے متعلق جھوٹ بولنے پر اگر تو واقعی معائدہ ہوا تھا اور اگر اس کے ٹھوس ثبوت پیش کر دیے جائیں تو .

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 22:23 #
  6. Javed Sheikh

    There was nothing like Ideology of Pakistan before 1955.

    This term was coined and promoted by JI, Right Wing journalists, Jurists and Politicians like Ch. Mohammad Ali.

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 22:40 #
  7. short life endless plans

    Never did like this guy any way.

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 22:47 #
  8. Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 22:56 #
  9. gulraiz55

    The publicity that PMLn is getting right now, I am certain they will win the elections. 2/3 majority once again :)
    ==================================================

    The publicity that PMLn is getting right now, I am certain they will win the elections. 1/3 majority once again :)

    دوتھائی دیکر وہ مصیبت میں آجاتے ھیں ---اسلئیے ایک تھائی پر کام چلاؤ-----لینا ھے تو لو ورنہ یہ بھی نھیں ملے گی

    Posted 1 year ago on 04 Apr 2013 23:15 #
  10. sipahi

    Does anyone have links to original articles in english by Ayaz.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 0:26 #
  11. Javed Sheikh

  12. thanks ^^^

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 0:45 #
  13. sipahi

    Did this got Ayaz in trouble with RO?

    Broke the trust of the foundation and
    Possibly used it to buy and use a haraam commodity.

    "In the summer of 1995 I was to take up a Reuters fellowship at Green College, Oxford, thanks to my friend Dr Humayun Khan who was then head of the Commonwealth Institute in London. From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford. But with the remainder I bought some handsome old editions, which I open now and then and think of those bygone times."

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-145777-An-unusual-man

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 1:02 #
  14. Zia M

    A heated discussion on articles 62/63 and Nazryia-e-Pakistan.
    I thought they were going to come to blows on the set.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 1:02 #
  15. Sweettruth

    I like the strong stance/stand of ECP when it comes to examining eligibility of candidates. It is good time to clean up the filth of old professional politicians who have been under-performing in both (Federal and Provincial) Parliaments for long time.

    It is high time to give opportunity to young, energetic and honest candidates to win Parliament seats.

    Well Done ECP, keep up the good work.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 1:02 #
  16. adeel

    Yeah Sipahi I watched Ayaz Ameer in kamran Khan show & he hinted this cowasjee liqour connection.But he said its matter of translation; hence he will get cleared on 6 april.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 1:59 #
  17. sipahi

    @adeel

    I thought his original column is in english. So there is no issue of translation. By the way I haven't watched any TV show with him.

    There is no ambiguity, he declared that he broke trust of the foundation when he used money for books by buying something from pub.

    "From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford."

    He is declaring that at least at that time he was not "trustworthy".

    He might have been "Sadiq" but not "Ameen".
    I think he is a "goner".

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 2:17 #
  18. adeel

    @Sipahi Ji
    lets see . it will be decided tomorrow.
    BTW, what has this to do with Nazria Pakistan (AKA 2-nation theory)?

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 2:23 #
  19. sipahi

    @adeel

    "Ayaz Amir Nomination Rejected on basis of "NAZRIA PAKISTAN""
    I think title is based on what Ayaz said, ECP will not disqualify based on just his views, which have not been put in action.

    I think, he will be disqualified because he accepted that he broke trust. Trustworthyness is an important accept of 62/63 and parliamentarians all across world. By his action, which he himself accepts, is just like "hurting your own foot with an axe".

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 2:32 #
  20. Zia M

    He might have been "Sadiq" but not "Ameen".
    I think he is a "goner".
    -------------
    It is so easy to judge others. Isn't it?
    I can't think of anybody in politics who can make such a claim.
    "Sadiq&Ameen" is an ambiguous term, put in by Ghazi Zia but even he didn't try to apply it.
    I'm sure it will be amended during the next parliamentary term.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 2:38 #
  21. sipahi

    @ZiaM

    I think you have not read my analysis. No one but Ayaz himself is to be blamed to write about an instance where he broke a trust. Ayaz himself is judge & jury on his own actions and gave a verdict on himself.

    Ayaz himself wrote in his article that he broke "trust" of the foundation, which gave money to buy books as he used it in pub.

    Lesson is do not write about wrong things you might have done in your life.

    Biggest evidence always is what you write about yourself.

    I think GM and IK might regret what they have written about themselves in their books.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 2:55 #
  22. Like Imran khan wrote in his book abt gambling ;-)

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:00 #
  23. Zia M

    Sipahi
    So, What?
    He admitted his fault and showed remorse over it.
    It is much better than to lie and try to conceal your shortcomings.
    The returning officer should only be concerned about tax evaders, defaulters and other cases of fraud where ones crime has been established by a court of law.

    These clowns are making a joke of the constitution.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:08 #
  24. sipahi

    @ZiaM

    As I said that he showed himself as truthful but not trustworthy. Plus, by including pub as where he used that money, he created another count, which can be used against is qualification of 62/63.

    Since the parliamentarians have public money at their disposal, trustworthiness is an important quality.

    As far as remorse, I don't see any.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:15 #
  25. Zia M

    As far as remorse, I don't see any
    ---------
    You sound like God now!
    One is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
    All these judges most of whom may haven taken bribes themselves are going to judge others based on perceptions.

    How ridiculous can it get?

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:23 #
  26. sipahi

    @ZiaM

    "going to judge others based on perceptions."

    What perceptions? Ayaz himself wrote he broke trust.
    There is something called self-incrimination.

    As far as your personal comment, I forgive you. Usually, people do that because they don't have any logical answer.

    This is not targetted towards anyone, including Ayaz. It is an analysis based on data available to me.

    That's all !!

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:26 #
  27. Zia M

    As far as your personal comment, I forgive you.
    ---------
    That is very nice of you!
    Instead of being a selfrighteous, sagacious, sadiq and ameen,
    can you please forgive Ayaz Amir too and mind your own business.

    :):)

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:33 #
  28. mawan1971

    Disqualification of Ayaz Amir based on his opinion is joke, origional article was in english and urdu translation may have changed the angle. He will defend his case in the court.

    In general I am happy that EC is tight on all candidate otherwise in past every bank defaulter, drug smuggler, robber etc. were cleared easily by EC. Next time people will think before applying as some applications has resulted candidates ending up in jails. Some of the fake degree holders if they have not applied may get escape but investigations proved them guilty and they were put in jail.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:34 #
  29. Zia M

    Just remember one is innocent till proven guilty in a court of law.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:35 #
  30. sipahi

    @mawan1971

    In my opinion, Ayaz has disqualified himself because he accepted that he broke trust by using money for books to buy somethings in a pub, possibly to take care of a bad habit. This is a case of self-incrimination.

    For details, please read my following post and subsequent posts. This is my analysis based on data available and not targetted towards anyone or any party.

    http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/ayaz-amir-nomination-rejected-on-basis-of-nazria-pakistan/page/2#post-448174

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 3:40 #
  31. Adonis

    Burden of proof for criminal conviction is different from the burden of proof needed for disqualification as a member of parliament.

    For members of parliament, as per the constitution, someone who is commonly known as violator of Islamic injunctions stands disqualified. But this 'common knowledge' can not convict him as a criminal.

    This is a significant difference. The constitutional clause is intended to stop people of dubious reputation from entering the parliament because as a member of parliament one is judged at a higher standard than common man.

    If one tries to convict somebody, then the requirement for evidence is substantially more. In any case, one's own admission of guilt goes a long way towards fulfilling that requirement.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 5:24 #
  32. Adonis

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 5:40 #
  33. mango mam

    @Adonis

    Please tell us what is controversial or objectionable in the above column?

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 5:44 #
  34. sipahi

    @mangoman

    In my opinion, Ayaz got in trouble with RO based on the following paragraph. Note, English is his original writing, Urdu is translation.

    Broke the trust of the foundation and
    Possibly used it to buy and use a haraam commodity.

    "In the summer of 1995 I was to take up a Reuters fellowship at Green College, Oxford, thanks to my friend Dr Humayun Khan who was then head of the Commonwealth Institute in London. From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford. But with the remainder I bought some handsome old editions, which I open now and then and think of those bygone times."

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-145777-An-unusual-man

    For details, please read my following post and subsequent posts. This is my analysis based on data available and not targetted towards anyone or any party.

    http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/ayaz-amir-nomination-rejected-on-basis-of-nazria-pakistan/page/2#post-448174

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 5:57 #
  35. mango mam

    @Sipahi

    As per my understanding he is disqualified due to writing against two nation theory; isn't he? But it seems that the main reason was

    "Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford."

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:02 #
  36. Zia M

    Sipahi

    I don't know what is the big deal that you want Ayaz to be crucified.
    Suppose you are a very rich person and have a foundation that gives out money for various causes.I happen to be a friend of yours and you give me $500 for me to buy some books for my personal library and I go out buy books worth $400 and spend 100 on food or cigarettes.I did break a promise or didn't listen to your advise but I don't think I will be committing any crime.
    Would you prosecute me if you found out?

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:08 #
  37. sipahi

    @mangoman

    In my opinion, RO has a stronger case about breaking a trust and that too by using money in a pub. This involves an act. Also, trustworthiness is important for a parliamentarian.

    In other item, it is just a view with no act beyond sharing in the column.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:10 #
  38. EasyGo

    واللہ کیا ایاز امیر نے یہ کالم اپنے کاغذات کے ساتھ لگایا تھا

    اگر نہیں تو پھر تو بڑی بات ہے کہ ریجکٹ کرنے والے نے یاد رکھا
    :)

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:13 #
  39. sipahi

    @ZiaM

    "Would you prosecute me if you found out? "

    I will not trust you with anything anymore.

    It is not a question about prosecution, it is question whether Ayaz can be trusted with public money, resources and power that goes with parliamentarian.

    This is my analysis based on data available and not targetted towards anyone or any party.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:14 #
  40. oldman

    Haha... Poor guy got disqualified for 500 pounds? And then there are people who have millions plundered in corruption and are doing fine... irony...

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:20 #
  41. Zia M

    "I will not trust you with anything anymore."
    Well Well Well
    Mr perfect!
    I hope i never have a friend who behaves like that especially after i tell him that i regretted that.
    It is not the public money we are dealing with here.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:23 #
  42. Zia M

    Haha... Poor guy got disqualified for 500 pounds?
    ---------

    I don't think that is even the issue. Mr Perfect has just issued his judgment it is not binding on any court.
    :)

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:28 #
  43. sipahi

    @ZiaM

    You said "Would you prosecute me if you found out?"

    If you felt enough remorse to inform me yourself soon after the abuse and offered to return the money you spent on other items; I will definitely forgive you.

    But, the scenarios you wrote said that I found it out and there was no remorse involved.

    As far as name calling, I forgive you. Usually, people do that because they don't have any logical answer.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:30 #
  44. Zia M

    @Sipahi
    I haven't called you any names.You must be imaging things.
    I didn't mention "regret" but it was in the article you posted.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:38 #
  45. sipahi

    @ZiaM

    Calling a common human being like me, Mr. Perfect, is insulting to me.

    My crime in this discussion has been indepth analysis of an extract of article of Ayaz.

    Thankyou !!!!!!!!
    Bye !!!!!!

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:45 #
  46. Zia M

    @Sipahi
    Someone who is looking for perfection in my opinion is Mr Perfect.
    I'm sorry you took it as an insult.Some would consider it a compliment.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 6:54 #
  47. Bawa

    ایک درست فیصلہ ہے

    اپنے کالموں میں شراب نوشی کی کھلے عام حمایت کرنے اور پاکستان میں اسکی اجازت ہونے کی باتیں کرنے والے کے ساتھ یہی ہونا چاہئیے تھا
    .
    .

    پاکستان میں کچھ چیزیں ممنوع ہیں، جیسا کہ مہ نوشی، تاہم ان پر سے پابندی ہٹائی جانی چاہئیے. اجازت دینے سے ایسا نہیں کہ لوگ گلیوں بازاروں میں پی کر اودھم مچاتے پھریں … گو کہ خدشہ ہے کہ شروع میں ایسا ہی ہوگا …. بلکہ اس کے لیے پابندی نہ موثر ہے نہ مستعمل

    ہمارے خمیر میں جمہوریت نہیں – ایاز امیر

    http://jang.com.pk/jang/dec2012-daily/22-12-2012/col4.htm

    .
    .

    سمجھ نہیں آتی کہ یہ فوجی بوٹ فوج کی ملازمت چھوڑ کر مدبر کیوں بن بیٹھتے ہیں؟

    حقیقت یہ ہے کہ فوجی بوٹوں کی دھمک فوجیوں کے دماغ ناکارہ کر دیتی ہے اور وہ نارمل باتیں کرنے کی بجائے اپنے آپ کو کوئی بہت اعلی مخلوق سمجھنے لگ جاتے ہیں

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 7:24 #
  48. Adonis

    @ mango mam

    Contrary to earlier claims of Ayaz Ameer, the disqualification does not appear to be related to columns against ideology of Pakistan.

    Apparently, he was disqualified for violating Islamic injunctions against drinking, which the Returning Officer contended was apparent from his own columns.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 7:33 #
  49. mango mam

    @Adonis

    Can you please tell be where he literally stated that I (Ayaz) used to drink? Since, in this case there is no witness, everything has to be proved from his writings.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 7:47 #
  50. Adonis

    @ mango mam

    In the 4th paragraph of Urdu column, Ayaz talks about "zauq lateef kay mashrabi zaiqay ......"

    But in front of Returning Officer, Ayaz said that he did not know about translation as he only wrote the English article in which this sentence was edited out.

    But unfortunately for him, his English article included the following passage, " ..From the Cowasjee Foundation I got a cheque for 500 pounds “with which to buy books...”, as I was sternly told. Some of that money, I regret to say, found its way into the pubs of Oxford. "

    The RO contended that obviously rooh afza was not served in pubs.

    By the way, Ayaz's wining dining is pretty common knowledge and there are quite a few witnesses who have been present in such gatherings but who would rather not give a testimony for obvious reasons.

    But the need for witnesses is only in criminal case, which this is not. For rejection of nomination papers, "a common knowledge of candidates actions against Islamic injunctions" is enough. The RO decided that this requirement had been fulfilled so Ayaz was not eligible to contest elections.

    Interestingly, Ayaz did not say in front of RO that he does not drink.

    If the question of getting him convicted and sentenced to jail for drinking arises, then obviously a higher level of evidence will be needed.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 8:14 #
  51. mango mam

    @Adonis

    I think its very subjective; The RO deduced Wine as "zauq lateef kay mashrabi zaiqay ......";

    If we agree to your analysis then IK (the great khan) should be the first to be disqualified; You know that he will not be disqualified since the establishment (who is doing all this ridiculous thing) is behind him.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 8:26 #
  52. gv

    Our country is well and truly rogered...

    This is it.. the final dregs of Pakistani liberalism being flushed down the toilet....

    Seems like we have a collective death wish..

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 9:04 #
  53. Adonis

    @ mango mam

    Imran Khan definitely gets disqualified under 62 & 63. However, his saving grace may be that although he has done that in the past but has repented and he is not currently involved in activities in contravention of these articles. But that may be tricky to prove.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 9:48 #
  54. mango mam

    @Adonis

    This seems to be a ridiculous argument that I have done something wrong (playboy) in the past but after that I have not and will not do this; Why not the same argument applies to Ayaz Amir?; After all he is quoting 1995 I think.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 9:55 #
  55. Adonis

    @ mango mam

    Nobody is stopping Ayaz Ameer from saying that he used to drink in the past but has repented and not doing it anymore.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 10:14 #
  56. khanamer

    So what happened with IK's paper?

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 10:18 #
  57. mango mam

    @Adonis

    First you need to charge him by asking him whether you drink or not? Why not RO asks Ayaz Amir "From you column I deduced that you have been a drinker; whats your take on this?" The RO just rejected his papers.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 10:21 #
  58. mango mam

    @khanamer

    IK's papers have been cleared by establishment so the nonsense RO's cannot put objection on his papers.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 10:22 #
  59. Javed Sheikh

    10 Funniest Questions Asked By Election Commission

    By Ghazala Khan

    While Quaid-e-Azam would be turning violently in his grave, General Zia ul Haq must be having a ball inside there. Never before, Zia’s amendments have been implemented so vigorously and intensely as they are being now, and the watchdog is Supreme Court too.

    The Islamyat books have become rare in the bookshops, as thousands of candidates are in a mad rush to buy them. All of a sudden having masters in Islamyat is gold, as these candidates want a crash course in Islamyat. Earlier the only job which could possibly land in the lap of Islamyat graduates was the teaching in public schools, but now they have another vista of elections. They cannot thank Zia ul Haq enough.

    The district returning officers (DRO) across the country are enjoying themselves limitlessness while they tease, slice and dice the worthless politicians. From religious knowledge to the familial intricacies, everything is being asked in full court room. Perhaps DROs know that these corrupt politicians will loot and plunder the nation after elections, so they are humiliating them in advance.

    Anyway, I have culled ten most weird, funny, and strange questions which are asked by the DROs from the candidates during the nomination and acceptance of the papers and to see whether candidates fulfill the 62/63 or not. Here you go:

    1. In which situations, bath becomes mandatory for the married Muslims?
    2. How many wives you have, and how many nights you spend with each of them?
    3. Do you believe in honeymoon?
    4. Have you been circumcised properly?
    5. Have you stood in front of girls college ever in your life?
    6. Have you ever seen any censored movie?
    7. Have you ever eaten pork?
    8. If you are dying with thirst in a desert, and get a bottle of alcohol, would you drink it?
    9. If in a river, a great religious scholar, your wife and son are drowning, and you can save only one, to whom would you save?
    10. If you win the elections, won’t it disturb the lives of your husband, kids and the in-laws?

    The list is long, and its keep expanding as the DROs are not stopping to cease this funny streak. Politicians are too vulnerable to protest.

    Posted 1 year ago on 05 Apr 2013 10:45 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.