Abandoning status as "Islamic Republic"

[vegav]

Turkey comes from a much different context than us. Pakistan must find its own way and build its own unique structure. Those who want to secularize or Islamise Pakistan are its enemies.

what use is secularism to pakistan when muslims are 99%?

 

[Ussaid]

For starters there no copies of the speech in question:

No copy of Jinnah’s ‘secular state’ speech: India – The Express Tribune

However, regardless of that fact Islam and the Islamic Republic allows for freedom of religion as referenced by the following passages:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)​

This has been covered before.

Assuming this speech took place Jinnah was in no way advocating secularism he simply conveyed the message of Islam.

Non-Muslims must be mindful of our laws and if they do not like it they are free to leave.



Before I begin I want to make it clear that not once did Jinnah ever say he wanted a secular Pakistan nor did he ever refer to Pakistan as a secular state. In fact on multiple occasions he's outright referred to Pakistan as an Islamic state routinely stating that the constitution and laws would be Shariah compliant and based on Islams teachings.

Actually you didn't quote the full speech. From the book “Jinnah: Speeches and Statements 1947-1948” pg. 125 what he's actually quoted as having said was:

"Pakistan is the premier Islamic State and the fifth largest in the world. . . The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission." ​

So why leave out the part about him specifically referencing Pakistan as an Islamic state?

This statement was reiterated by Jinnah himself during his April 18, 1948 address to the students of Edwards College in Peshawar as referenced in “Jinnah: Speeches and Statements 1947-1948” pg. 201:

“I am happy to see better things here. What more can one really expect than to see that this mighty land has now been brought under a rule, which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent State.”​

So aside from Jinnah outright declaring that “Pakistan is the premier Islamic State and the fifth largest in the world...” (one of many reasons why we include the term “Islamic Republic” when referencing Pakistan) let us concentrate on the portion you didn't highlight:

"...I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan..."
​

During his speech at the Darbar in Sibi, Balochistan on February 14, 1948 Jinnah stated pretty much the same:

“ . . . I have one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that 'our decisions in the affairs of the State shall be guided by discussions and consultations'."
​

Jinnah even specifically states that Pakistan's constitution would be Sharia compliant during his address to the Karachi Bar Association on January 25, 1948 as referenced in “Jinnah: Speeches and Statements 1947-1948” pg. 98

"Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? . . . Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago. "
​

Again, everything confirms the fact Jinnah supported and wanted laws and a constitution based on Islam which is what all of the great Muslim leaders at the time campaigning for Pakistan since at least 1906 (ex. Allama Iqbal, Rehmat Ali Chaudhary, Sir Syed Khan, etc...) wanted.

This is embodied in the Objective Resolution which was adopted on March 1st 1949 and promulgated by our first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who worked alongside Jinnah and knew better than anyone what he, the other Muslim leaders campaigning for Pakistan (considering he is deemed one of them) and Pakistani's in general wanted and want.

With regards to the portion about Pakistan not being turned into a theocracy ruled over by priests it is actually outlined in the objective resolution's first line which states:

“Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;”​

As it states the laws/constitution will be Sharia compliant and rule of the nation conducted through its people.

I believe that a strong Muslim nation will only come about through a religious leadership that does not force Islam on the people but at the same time is not so lenient as to allow outright blasphemy and disrespect of the faith embodied by its ideals and laws. Instead leaders should be the pinnacle examples of what it means to be a Muslim that is observant of their prayers, modest, loving of their kin in faith, educated, brave and charitable. When the leadership is corrupt, murderous, traitorous and/or made up of lying drunkards you get chaos.



This is fake.

You'll find that quote referenced here and there but I could not find a single copy of the transcript for this supposed press conference in question and him ever making that statement so for all intensive purposes it can't be used as evidence for anything since it most assuredly never happened particularly in light of past events like Chief Justice Munir's book "From Jinnah to Zia" where he fabricates material to support the view Jinnah was secular. No one even references what city this supposed press conference where this supposed remark was even made.

Furthermore, the quote makes no sense considering the plethora of documented speeches Jinnah has made.



What a joke. The whole purpose of secularism is to allow people the freedom to indulge in perversion and immoral behavior.

When asked why the idea of evolution was being pushed even though it was an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis based on no actual proof Sir Julian Huxley (head of UNESCO) stated:

“I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores”​

Case after case shows that secularism protects nothing and no one and secularism proceeded the worlds most heinous atrocities

Burma's 1974 and now Myanmar's 2008 constitution are secular but that hasn't stopped the persecution and mass murder of both Christians and Muslims in the country.

Rwanda had a secular constitution in 1991 but that didn't stop the Rwandan genocide.

Yugoslavia had a secular constitution in 1963 but that didn't stop the Bosnian genocide.

The US had a secular constitution since independence but that didn't stop what could possibly be the world's worst genocide via the extermination of the native population during which they employed rape and biological warfare (ex. blankets laced with polio) to wipe them out. Not to mention the internment of Japanese-American citizens, slavery and later apartheid.

Canada had a secular constitution but that didn't stop the government from placing Japanese citizens into internment camps during WWII for no other reason than they were ethnically Japanese nor the kidnapping of native American children form their families and forcing them into the now infamous “residential school system” where they drilled Christianity into them in an attempt to rob the people of their culture all the while those poor kids were being sexually abused by the staff all the way up to 1994.

The USSR's constitution of 1936 & 1977 were secular but that didn't stop them from mass murdering millions including the genocide enacted via “Operation Lentil” as deemed by the International Criminal Court and its later invasion of the sovereign nation of Afghanistan that followed the soviet orchestrated assassination of

Germany's Weimer constitution was secular which Hitler employed Article 33 of to push through the “Enabling Act of 1933”

Japans Meiji constitution was secular but that didn't stop Japan's horrendous atrocities both abroad and at home.

Karachi, with all this nonsense about “talibanization” and fears of violence is even safer than many the most well known US cities including Boston, Detroit, Baltimore and St. Louis to name a few that have murder rates 4 to 6 times higher even with their exponentially larger amount of security spending. In fact Karachi isn't even on the top 50 most violent cities in 2013 and every city on that list is located in a secular country.

Where are the “religious extremists” in Honduras, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, etc...? all of which are secular nations that have much higher per capita murder rate compared to Pakistan despite their much larger spending on security and secular constitutions?

Should Pakistan become secular so it can commit the same horrendous crimes against its minorities like the US and Canada did to Japanese citizens of their respective countries during WWII?
Japanese Internment Camps in Canada
Japanese Canadian Internment - Information at the University of
Washington Libraries and Beyond

The UNODC confirms that Pakistan's murder rate remained relatively unchanged from 2000 (before Musharraf got Pakistan involved in the US' war) to 2003 when the violence truly started (same year I have always recommended that Musharraf should have exited the “war of terror” engaged by NATO in neighbouring Afghanistan).

Like I've said before secularism has no place in Pakistan nor do secularists and they are free to move to a secular nation as it is obvious they are not loyal to Pakistan, its people and culture. However, be aware of secularism's history and how “secular” societies have treated minorities in the past.

Do you actually even know what secularism means? Going by this logic, there are truly very few states than more evil than Islamic States like the ISIS and Taliban

 

[Imran Khan]

state should not have any religion state is mother of all and religious states are hell best example is pakistan

 

[Menace2Society]

state should not have any religion state is mother of all and religious states are hell best example is pakistan

Prosperous nations understand religion has no place in the corridors of power.

 

[Cherokee]

Prosperous nations understand religion has no place in the corridors of power.

Quoted for emphasis .

 

[Al Bhatti]

Many nations can be rich if they've absolute monarchy and tons of oil/gas. Mind you, UAE, KSA, Qatar and Brunei. For example, oil and gas make up 90% of GDP. These nations also have a small population, hence it is easy to control people.

A country without natural resources + a capable leader (government) = a developed country

A country without natural resources + corrupt leader (government) = underdeveloped country or developing country for decades and decades

A country with natural resources + corrupt leader (government) = underdeveloped country or developing country for decades and decades

A country with natural resources + capable leader (government) = a developed country

 

[PakPrinciples]

Do you actually even know what secularism means? Going by this logic, there are truly very few states than more evil than Islamic States like the ISIS and Taliban

Yeah, I know what it is but it doesn't appear that you do.

Secularism as a state policy has a short history which pretty much began with the US and it's been responsible for more death and destruction on this planet in that time frame and even in general on a per year basis than any other ideology.

The USSR, as I stated in my previous post, had a purely secular constitution Article 124 of the 1936 constitution states:

"In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."​

The USSR, a secular state, was responsible for the murder of almost 62 million people as well as having forcibly displaced millions.

Lets also not forget all the other secularist atrocities committed since the American revolution many of which I outlined in my previous post.

So no thanks we don't need secularism in Pakistan.

The Taliban and all other militant groups within the Muslim world like it are fighting in their own countries for their own lands. Would you then classify the CPC as a terrorist organization for having gone to war against the US allied KMT in China? What about American revolutionaries who were lead by slave owners like G. Washington that created a state which went on to commit its genocide of its native peoples?

Prosperous nations understand religion has no place in the corridors of power.

Which prosperous nations are you referring to? Sounds more like unfounded fascist libtard nonsense to me.

The USSR, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Burma are just some of the "prosperous" secular nations I'm sure you're referring to (as you've already noticed two of them don't even exist anymore).

I just wanted to know if you actually understood that the UK isn't even technically a secular nation? The Queen of England is officially the UK's head of state but she also happens to be the head of the Church of England and one of her official titles is "defender of the faith". In fact I believe the UK's system of government is more similar in structure to the Iranian system of governance than any other country on this planet.

Now with regards to prosperity if you're referring to secular Western nations then sorry to burst your bubble but they prospered by stealing from everyone else whether it be labor (ex. slavery) or resources (raw materials like spices, cotton, grains, sugars, etc...).

What did you think the Opium wars were about? Europe had a massive trade deficit with China which was largely self sufficient and since they couldn't allow that they pushed opium and war on the Chinese which lead the way to millions of exploited laborers for former British colony the United States to exploit.

To give you another example Pakistan and India's GDP (PPP) per capita rose 300% in 33 years following the end of British colonialism while during colonialism our GDP (PPP) per capita rose a measly 60% in 115 years as confirmed by Angus Maddison in his book "Contours of the World Economy, 1-2030 AD". The same goes for Africa whose economies all grew much faster after the end of colonialism than during it and the effect of colonialism was termed as largely "negative" as confirmed in the 1996 paper "Did Colonization Matter for Growth" by Prof. Graziella Bertocchi and Prof. Fabio Canova. However, Africa's success was once again sabotaged after many of it's countries went on a borrowing spree thanks to the advice the World Bank and IMF (made and controlled by individuals from secular prosperous nations) gave it in the 70s and 80s only to see oil and with it commodity prices plummet such that they were not only unable to repay the initial balance they owed but were barely if even able to pay back the interest that accrued on those loans (something Islam would not have allowed but secularism did leading the rest of the world into poverty).

Pakistan's economic problems stem from the failed neoliberal economic policies promoted by libtards in the Pakistan and countries like the US along with groups like the IMF. I've covered this in a series of posts and if you're interested let me know I'll link them to you or debate you on this subject matter.

 

[Pakistani E]

fascist libtard nonsense to me.

Explain this term to me and I will give you a chocolate chip cookie.

 

[PakPrinciples]

Many nations can be rich if they've absolute monarchy and tons of oil/gas. Mind you, UAE, KSA, Qatar and Brunei. For example, oil and gas make up 90% of GDP.

That's absolute nonsense pushed by liberal and Indian morons who understand nothing and provide no actual evidence to support their arguments.

If you're interested to know why Pakistan's economy suffers I had a discussion with @That Guy on this subject and I've linked two of my more recent posts below (they can be quite technical but all the information is referenced and I provide ample charts/figures to help you understand).
Non-discriminatory market access: Pakistan, India all but sign trade normalisation deal | Page 2
Non-discriminatory market access: Pakistan, India all but sign trade normalisation deal | Page 2

I can discuss the subject further with you if you're interested just let me know.

With regards to the oil and gas sector my impression is that you're more interested in crude oil/gas exports so let's look at OPEC's own site where they reference that information and you'll find that petroleum exports only account for about 43% of Saudi Arabia's GDP, 32% of UAE's GDP and 31% of Qatars GDP.

Now you're correct that oil/gas exports do make up a significant portion of those countries respective budgets but let's take a look at Venezuela which is secular and a member of OPEC with proven crude oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia.

Petroleum exports make up about 23% of Venezuela's GDP and account for 95% of its exports yet it's GDP/capita is 1/2 that of Saudi Arabia's, almost 1/4th that of the UAE's and about 1/8th that of Qatar's. So why is Venezuela poorer despite its larger oil reserves and secular constitution along with resources that Gulf nations do not possess like arable land, gold, timber, fresh water, etc...?

The same can be said about Russia, another secular nation, which the US EIA states oil and gas accounted for 68% of their exports and 47% of government revenues yet its GDP/capita is also almost 1/2 of Saudi Arabia's, 1/4th that of the UAE's and 1/8th that of Qatar's. So why is Russia poorer despite its abundance of oil and gas along with a secular constitution also with resources that Gulf states do not possess like abundant arable land, timber, gold, coal, fresh water, etc...?

Furthermore, look at the crime rates in secular Venezuela and Russia in comparison to Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia there is no comparison the Muslim nations, without destructive secularism, are far safer and far more prosperous.

Also if you have a chance look over my previous post on this thread regarding secularism and Pakistan where I go into detail with proof and rebuttals that Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, etc... wanted an Islamic nation and provide ample of how destructive secularism has been around the world:
Abandoning status as "Islamic Republic" | Page 29

Explain this term to me and I will give you a chocolate chip cookie.

Save the cookie for yourself. It short form for a fascist liberal retard.

 

[Pakistani E]

facist liberal

And how does that work exactly? Where do I find these gun toting liberal fascists?

 

[Screambowl]

As far as I know, it was only in 1956 Pakistan adopted Islamic Republic. And was not formed as Islamic republic.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

Prosperous nations understand religion has no place in the corridors of power.

You're implying prosperous nations have reached that stage because they separated religion and state. I beg to disagree, for an Islamic republic can too reach that point, and far higher if focus is given to towards education, science and technology, the economy and military. Our current focus is on the military only, whereas most nations other than US focus far more on the other aspects and hence their prosperity.
Respectfully, that example is akin to saying that drinking water causes one to become a serial killer, for 100% of all serial killers drink it.
Correlation does not cause causation.

Either way, however, I think both you (i.e. secularists) and I (traditionalists, if I may call myself so) like to see a prosperous Pakistan, and only our means of achieving it differ. At least I hope that's the case.

 

[WishLivePak]

That's absolute nonsense pushed by liberal and Indian morons who understand nothing and provide no actual evidence to support their arguments.

If you're interested to know why Pakistan's economy suffers I had a discussion with @That Guy on this subject and I've linked two of my more recent posts below (they can be quite technical but all the information is referenced and I provide ample charts/figures to help you understand).
Non-discriminatory market access: Pakistan, India all but sign trade normalisation deal | Page 2
Non-discriminatory market access: Pakistan, India all but sign trade normalisation deal | Page 2

I can discuss the subject further with you if you're interested just let me know.

With regards to the oil and gas sector my impression is that you're more interested in crude oil/gas exports so let's look at OPEC's own site where they reference that information and you'll find that petroleum exports only account for about 43% of Saudi Arabia's GDP, 32% of UAE's GDP and 31% of Qatars GDP.

Now you're correct that oil/gas exports do make up a significant portion of those countries respective budgets but let's take a look at Venezuela which is secular and a member of OPEC with proven crude oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia.

Petroleum exports make up about 23% of Venezuela's GDP and account for 95% of its exports yet it's GDP/capita is 1/2 that of Saudi Arabia's, almost 1/4th that of the UAE's and about 1/8th that of Qatar's. So why is Venezuela poorer despite its larger oil reserves and secular constitution along with resources that Gulf nations do not possess like arable land, gold, timber, fresh water, etc...?

The same can be said about Russia, another secular nation, which the US EIA states oil and gas accounted for 68% of their exports and 47% of government revenues yet its GDP/capita is also almost 1/2 of Saudi Arabia's, 1/4th that of the UAE's and 1/8th that of Qatar's. So why is Russia poorer despite its abundance of oil and gas along with a secular constitution also with resources that Gulf states do not possess like abundant arable land, timber, gold, coal, fresh water, etc...?

Furthermore, look at the crime rates in secular Venezuela and Russia in comparison to Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia there is no comparison the Muslim nations, without destructive secularism, are far safer and far more prosperous.

Also if you have a chance look over my previous post on this thread regarding secularism and Pakistan where I go into detail with proof and rebuttals that Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, etc... wanted an Islamic nation and provide ample of how destructive secularism has been around the world:
Abandoning status as "Islamic Republic" | Page 29



Save the cookie for yourself. It short form for a fascist liberal retard.

Ummm Russia is disliked by west and faces massive sanctions, was a communist country and the list goes on.

Anyway, this thread is old for me and I don't consider having further discussion on it.

Also you need to learn more about oil. Venezuela just few years ago found out it's vast reserves. Also it's very cheap for oil to produce in Middle East, so profits are high and they have massive market share. Take Canada, it costs up to 5 times extra to get oil compared to Saudi arabia. I don't know how much it costs in Venezuela, but it isn't cheap as like in Middle East.

Saudi Arabia refused to lower their production despite falling oil price because they didn't want to lose market share.

Saudi has nearly 3 times the gdp of Venezuela and hence has 3 times the gdp per capita. Also Saudi is praised by west and supported unlike Venezuela.

Anyway, again, this thread is old for me and I've no interest in continuing here again. If you want to argue, find my recent threads and take a pick.

As far as I know, it was only in 1956 Pakistan adopted Islamic Republic. And was not formed as Islamic republic.

And it's funny that people who came after Jinnah and knew him well didn't get Islamic republic until 56. We had many prime ministers in nearly 10 years until one guy who wanted power and used Islamic republic as a tool. Today many fall for that, thinking it was what Jinnah wanted (which the Governor General said that jinnah wanted that). His excuse worked.

 

[Screambowl]

And it's funny that people who came after Jinnah and knew him well didn't get Islamic republic until 56. We had many prime ministers in nearly 10 years until one guy who wanted power and used Islamic republic as a tool. Today many fall for that, thinking it was what Jinnah wanted (which the Governor General said that jinnah wanted that). His excuse worked.

So remains B'desh on today's date an Islamic republic. But I fail to understand, why the Military rule was incapable of joining itself with the Muslim block in 50-60'S. The Official declaration of Pakistan as Islamic republic would have opened it's doors to the muslim block.

 

[Tshering22]

The problem is not the name of Pakistan. It is simply the increasingly dangerous views of the current generations of Pakistanis, compared to the much more open minded and warmer thinking of older generations of Pakistanis.

There are many stans that are muslim majority but the way they manage their countries like the success of Kazakhstan is very impressive. They know who they are, are open-minded and yet don't compromise on anything.