What's new

A short history of religious bigotry in our Islamic Republic

Status
Not open for further replies.

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,034
-1
512
Country
India
Location
United States
Well there were many desis.. sectary to Auchik was Syed Shahid Hamid

Secondly I am stating what Islam says... and men in Khakhi dont see religion,caste,creed witin perimeters of Islam.
Islam does not ask to discriminate on the basis of religion. It is the followers of Islam who make rules based on their wish. In Pakistan, your Army made this rule to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Did Islam say anything on who can take you take debt from, who can be your ally etc. Dont put your own thoughts on Islam.
 

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 26, 2018
2,220
5
2,322
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Islam does not ask to discriminate on the basis of religion. It is the followers of Islam who make rules based on their wish. In Pakistan, your Army made this rule to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Did Islam say anything on who can take you take debt from, who can be your ally etc. Dont put your own thoughts on Islam.
Islam does not ask to discriminate but it is written there that head of state and armed forces are to be Muslim mere bahi...

And Army did not make this decision this decision was made according to Islam law... and yes Islam clearly says no interest on debt and all rulings... as for allies it states anyone can be your ally unless they betray you..
 

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,034
-1
512
Country
India
Location
United States
Islam does not ask to discriminate but it is written there that head of state and armed forces are to be Muslim mere bahi...

And Army did not make this decision this decision was made according to Islam law... and yes Islam clearly says no interest on debt and all rulings... as for allies it states anyone can be your ally unless they betray you..
it is written there. Where? In Quran?

No interest on debt? So you would not pay interest to IMF, China etc on the loans you took? Atleast no interest to Saudi Arabia and UAE as they are also Islamic countries?
 

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 26, 2018
2,220
5
2,322
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
it is written there. Where? In Quran?

No interest on debt? So you would not pay interest to IMF, China etc on the loans you took? Atleast no interest to Saudi Arabia and UAE as they are also Islamic countries?
Its written in Shariyat

As for debt todays system is all debt infested cant do much about it bro can we 😄
 

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,034
-1
512
Country
India
Location
United States
Islam does not ask to discriminate but it is written there that head of state and armed forces are to be Muslim mere bahi...

And Army did not make this decision this decision was made according to Islam law... and yes Islam clearly says no interest on debt and all rulings... as for allies it states anyone can be your ally unless they betray you..
So your Quaid-e-Azam broke the Islamic rule in 1947 and appointed a Christian as Army Chief. Why was that?
Its written in Shariyat

As for debt todays system is all debt infested cant do much about it bro can we 😄
Curious q. Who wrote Shariyat. Was it Prophet Muhammad?
Its written in Shariyat

As for debt todays system is all debt infested cant do much about it bro can we 😄
so you make this exception when it suits you. But your army cant make the exception, even though they hate to discriminate based on religion, they are forced to do so due to Shariyat.
 
Last edited:

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 26, 2018
2,220
5
2,322
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
So your Quaid-e-Azam broke the Islamic rule in 1947 and appointed a Christian as Army Chief. Why was that?

Curious q. Who wrote Shariyat. Was it Prophet Muhammad?

so you make this exception when it suits you. But your army cant make the exception, even though they hate to discriminate based on religion, they are forced to do so due to Shariyat.
Quaid e Azam never appointed the army cheif... British stayed for a decade after partition..

As for Shariyat it was written according during life time of Prophet PBUH.

And we never make exception interest is how world works if we could change it we would have anyone with a brain will prefer a interest free society. And in Pakistan there are many interest free banks. As for army it has to follow whats written in constitution regarding appointment of Army cheif.
 

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,034
-1
512
Country
India
Location
United States
Quaid e Azam never appointed the army cheif... British stayed for a decade after partition..

As for Shariyat it was written according during life time of Prophet PBUH.

And we never make exception interest is how world works if we could change it we would have anyone with a brain will prefer a interest free society. And in Pakistan there are many interest free banks. As for army it has to follow whats written in constitution regarding appointment of Army cheif.
British stayed for a decade. So, although you consider 14th Aug 1947 as your independence date, you were not truly independent until a decade later? If you were truly independent, and you are loyal to your Shariyat, you would have made an independent decision and applied Shariyat's law from day 1.

Who exactly wrote Shariyat? Did Prophet PBUH read it and sign it saying that I agree on whatever is written in it? If not, how can you 100% trust Shariyat? Just a curious question, not meaning to insult it.

So everything in your consitution is as per Shariyat?
 

Nasr

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 9, 2018
2,138
1
3,838
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Free Media? Huh, the current state of media in Pakistan is worse than pathetic. The journalism which should and what is portrayed as journalism by some of these scoundrels, is vomit inducing. There is no class of educated, refined individuals. Instead there are dogs that bark to their masters tune, depending on which political-mafia group their owe their allegiance to.

I haven't seen one Pakistani News Network which displays the class of real journalism which is both allied to the truth and displays the character of a Real Muslim.

It say that "they" are too rich, too powerful, "they" have mafias and "they" have control of the law enforcement and so on ..... A Muslim has his Imaan and one who fears his/her Creator, fear no one else.

Denounce liar journalism, reject corrupt politicians, oppose their mafia/thugs and stand up for the Truth (Noble Qur'an).
 

Invicta

FULL MEMBER
Mar 5, 2020
407
1
581
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Last week during the hearing on Punjab’s dissolution of local bodies, Justice Qazi Faez Isa made a number of damning observations on the conduct of not just the Government of Punjab but also the conduct of the Federal Government vis a vis freedom of the press. He said in clear language that media in Pakistan is not free. To back this up he asked the media persons to raise their hands if they think media free in Pakistan. No hands went up. When he asked them to raise their hands if they think media is not free, all hands went up. It was a very embarrassing moment for the Federal Government, which for the last two and a half years has held no punches to ensure that the media is made compliant to their whims and sensitivities. Without a free media there can be democracy. Justice Qazi made another astute observation: While a person is free to dislike some provisions of the Constitution by right, the constitutional framework and method is supreme. It is this part – the right to dislike some provisions- that was the most important part of His Lordship’s observations.

There is much that one dislikes about the present Constitution i.e. its discrimination against Non-Muslims and its theocratic undertones. Still this is the Constitution we have and we must work within its framework to deliver a democratic society. Extreme right wing only sees those clauses that benefit them but forget that the Constitution provides fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion. The same Constitution also provides for minorities the right to freely profess, practise and propagate their faith while being allowed to freely developed their culture. However consider for example the case of Ahmadis. Declared Non-Muslim by this Constitution in 1974 (a provision they dislike as is their right), since 1984 they are not allowed to free profess, practise and propagate their faith or develop their culture freely. In fact they are routinely imprisoned for their faith or even reading the Holy Quran. As if that was not enough they are not allowed to even publish their own books for their own consumption. This is championed as a constitutionally sanctioned discrimination when the Fundamental Rights, both Article 19 and Article 20, say otherwise. These Fundamental Rights are immutable and cannot be made subject to Ahmadis agreeing to their classification as Non-Muslim. Constitution declares them Non-Muslim for the purposes of law and constitution but it does not make it obligatory on them to consider themselves Non-Muslim.



Pakistan had embarked on the Islamic Republic project in 1956. The makers of the first constitution were mindful of the fact that the very nature of the Islamic Republic will come to be contested between the modernists and the orthodoxy. The framers of 1956 Constitution were not outright secularists – though it would have been better if they were- because if they had been they would not have wanted an Islamic Republic. Therefore they ensured that other than the office of the president, there were no bars against any community.The office of the Prime Minister was open to every community and more importantly the Republic had no state religion. The 1956 Constitution had no religious oaths and unfettered fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion. By and large the Constitution of 1962 – which unlike the 1956 Constitution was not framed by a Constituent Assembly and was presidential in nature- followed the tradition of keeping religion and state had somewhat a distance. Indeed initially the 1962 Constitution had named the country Republic of Pakistan, something, which was changed back to the Islamic Republic by first amendment.



All of this changed in 1973. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was a towering political figure but he was driven by this mad notion that the constitution must be made by the consensus of all sections including the religious right. He had come to power defeating the parties of the right and the main opposition to him the NAP was also secular. What drove him to seek the consensus of the religious right is one of life’s great mysteries as are his actions in 1974 because he was no bigot- indeed far from it. These are questions only Bhutto could have answered but providence did not give him the opportunity to right the wrongs.1973 could have been Pakistan’s moment but it was blown and is now a cautionary tale.


1973 Constitution was further mangled by General Zia’s bigoted dictatorship and now enables the kind of ruthless denial of fundamental rights that we see. Consider for example the judgment by Islamabad High Court in the now famous Allah Wassaya Case, PLD 2019 Page 62, authored by the now disgraced “Justice” Shaukat Aziz Siddiqi. It builds on Zaheeruddin v State, 1993 SCMR 1718, which had upheld the persecution of Ahmadis as being constitutional. The Allah Wasaya Case went further. First it repeated the propaganda against Ahmadis declaring them enemies of the state. The thrust of it was that no Ahmadi should hold an office in the state. Clearly the disgraced judge either had no idea or deliberately chose to overlook the fact that the reason Pakistan today has UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir was the good work of an Ahmadi. Zafrullah Khan, appointed Foreign Minister by none other than Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah himself, had gotten the resolutions we wave in India’s face. The last official action by the Quaid-e-Azam was to give Zafrullah Khan the plenipotentiary powers on the Kashmir issue. The disgraced Judge also forgot to mention that an Ahmadi General who was on the verge of taking all of Kashmir before he was replaced by Yahya Khan in 1965 who went ahead and blew that great opportunity. It was an Ahmadi Mirza Muzaffar Ahmad as the Federal Finance Secretary who got the Tarbela and Mangla Dams made. Earlier he was instrumental in getting the Indus Basin Treaty being signed which protected Pakistan’s rights as the lower riparian state. It was an Ahmadi, DrAbdus Salam, who founded SUPARCO (and sent a satellite into space long before most countries in Asia) and then led the famous Multan Conference where the idea of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb was born. My guess is that the now disgraced judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqi is too ignorant to know these facts or too much of bigot to appreciate the salience of these contributions.


The judgment did not stop here. “Justice” Siddiqi also ordered that Ahmadis should be stopped from calling themselves Ahmadis and also forced to add “Qadiani” “Mirzai” or “Ghulam-e-mirza” to their name. The ignorant disgraced judge thus wanted to replicate the Nazi model in Pakistan. Thankfully his big mouth got him into trouble soon enough and Pakistan was rid of General Zia junior before he could become the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court. One wishes that Pakistan had more of Justice QaziIsas and fewer Justice Siddiqis.

An interesting read, I have always thought about this when visiting Pakistan and reading about it. The constitution does make some confusing points, on one hand it enshrines liberty and free hand to minorities and then it also openly discriminates against them by denying them the right to the highest office in the land.

It wasn't long ago that PM Imran Khan had to backtrack and get rid of Mr Atif Mian. A well known and reputable economist. So much for "Pakistan belongs as much to minorities as it does to the majority," Might as well change the flag to Green only, the white is considered a blemish by most anyway.

I brought this up with someone who is a minority in Pakistan and his reply was " we are like salt in dough" without us it will taste bland. Just wished the majority appreciated these people more.
 

PakPrinciples

FULL MEMBER
May 6, 2013
557
2
720
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
So your Quaid-e-Azam broke the Islamic rule in 1947 and appointed a Christian as Army Chief. Why was that?
Islam does make exceptions like eating pork if there's nothing else to eat to avoid starvation, lying to protect your life in the face of kafir persecution like we witness today in India under the BJP and in the past during the Spanish Inquisition by Christians, etc...

Islam is a pretty practical religion.

These were extraordinary times, we faced persecution and an attempted occupation of our ancestral lands by a hegemonic Hindu terrorist force lead by Ghandi and Nehru now replaced by an even more virulent version of it that still occupy Kashmir to this day.

Jinnah hired non-Muslim British officers to perform a role, not be leaders, and once capable Muslim officers were able to take over as leaders they did.

What forbids us from doing that?

Mate all the first C-In-C were non muslims of all millitary branches..
They were non-Muslim former British soldiers but that was only a stop gap until capable Muslim officers could be produced to fill the ranks.

Once those Pakistani Muslim officers were available the British were phased out.

Those British officers provided a service for payment otherwise they faced retirement and what would they do then? This was a fair exchange, nothing more. We don't owe our nations liberty and freedom to a few British officers rather the tens of thousands of brave Pakistani Muslim soldiers who died defending the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Parsis are not even 0.1%. Even then Sam Manekshaw was our Army Chief, and not by accident but by merit. Can there be a non-Muslim Army Chief in Pakistan? What will you say to a patriotic non-Muslim Pakistani? That you can serve your country but only upto a limit. There will always be a glass ceiling for you.
That's exactly what I'd tell them.

If they're loyal citizens of the Islamic Republic they'll respect our founding fathers wishes, our constitution and our traditions but if they can't do that they should be expelled to secular liberal India.

If Canada prevented Muslims from holding the office of PM or the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) here I personally couldn't care less so why should non-Muslims living in Pakistan care unless they aren't loyal to Pakistan.

We do not need kafir's in our armed forces nor do we need them in our government. In a nation of 200 Million people do you think we're short of good capable Muslim soldiers?

There is much that one dislikes about the present Constitution i.e. its discrimination against Non-Muslims and its theocratic undertones. Still this is the Constitution we have and we must work within its framework to deliver a democratic society. Extreme right wing only sees those clauses that benefit them but forget that the Constitution provides fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion.
There's nothing wrong with our constitution and Justice Qaez shouldn't be an acting judge nor a citizen of Pakistan if this is what he thinks.

There are freedoms and rights afforded but nothing outside of what Islam grants the public and if anything is found to violate that rule it isn't legal and needs to be struck down.

Frankly Pakistan wasn't created by Muslims that wanted to be ruled by kafir's and live with those hostile to us and our culture instead it was created by people that believed in the supremacy of Islam. Those who believed otherwise threw their lot in with the Hindu's and for that they're now jailed, raped, murdered and beaten in India.

I don't see why anyone who opposes the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should have any right to live in Pakistan.

What a leech and any pig who thinks like him is the same.
 
Last edited:

TheSnakeEatingMarkhur

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 26, 2018
2,220
5
2,322
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
British stayed for a decade. So, although you consider 14th Aug 1947 as your independence date, you were not truly independent until a decade later? If you were truly independent, and you are loyal to your Shariyat, you would have made an independent decision and applied Shariyat's law from day 1.

Who exactly wrote Shariyat? Did Prophet PBUH read it and sign it saying that I agree on whatever is written in it? If not, how can you 100% trust Shariyat? Just a curious question, not meaning to insult it.

So everything in your consitution is as per Shariyat?
British were a stop gap mate.. secondly yes there were good officiers but they alone couldnt get army together...

Secondly here is stuff about Shariyat

Lastly constitution of Pakistan is based on different things mainly Shariyat.
 

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,034
-1
512
Country
India
Location
United States
These were extraordinary times, we faced persecution and an attempted occupation of our ancestral lands by a hegemonic Hindu terrorist force lead by Ghandi and Nehru now replaced by an even more virulent version of it that still occupy Kashmir to this day.
This is the first time I am hearing anyone say Mahatma Gandhi was a terrorist. Lol. Even Jinnah considered him to be a saint. I do not need to respond further on that.

Jinnah hired non-Muslim British officers to perform a role, not be leaders, and once capable Muslim officers were able to take over as leaders they did.

What forbids us from doing that?
Good, atleast you are honest about it.

That's exactly what I'd tell them.

If they're loyal citizens of the Islamic Republic they'll respect our founding fathers wishes, our constitution and our traditions but if they can't do that they should be expelled to secular liberal India.
So you do agree that non-Muslims are to be 2nd class citizens in Pakistan with curtailed rights. If they do not like that and want to become equal citizens, they should move to a secular country like India.

If Canada prevented Muslims from holding the office of PM or the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) here I personally couldn't care less so why should non-Muslims living in Pakistan care unless they aren't loyal to Pakistan.
I am not aware of this Canadian law. I know that they have lots of non-Christians in their cabinet. Even the defence minister is a Sikh. Is the law specifically preventing Muslims or all non-Christians?

We do not need kafir's in our armed forces nor do we need them in our government. In a nation of 200 Million people do you think we're short of good capable Muslim soldiers?
If you are clear that you dont need non-Muslims in your army or govt, please make it clear to your fellow Pakistanis. They were claiming that Khaki does not discriminate basis religion. Pakistanis proudly show us a token Hindu, and Sikh in Pak army uniform. You should tell them to resign from army then.
British were a stop gap mate.. secondly yes there were good officiers but they alone couldnt get army together...

Secondly here is stuff about Shariyat

Lastly constitution of Pakistan is based on different things mainly Shariyat.
You never told me who wrote Shariyat and whether the Prophet authorized it (or approved it).

What does Shariyat say about blasphemy laws in Pak constitution?
 

PakPrinciples

FULL MEMBER
May 6, 2013
557
2
720
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
This is the first time I am hearing anyone say Mahatma Gandhi was a terrorist. Lol. Even Jinnah considered him to be a saint. I do not need to respond further on that.
The racist Ghandi who hated black people and blessed the invasion and occupation of Kashmir whose statues are being torn down globally is a saint?

Jinnah knew what Ghandi was, that's why he didn't trust him, Nehru or any Hindu in government hence his continued call for the independence of our ancestral lands and race.

We're happy with Pakistan, we'll work through our issues Indians should focus on fixing their country.

I am not aware of this Canadian law. I know that they have lots of non-Christians in their cabinet. Even the defence minister is a Sikh. Is the law specifically preventing Muslims or all non-Christians?
No, that's why I was saying "if" Canada prevented Muslims from being PM or CDS I wouldn't care and if it bothered me I'd leave. It's really that simple.

Canada won't have that kind of law because this country doesn't belong to Whites or Blacks or Browns or Yellows, Christians or Muslims or Jews. This is a nation built on the corpses of the Native Americans that were slaughtered, raped, kidnapped and re-educated (ex. Residential School System) and then their descendants imprisoned on reserves where they largely continue to live in anguish.

Pakistan on the other hand is a nation built by the Muslims of Pakistan for the Muslims of Pakistan in opposition to the demands and threats of violence by Indians and British colonialists. Our civilization is 9000 years old and we'll be around for much longer than that, we don't need to steal the homes of other peoples.

If you are clear that you dont need non-Muslims in your army or govt, please make it clear to your fellow Pakistanis. They were claiming that Khaki does not discriminate basis religion. Pakistanis proudly show us a token Hindu, and Sikh in Pak army uniform. You should tell them to resign from army then.
There's nothing to clear up.

They are free in Pakistan to join the armed forces if they feel like they want to serve the Islamic Republic.

Ours is a volunteer army and we have more than enough Muslims who are willing to fight and die for our nation we need no Hindu or Sikh or Christian to defend our lands and peoples.

However, if they serve and die in the line of duty fighting against hegemonic Hindu terror I'll say a prayer for them whether they kill a Hindu, Sikh or a muppet Indian "Muslim" who preaches his secular BS while striving to murder the innocent peace loving Muslims of Pakistan for his slave masters.
 

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,034
-1
512
Country
India
Location
United States
The racist Ghandi who hated black people and blessed the invasion and occupation of Kashmir whose statues are being torn down globally is a saint?

Jinnah knew what Ghandi was, that's why he didn't trust him, Nehru or any Hindu in government hence his continued call for the independence of our ancestral lands and race.

We're happy with Pakistan, we'll work through our issues Indians should focus on fixing their country.



No, that's why I was saying "if" Canada prevented Muslims from being PM or CDS I wouldn't care and if it bothered me I'd leave. It's really that simple.

Canada won't have that kind of law because this country doesn't belong to Whites or Blacks or Browns or Yellows, Christians or Muslims or Jews. This is a nation built on the corpses of the Native Americans that were slaughtered, raped, kidnapped and re-educated (ex. Residential School System) and then their descendants imprisoned on reserves where they largely continue to live in anguish.

Pakistan on the other hand is a nation built by the Muslims of Pakistan for the Muslims of Pakistan in opposition to the demands and threats of violence by Indians and British colonialists. Our civilization is 9000 years old and we'll be around for much longer than that, we don't need to steal the homes of other peoples.



There's nothing to clear up.

They are free in Pakistan to join the armed forces if they feel like they want to serve the Islamic Republic.

Ours is a volunteer army and we have more than enough Muslims who are willing to fight and die for our nation we need no Hindu or Sikh or Christian to defend our lands and peoples.

However, if they serve and die in the line of duty fighting against hegemonic Hindu terror I'll say a prayer for them whether they kill a Hindu, Sikh or a muppet Indian "Muslim" who preaches his secular BS while striving to murder the innocent peace loving Muslims of Pakistan for his slave masters.
I can give you an eye for an eye for each of your statements, but you do not seem like a guy who would argue based on facts. Your naked hatred is beyond redemption. Be happy. Take care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom