What Pakistan was created for! « PKPolitics Discuss

PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

What Pakistan was created for!

(326 posts)

12…7 Next »

AHR
Member

Suicide bombings, death, destruction and carnage on a monumental scale. Murder and mayhem across the length and breadth of the country with no sign of let up or relief. Senior army officers targeted in broad daylight in the heart of the federal capital.The audacity, vicious nature and cruelty of the onslaught increasing with each passing day. Is this the Muslim homeland envisaged by the founding fathers? Certainly not! Jinnah’s vision of his creation was negated and nullified with the adoption of the Objectives Resolution shortly after his death in 1949.

http://ahraza.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/i-want-jinnah%E2%80%99s-pakistan/

Posted 2 years ago on 21 Nov 2009 23:39 #
javedsheikh
Members

Very thought provoking article.
Do you feel that Qauid-i-Azam is still respected in Pakistan?
There are scholars who always try to prove and preach the terminology of ‘Ideology of Pakistan’ which was coined by orthodox politicians, who initially opposed the very creation of Pakistan.
I believe the prosperity and progress of Pakistan lies in a Democratic, Liberal and Secular design of the fabric.
Every child in Pakistan is born as Secular.
Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and whole of the Infra Structure has been erected upon a Secular reality.
It is intellectual dis-honesty to drag the Will and Desire of Qauid-i-Azam towards an unrealistic, non practicable, and un-natural end.
Unfortunately the term Secularism has been defined as denial of Religion. What is wrong.
All Religions and Races, is Secularism to me.
Secularism is a Bouquet of flowers of various colors where every color is protected to keep its fragrance alive.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 0:46 #
raheb
Member

Secularism is also a RELIGION itself, as you yourself calling it your "believe". So its a matter of 'Belief'. You are claiming that secularism gives freedom but in fact it is Rigid and it's Islam which gives freedom. In reality there is No secularism exist anywhere, BUT some hide themselves behind the false term.
Every child born is a MUSLIM. It may as unprovable as saying that every child born as secular. It is matter of thinking and approach.
Quaid-a-Azam NEVER used the word "SECULAR" but word of "Islamic State" is quoted by him. He was against Theocracy, but it never means secularism.

AHR! you are only 'AFTER CLEVER'.

raheb

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 1:03 #
kq
Member

It doesnt matter what Pakistan was created for, or what is Jinnah's Pakistan. Jinnah is no more and so are the most of the people who struggled for Pakistan. No one signed up for a particular version of Pakistan, when they were born.

What matters is what the present generation thinks best for the country and where they do want to take it in the future. That is still being decided, and its not necessary that it will be Jinnah's or anybody else's Pakistan. It will decided according to the wishes of the group which captures the public's imagination, or whoever wants it more badly.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 1:33 #
zjshami
Member

@ KG,
I have but to accept and endorse your way of thinking.
Future of Pakistan depends upon the wishes of majority of the next generation.
What was valid in 1947 could not be valid in the coming future.
If more than 50% of Pakistanis vote to run Pakistan under Taliban, their wishes should be endorsed.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 2:15 #
quaidkamazaar
Member

guys^^ i dont think thats the way to go...

it totally 100% matters what Pakistan was made for because some of our existence entirely is because of Pakistan.

the newer generations dont even know how much troubles muslims of the subcontinent went through before achieving this land.

until the history is not read and understood properly, this country will not exist for too long.
if history is not understood properly and the ideology and basis of Pakistan is not understood, then the Sindhis, Balochis, Pukhtoon will want to leave this nation, the urduspeakers will soon enough realize there was no use of migrating.

the ideological basis needs to be remembered, it glues us together. that basis is quoting Jinnah, muslims and hindus are two different distinct nations... hence muslims want their own country for their own ways.

WAllaaahi, there is more than can unite us as muslims of subcontinent than we think.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 2:38 #
Ghareeb
Old-chechen

JS rants "Every child in Pakistan is born as Secular."

This is contrary to Islamic belief system, that is the founding ideology behind the creation of Pakistan, where every child is born a "Muslim". Not only human child but animals, stars, galaxies are Muslim in its true meaning. They surrender their will to the will of God. That is reason no other "religion" says so. Muslims don't need baptism to be a Muslim like Christinity which consider every child to be sinful until baptised.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 2:41 #
javedsheikh
Members

The way has already been established by the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, through a vote from all the political and religious groups of Pakistan.
Theoretically it is Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but practically it will always stay as Secular.
All of the Institutions, social relationship and observation of religious rituals are being conducted without any hurdle or restriction.
This debate is just to label for an emotional and psychological satisfaction.
Historically, Geographically and politically it would be impossible to change the pace of life to 180 degree angle.
Theocracy could be possible in a City State or in a small village but not in a federation composed of 160 millions of people.
Even the founders of Pakistan lived Secular life.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 2:56 #
Ghareeb
Old-chechen

"Theocracy could be possible in a City State or in a small village but not in a federation composed of 160 millions of people."

Wrong statement.

There was once a civilization based on Islamic theocracy that was the greatest in the world. It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climates to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities. Its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization's commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between. While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I'm talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.

Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Muslim mathematicians.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 3:06 #
Ghareeb
Old-chechen

That theocracy will be back. The signs are everywhere.

The area under the theocratic Ottoman Khilafa was greater than 30 times the area of Pakistan and included whole of North Africa, whole of Middle East, Whole of Eastern and Central Europe and Caucausus and Crimean peninsula of Russia. And it was the central location of that state that counted. No other Empire in history of human race has such a large empire at that particular centralized location at the center of the civilised world.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 3:07 #
javedsheikh
Members

Absolute Monarchy was the original Thesis which dominated in the form of Roman Empire.
Muslim Khilafat was an Anti-synthesis when the Roman Empire started declining.
Muslim Khilafat was replaced by a Synthesis of Secularism where Khilafat failed to deliver better due to internal sectarian tug of war.
Secularism could be replaced by the New World Order or by a New Social Contract.
Religion will be observed and respected for ethical, moral and spiritual inspiration.
It cannot be accepted and implemented 100% as a System of Governace unless it is synchronized to satisfy the needs of modern humanity.
Sooner or later the Muslim Scholars and Jurists would have to make some adjustments to keep the message alive.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 3:34 #
toamin
member

Muslims believe in guidance of Allah swt revealed upon prophet Muhammad PBUH. Practices of Rasoolullah SAS and noble companions are the way for Muslims.

Either you accept this guidance as complete code of life or you reject it as a member above has done so.

Muslims are oppressed and suppressed, they do not have any choice or freedom. They don't even have basic human rights.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 3:43 #
Ghareeb
Old-chechen

JS says: Khilafat failed to deliver better due to internal sectarian tug of war

Not quite. The Islamic scholars agreed that the Turks who championed the Khilafa until 1923 loved Islam more than they understood it. It was not the Khilafa system that failed but the corrupt leadership and nationalistic tendencies that were copied from European model but were alien to the spirit of Islam.

As Allama Iqbal said at the dismemberment of Khilafa

Utha kar phek di Turk e Nadaan Khilafat ki chob ko
apnon ki naadani bhee dekh auron ki ayyari bhee dekh.

Allama knew that it was not the failure of Khilafa system as such but rather the ignorance of Turks. I will also add the ignorant Arabs that were manipulated by Lawrence of Arabia.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 3:49 #
toamin
member

David Fromkin wrote book "a peace to end all peace" on British/French conspiracy to split up 'old man of Europe'.

They implanted Young Turk and Arab Nationalistic movements to create environment of nationalism.

There was no sectarian problem, JS is mistaking nationalism with sectarian -I suggest to study history.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:01 #
netengr
blocked

Pakistan is created for

Army ,Mulla ,Hameed gul ,Qazi hussain ,Baitullah mehsoud ,Fazlullah and others .they are the true representative in pakistan

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:05 #
toamin
member

Wrong answer, Pakistan was created for Muslims to live according to Islamic way of life.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:14 #
AHR
Member

@JJKhan,
Pakistan was created so that along with Muslims, other religions could practice their religion freely without any restriction or condemnation from any other person, government or religion. It definitely was not created to enforce Islam upon any human being.
@Ghareeb
If Theocracy needs to come back, by all means. But not in Pakistan. Our forefathers did not strive for a theocracy in Pakistan. If you would like to see it implemented, take it elsewhere.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:23 #
toamin
member

Agha Haider Raza,

Practicing Islam in all spheres of life is important. Islam doesn't restrict or condemn any other person from practicing his religion. Also Islam can not be enforced on other people of other faith.

But everyone has to obey the law of the land just like we do when we go to West. We don't become secular/atheist while obeying the law, same way other people wont become Muslim by living under justice of Islam.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:28 #
AHR
Member

@JJKhan,
You have a valid point. But when the law of the land enforces the laws of a religion, than you have a problem. This is where "secularism" comes into play.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:33 #
toamin
member

You either have to select Secularism with European philosophies or the truth of Islam.

There is no way in the middle, can't trim down Islam to badroom rituals.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:37 #
toamin
member

This issue is not open for debate. Islam, as the final religion, has supremacy over all faiths and over every aspect of life. There is no place for secularism in the lands of Islam or among the Muslims.

The second reason is that throughout the history of Islam, it never experienced the troubles that were faced by Europe on account of its corrupted faith. Among the most important of these was the horrific breach that took place between religion and science. Religion fought against science so fiercely that the church burned some scientists to death on the grounds that those scientists went against the word of Allah.

Islamic history contains nothing of the sort. Islam opened the doors to scientific enquiry and encouraged intellectual activity. Scientists were frequent guests at the courts and assemblies of various caliphs and received a fair share of royal gifts and patronage. The Muslim world never in its long history encountered the persecution and restriction of its scientists. There were no inquisitions like there were in Europe.

Islam never experienced the abuses of a Church that took from the people great sums of money, restricted their intellectual lives, and burned their scientists and thinkers, all in the name of religion. Quite the contrary, Muslim history is one of amicability between science and the religion whose first revelation was “Read in the name of your Lord who created.” Science is one of the fruits of proper adherence to Islam. It is a result of obeying Allah’s command to learn, teach, read, and study.

Those who wish to bring secularism to the Muslim world ignore this major difference between the religious history of the Islamic world and the religious history of Europe wherein secularism developed

Source: Islam and Secularism

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:40 #
AHR
Member

There is no trimming down of Islam. I do not need the government to tell me how to practice my religion. Simple!

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:41 #
toamin
member

Further to the point above in my post, it is not about what you need or what you don't need. It is about Govt organizing affairs of the people according to what they believe in, not according to what runs contrary to their belief and history.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:43 #
AHR
Member

Your missing my point JJKhan.
If people want to practice religion. By all means! No one will stop them or can stop them. This is why Pakistan was created. Either we talk about the role of Islam in nation building. Or you talk about nation building and Islam separately. I am one for separation, others may be for the inclusion of religion and the state. What I am trying to do here is draw the line between the ideology of Pakistan and what we have made it.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:47 #
toamin
member

Not missing the point Agha jee.

Trying to explain you that the secularism that you are trying to bring in (by the way already established in Pakistan) will fail miserably as we can see from past 62 years of history.

Time to learn what I am trying to explain above to differentiate between two parallel systems of life.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:50 #
AHR
Member

We had a fairly decent amount of secularism up until the time of Zulfiqar Bhutto. Who upon rigging the elections of 1977, looked to please the Mullah's and introduced a wave of "anti-Islamic legislation" which was further cemented by Zia's decade, and then promoted by the Establishment after the Soviets left Afghanistan. I understand your point, that it may not flourish under the current system we have, but it surely does not mean we cannot work towards creating a secular society, where most importantly people won't be judged on the type of religion we practice. To strengthen my argument, who are we to denounce Professor Abdus Salam? Who gave us this divine authority to denounce another human beings method of practicing his or her religion?

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 4:57 #
toamin
member

Agha jee,

Pakistan is currently under Secular code of life. Govt and judiciary function upon secular rules/regulations.

There is no such thing as religion right now except Muslim Personal Family Laws.

I have already had this discussion with other secularism lovers, they should not be complaining because they are in control for now :)

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:01 #
AHR
Member

I am surprised you have said that JJKhan. Have you read our constitution?

227.1 All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.

Please read Part IX of Pakistan's Constitution

What about the law stating that Ahmadi's are non-Muslims? 260 (3b)
Can a non-Muslim be elected as a Member of Parliament? 62(d)(e)
No non-Muslim become President of Pakistan? 41(2)

I am sorry to say, but with laws like these of the land, I don't see a secular state. Maybe my definition of secularism is off. Therefore, Pakistan is NOT under a "secular code of life. Govt and Judiciary DO NOT function upon secular rules/regualtions"

Such provisions need to be repealed in order for a secular state to be present JJKhan. By wanting to believe that we do exist in a secular society is not going to separate religion and state.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:25 #
toamin
member

Agha jee,

Surprise..surprise!

Let me try to explain again on the basic principle of secularism.

Can any of the above article of constitution be changed with required majority in lower/upper house?

These patches are to fool common man, while the actual base is secularism and rules/laws are all from british raj with little amendments.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:27 #
AHR
Member

It doesn't make sense. You have legislation that clearly articulates that the laws of the land must be in conformity with Islam. Maybe my definition of secularism was off so I went on http://www.dictionary.com and put in secularism. I found

Secularism: secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

What am I missing?

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:32 #
toamin
member

Agha jee,

Your definition of secularism is spot on, but I think I am not able to explain the deception of Secularism here!

What we have is something that majority has voted on, not because it is mandatory from Qur'an Sunnah.

We are obeying what majority ruled, whatever that is we can leave it aside, but do you see that it is majority's wish that is implemented.

Islam's basic principles contradict with such way of legislature.

Agha jee I expect a little more deep thinking from you on this.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:36 #
AHR
Member

Then we don't have a secularist society but we do have a democracy, in which the majority voted for Islamic law to be be incorporated into our constitution. Is that correct?

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:40 #
toamin
member

No Agha jee, we don't have Islamic law, we have continuation of secular british raj legacy with some patches here and there.

Secularism is a core platform that gives birth to democracy as political system and capitalism as economic system.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:43 #
toamin
member

Please review federal govt rules of business, provincial govt rules of business, criminal penal code, criminal procedural law, civil procedural law and you will know that they are all almost same as Indian codes/rules furthermore they are same as British Indian Act of 1935.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:46 #
quaidkamazaar
Member

this debate that Islam was supposed to be secular is a very needless debate.

you guys yourself should know that Islam has enough room for secular ideals.

if you think apart from Taliban Islam, real Islam gives nonmuslim equal rights as muslims themselves, they can practice their religion freely... its just that head of state should be muslim, so what make the Finance Minister Hindu or Christian!!! it will still be Islamic.

Islam is already based on 90% secular ideals, all freedoms are given.

its clear whats disallowed for all humans.
its clear whats disallowed specifically to restrain only believers.
Allama Iqbal was smart enough to figure this out, its us dumb people that argue now whether Pakistan was Islamic secular or not,,, just study Iqbal and Jinnah.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:48 #
toamin
member

Agha jee,

Ever wonder that why Pakistan Penal Code and Indian Penal code are almost same? For example section 302... 420!... 306 etc etc

Please do this exercise of comparison and try to track them back to the actual root.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:52 #
toamin
member

QKM,

Brother if we don't even know who we are, where we stand and where we are going, then what else is important?

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:54 #
AHR
Member

Correction, not Islamic law per se, but what I am trying to understand is, where I pointed out previously that laws of the land need to be in conformity with Islamic principles, what does that fall under. Surely it can't be secularism.

We could have a debate on this JJKhan. And although I would love to, I just can't at this point in time. My sole argument is, if the enforcement of religion is present in the Constitution, you don't have secularism. Pakistan's President by law has to be a Muslim. Members of our Parliament must "practice obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sin" and laws need to be passed that follow the guidelines laid down by Islam. And we have declared Ahmadi's to be Non-Muslims (again, who gave us this divine authority). And even if the majority voted for it, does not make it religiously correct. Tomorrow can our Parliament pass legislation permitting alcohol in Islam? Fine line between being Right and Righteous

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:54 #
AHR
Member

QKM,
Who said our Head of State needs to be Muslim?

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:55 #
toamin
member

Agha jee,

Don't be distracted with smoke screen, focus on the core.

Under British Raj Bahadur rule they also allowed Muslim Personal Family Law in their courts/govt.

Does that mean British were non-secular or Islamic?

Other countries also have provisions on fair character of candidate for president/prime minister post, only their definition is different.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 5:57 #
quaidkamazaar
Member

AHR,

Islamically, the head of state should be muslim. its a rule.

but so what bro, make members in his cabinet nonmuslims if the need arises. we already have seats for nonmuslims in parliament.

Islam is not as strict as one would think, true Islamic ideology is a lot more secular in itself which does not believe in forcing at all.

theoretically,
all what Muslims ask is, become part of our nation, we will defend your dignity and give justice no matter what your caste creed race is. this never happened in Pakistan as all hindus realized they were being crushed and ran away to India, it could have been done in a better way.

To make things worse, East Pakistan was cut off taking away majority of Pakistan's minorities. Only Karachi and mostly Sindh was left with sizable minority religions.

because of mostly only muslims, Pakistan looks largely antisecular, technically it should not be Jinnah clearly said it no need to hide.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 6:54 #
toamin
member

The most interesting statement ever!

Islam is not as strict as one would think, true Islamic ideology is a lot more secular in itself which does not believe in forcing at all.

What a slap on philosophy of secularism and teachings of Islam!

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 6:57 #
toamin
member

Instead of defining our own new philosophy of secularism or defining new version of Islam, why not we refer to the origin of these two?

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:00 #
quaidkamazaar
Member

JJ sir,

If you actually look at it, it really holds true,

Islam spread mostly not by the sword.
by giving equaliy among all human beings.

this ideals of Freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness are our own,

all these secular ideals are also our own, just that we are more strict, if you steal or rape you will pay in equal terms!!! eye for an eye it is.

Islam means great justice.
There exists a secularism in Islam itself, not everyone needs to be a muslim....

if one is praying 5 times a day, if one is fasting, these things are upto the person and god..... state cannot do anything about it.... this idea is secular in itself, its giving liberty.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:06 #
quaidkamazaar
Member

I am not redefining ISlam at all.

How did Prophet PBUH treat the Jews of Madinah?
Think about it,
there are huge resemblences of secular ideals in an Islamic State, they dont need to be opposites.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:09 #
toamin
member

Brother QKM,

I only suggest to make a reference to some evidence when we present a philosophy.

If we want Islam then any policy or action that we like we should back it up with source from Qur'an Sunnah as the reason not benefit/loss.

Similarly if we want to emulate European experience, then we should also make proper reference to understand the things in correct perspective or else we will remain confused as we have been for past 62 years -asking for secularism while it is already there in letter and spirit!

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:11 #
kq
Member

Ok, so the history of Pakistan is important. Pakistan was created for Muslims who felt that they were a seperate nation from Hindus and could'nt peacefully coexist with them. Right.

So this gives rise to the important question why did they feel this way (given the present scenario that Muslims can't peacefully coexist with themselves, let alone others, while the Muslims in India continue to live an overall peaceful and violence free life). Why did they feel that they won't be safe in a united India and there rights won't be safeguarded. The answer for this, also lies not surprisingly in history (but is not taught in our schools).

Probably they knew that Muslims from the time of Mehmood Ghaznavi to the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, had commited huge and atrocious acts of violence against the Hindus, ranging from brutally massacring them, to enslaving them and destroying their temples and looting and plundering the wealth and resources of their lands. In short, Muslims had over the course of centuries treated the Hindus like ****.
So they thought when the British leave India, Hindus will take revenge for the injustices done to their forefathers, and make their lives miserable.
To preempt this scenario, they propagated the two nation theory and struggled for a separate Pakistan, where there generations would have a safe future, and they would atone for their forefather sins by guaranteeing the minorities there, equal rights in a secular society. Or they created Pakistan, so they could live according to Shariat, whatever makes you happy.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:11 #
toamin
member

In addition to my point above. Regarding kq's statement that Muslim's treated hindus like **** contradicts the fact that hindus enjoyed great status with Muslim rulers in India.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:13 #
quaidkamazaar
Member

kq im sorry but i totally disagree.

these ideas like Muslim Rulers of India massacred Hindus are wrong. Its only BJP thinking.

Muslim Rulers of India gave equal rights to Hindus... Hindus were impressed by Islamic judicial system and were satisified by it! thats why Muslims ruled as minority for so long imagine.

Only some rulers became extremely strict, but more often than not, there were Hindus in Shaahi darbaars all the time.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:18 #
toamin
member

of course QKM you are right, Muslims/Hindus fought against British together at many battles. Muslim rulers had Hindu ministers/administrators.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Nov 2009 7:20 #