An outrageous ban

[Donatello]

What kind of a lame comment is that ?

Why not pay income tax ? they don't use the country's infrastructure ?

How can you equate a matter of personal preference with national duty (i.e to pay tax).

this decision was made by the BAR association which does not represent government, and the decision should be respected and taken as a precursor of wide spread sentiment

Pakistan Resolution (The most important part of the independence movement in 1940s) was drafted and put forth by Zafarullah Khan, a member of Ahmadi sect and its stern follower. I bet many here don't know that.

Stop bashing Ahmadis and others alike. I hope these lawyers suffer the wrath of god.

 

[Armstrong]

It should be a personal matter- personal choice of the LBA members-
Its their choice- it should be a non- issue-

Its like saying- "Shame on all the vegetarians- who discriminate chicken and not eat it"-

No it is an issue. Its an issue when communalism and intolerance is garbed in a seemingly democratic apparel, because just as the government has an opinion on banning the manufacture and distribution of Alcohol freely in Pakistan because it adversely affects the society, so should it have an opinion on actions that increasingly treat a community as 'the others' - our untouchables, if you will.

Any disagreement with the Ahmedi community should have been sorted out through an intellectual debate on what the religion says or it doesn't and then let each decide as they will. We started this institutionalized discrimination first by declaring them Non-Muslims and then by stifling their religious freedom - all in direct contravention to what the Book says and what Jinnah and Iqbal would have wanted us to do. And now its reached a level of such perversion that many from amongst us wouldn't trade with them, eat with them, even value their opinion on a plethora of things and f**k even kill them - all under the guise of a perverted notion of Islam that those cancerous bearded ******** from amongst us would teach our young and old alike.

A Pakistan, which was supposed to be an adoption of some of the best traditions of Islami; where we'd produce the Avicennas and Averoes of our age, where we'd give the world an alternative economic model in-line with modernity and yet ethics, where we'd give the muslim world a bastion that they could find solace in and a shining example of how Muslims and Non-Muslims can co-exist peacefully with reciprocal love between each other by borrowing from the Turkish Millet or the Andalusian model, has given way to this Pakistan, where we don't order from a said vendor because we don't see eye to eye with them on a particular theological stance - well f**k me, but Jinnah and our ancestors would be turning in their graves right now.

 

[Omar1984]

That is exactly what happens when you make the foundation of a country based on a religious identity. Communities like Hindus/Sikhs/Ahmadis get marginalized.

Many Qadyanis also migrated from India to Pakistan during partition. They started experiencing discrimination in Pakistan only after the 1980's starting from General Zia's era. General Zia is still my hero, he helped Mujahideen bring down the Soviets.

 

[neutral_person]

Tis true that present day Pakistan is far from the Pakistan Jinnah wanted it to be; however the other side of the coin is not necessarily secularism especially if a said religion has a socio-political-economic and legal dimension to it. The other side, as proposed by Jinnah, is a truly democratic, religiously plural and liberal society with Islam as its implied (or mildly explicit) dominant culture where all Muslims and all Non-Muslims can sit together as equal citizens of the state in the legislative body of the state. Where no law is passed which directly affects one community without the explicit majority approval of that community.

Thats the Pakistan we aim for.

While that is a good idea, what you are essentially supporting in your argument is a secular state, not an Islamic state. Most secular countries in today's world does have a dominant culture that it has inherited from its past generations (Hinduism for India, Christianity for most of the Western nations, Islam in Turkey), but they treat their minorities as equals.

Most countries that declare themselves as Islamic state openly discriminate against other minorities living in these lands (in Pakistan, you could be a Sikh living in these lands for the past 1000 years, but you cannot be the President/Prime Minister. In most Arab states, there are restrictions on religious minorities on business and property rights and so on).

So by the very definition, a secular state is one where all the citizens are treated equally while an Islamic state is one where Muslims enjoy certain privileges over others. What you are arguing for in your point is a system that is secular but just Islamic by name.

 

[neutral_person]

Many Qadyanis also migrated from India to Pakistan during partition. They started experiencing discrimination in Pakistan only after the 1980's starting from General Zia's era. General Zia is still my hero, he helped Mujahideen bring down the Soviets.

I see, but do you not see anything wrong with the open discrimination though?

And while this is off topic, most of the funding came from the US against Soviets. I dont think it would be very illogical of me to suggest that Pakistan which had lost half of its country in 1971 to a (very weak by international standards) India can take on a superpower like the Soviet Union by itself and win (which was at least 10 times stronger than India in its prime).

 

[Nitin Goyal]

Are these lawyers the same ..who were watching Sheela ki jawani ?

 

[Zarvan]

Shame on them...They should also force government not to take income tax from ahmadis

If Ahmadis want to remain in this country they should give income tax by the way I also don't drink Shazan for the same reason

 

[Armstrong]

While that is a good idea, what you are essentially supporting in your argument is a secular state, not an Islamic state. Most secular countries in today's world does have a dominant culture that it has inherited from its past generations (Hinduism for India, Christianity for most of the Western nations, Islam in Turkey), but they treat their minorities as equals.

Most countries that declare themselves as Islamic state openly discriminate against other minorities living in these lands (in Pakistan, you could be a Sikh living in these lands for the past 1000 years, but you cannot be the President/Prime Minister. In most Arab states, there are restrictions on religious minorities on business and property rights and so on).

So by the very definition, a secular state is one where all the citizens are treated equally while an Islamic state is one where Muslims enjoy certain privileges over others. What you are arguing for in your point is a system that is secular but just Islamic by name.

No my friend, a secular state by definition is where no intrusion of religion in the political affairs of the country is acceptable. An Islamic state, as I understand it to be, is one which, as I said, has Islam as its dominant culture, which means a certain degree of intrusion is always going to be there; legislating the ban on alcohol, prostitution, gay-marriages, gambling - all of which, in our case, is inspired by religion, is intrusive. So would be the evolution of an economic system that tries to redress some of the concerns we have about usury being prevalent and acceptable in the current system. Additionally, a Haj subsidy, facilitation of a return to scholarly tradition in Islam - the ones that produced towering intellectual juggernauts like Ghazali, Avicenna, Averroes, Mamoindes etc., would be being anything but impartial. So would having a family law, an inheritance law etc. drawn from the Quran.

However the same Islamic state would guarantee religious and legal pluralism, equality of fundamental rights and privileges for all citizens and iron-clad constitutional guarantees for the minorities against the abuse of any of the above.

In short, I want what I think Jinnah wanted - a truly democratic, pluralistic state where the Muslim majority vote is there to ensure that the Islamic identity is preserved but someone qualified and exemplary like Justice (R) Rana Bhagwandas can become the President of Pakistan.

Inshallah, we'd achieve that Pakistan one day.

 

[Zarvan]

No my friend, a secular state by definition is where no intrusion of religion in the political affairs of the country is acceptable. An Islamic state, as I understand it to be, is one which, as I said, has Islam as its dominant culture, which means a certain degree of intrusion is always going to be there; legislating the ban on alcohol, prostitution, gay-marriages, gambling - all of which, in our case, is inspired by religion, is intrusive. So would be the evolution of an economic system that tries to redress some of the concerns we have about usury being prevalent and acceptable in the current system. Additionally, a Haj subsidy, facilitation of a return to scholarly tradition in Islam - the ones that produced towering intellectual juggernauts like Ghazali, Avicenna, Averroes, Mamoindes etc., would be being anything but impartial. So would having a family law, an inheritance law etc. drawn from the Quran.
However, whereas the Islamic state, collective has an Islam as its dominant culture and is thus biased towards doing what I mentioned before; it would be completely impartial on an individual level with all citizens enjoying the same rights and privileges as the other.

I would love to see a Pakistan where centres of Islamic learning are instituted by the help of the state, where an alternative Islamic economic model is evolved, where a distinct hint of Islamic unity is present in our foreign policy, where alcohol, gambling etc. are banned, where legal pluralism is instituted but where someone as honorable and upright as Justice(R) Rana Bhagwandas is made the President of Pakistan.

Sir in an Islamic State a Non Muslim cannot be the leader but yes they have many rights under Islamic State including right to worship according to their believes and also health education and job facilities but some top job will remain with in Muslims

 

[asad71]

1.A Muslim must follow the edicts of the Holy Quor'an. There should be no debate on this point. Being an Islamic Republic, it would be utter hypocrisy if Pakistan or Pakistani Muslims did not follow what is laid down in the Holy Book.

2.The Book is quite straight-forward in this matter. One who deviates and works against the Ummah forfeits his life as well as property. The Turkish Caliph, who was regarded as the spiritual head of South Asian Muslims, had ordered that the life of a Qadyiani be spared. Forfeiture of property remains.

 

[neutral_person]

No my friend, a secular state by definition is where no intrusion of religion in the political affairs of the country is acceptable. An Islamic state, as I understand it to be, is one which, as I said, has Islam as its dominant culture, which means a certain degree of intrusion is always going to be there; legislating the ban on alcohol, prostitution, gay-marriages, gambling - all of which, in our case, is inspired by religion, is intrusive. So would be the evolution of an economic system that tries to redress some of the concerns we have about usury being prevalent and acceptable in the current system. Additionally, a Haj subsidy, facilitation of a return to scholarly tradition in Islam - the ones that produced towering intellectual juggernauts like Ghazali, Avicenna, Averroes, Mamoindes etc., would be being anything but impartial. So would having a family law, an inheritance law etc. drawn from the Quran.
However, whereas the Islamic state, collective has an Islam as its dominant culture and is thus biased towards doing what I mentioned before; it would be completely impartial on an individual level with all citizens enjoying the same rights and privileges as the other.

I would love to see a Pakistan where centres of Islamic learning are instituted by the help of the state, where an alternative Islamic economic model is evolved, where a distinct hint of Islamic unity is present in our foreign policy, where alcohol, gambling etc. are banned, where legal pluralism is instituted but where someone as honorable and upright as Justice(R) Rana Bhagwandas is made the President of Pakistan.

I see, thanks for educating me on this, your dream is still not an Islamic nation (at least not comparable to any of the Islamic nations that exist in the world today). It is less Islamic and while not completely secular (does have very much secular elements in it, as Zarvan mentioned , no Islamic country can have a President/Prime Minister that is non muslim - all Islamic countries share this trait). By definition, you letting Bhagwandas become a President, you are advocating for a non-Islamic nation (either that or you are trying to modify the definition of an Islamic country).

The only things in your post that are unsecular are Haj subsidy (though India does this too) and Islamic education (there are however schools in many secular states funded by the government but religious in nature - example catholic schools in India).

That being said, your views are very bright and if more Pakistanis thought like you, Pakistan would not be in the poor condition it is in today and would be much better.

 

[Armstrong]

Sir in an Islamic State a Non Muslim cannot be the leader but yes they have many rights under Islamic State including right to worship according to their believes and also health education and job facilities but some top job will remain with in Muslims

In my understanding of the Quran such a stipulation is not mentioned; as such in my books and I believe in Jinnah's too - he can. I would be proud to call either of Mr.Rana Bhagwandas or Mr.Cowasjee as my President.

Furthermore, we must historically contextualize and understand the changing dynamics whenever looking to the past, otherwise we'd end up instituting a system which was created for a said perimeter and the perimeters have obviously changed. Our minorities cannot possibly be characterized as Dhimmis because they are not conquered people who haven't been assimilated - they are a part of this land.

 

[Zarvan]

In my understanding of the Quran such a stipulation is not mentioned; as such in my books and I believe in Jinnah's too - he can. I would be proud to call either of Mr.Rana Bhagwandas or Mr.Cowasjee as my President.

Furthermore, we must historically contextualize and understand the changing dynamics whenever looking to the past, otherwise we'd end up instituting a system which was created for a said perimeter and the perimeters have obviously changed. Our minorities cannot possibly be characterized as Dhimmis because they are not conquered people who haven't been assimilated - they are a part of this land.

Sir still they are minorites and for your information Quran and Hadees are both part of Islam and Sir main duty of Muslim Leader is that he is also the main religious leader of Muslims How can a Non Muslim be Islamic Leader for Muslims Sir if you look the duties of Muslim leader you will know at that very moment that a Non Muslim cannot be a Muslim leader

 

[Developereo]

Sir still they are minorites and for your information Quran and Hadees are both part of Islam and Sir main duty of Muslim Leader is that he is also the main religious leader of Muslims How can a Non Muslim be Islamic Leader for Muslims Sir if you look the duties of Muslim leader you will know at that very moment that a Non Muslim cannot be a Muslim leader

Do you believe that all Pakistani citizens should have equal rights? Do Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims? Is a Shia allowed to rule over Sunnis? Is a Deobandi Muslim allowed to rule over Barelvi Muslims or vice versa? Where do you draw the line for an 'acceptable' ruler?

 

[Armstrong]

I see, thanks for educating me on this, your dream is still not an Islamic nation (at least not comparable to any of the Islamic nations that exist in the world today). It is less Islamic and while not completely secular (does have very much secular elements in it, as Zarvan mentioned , no Islamic country can have a President/Prime Minister that is non muslim - all Islamic countries share this trait). By definition, you letting Bhagwandas become a President, you are advocating for a non-Islamic nation (either that or you are trying to modify the definition of an Islamic country).

The only things in your post that are unsecular are Haj subsidy (though India does this too) and Islamic education (there are however schools in many secular states funded by the government but religious in nature - example catholic schools in India).

That being said, your views are very bright and if more Pakistanis thought like you, Pakistan would not be in the poor condition it is in today and would be much better.

No they are not and that is why they must change. Most of the Islamic states out there, in my opinion, institutionalize religious bigotry and have a tendency to become borderline fascistic. Turkish Millet Concept of the Ottoman Empire, of the Al-Andalusian state in Spain and the earlier Rashidun Empires were all shinning examples of religious pluralism of their time. And in each successive system the level of inclusivity grew depending on how the relationship between the Muslims and Non-Muslims evolved. If we, the successor states, don't take that concept of inclusivity to the next level where our present day notions of nation-state have completely changed the dynamics of allegiances from that of ages past, we're in for one heck of an a** whooping when Kingdom comes.