What's new

Army to be called in GB

The concept of Pakistan based on the slogan of Islam was unnatural and doomed to fail from its inception. That is why most of the ulema opposed it. The idea of religion as a basis for nationhood has a long list of failures. If Islam could be the basis for nationhood, there would be one Islamic state today and not 57 members of the OIC. Leave aside Islam, Europe and the Americas would be one nation, Thailand and Indo- China would be one Buddhist state, India and Nepal would be one country and so on. Pakistanis don't seem to have learnt this lesson even after the majority of Pakistanis formed a new country based on their shared Bangla identity.

Based on its present national narrative, there is no viable national identity that supports the continuation of Pakistan as a separate state. Hatred for India might have worked as a glue for a few years after partition, but the creation of Bangladesh rendered even that irrelevant.

The only successful example of a country based on religion is Israel but they are the chosen people and the Jewish state was created under exceptional circumstances and enjoyed the support of the major global powers.
Formation of a Jewish state came about, only because of the Nazi extermination (something I feel is very much pertinent). Jews had the sympathy of everyone because of concentration camps, and they themselves huddled together fearing a repeat of such catastrophe.

So yes the creation of a Jewish state, happened due to exceptional situations at that point of time.

Pakistan though formed on the basis of two nation theory, where it was proposed that people of two religions cannot co-exist peacefully, could have built a alternate idea for nation building. Say like we did, where different regions co existing who are divided by language/ethnicity/religion etc but united as a nation.

However the problems faced aren't because of use of religion to form a state, but because of concentration on a single factor from the start that is Security (from India and then the Soviets and then others etc etc), which made Pakistan a garrison state. Had there been a civilian rule, perhaps over decades some form of nation building might have happened.
 
Formation of a Jewish state came about, only because of the Nazi extermination (something I feel is very much pertinent). Jews had the sympathy of everyone because of concentration camps, and they themselves huddled together fearing a repeat of such catastrophe.

So yes the creation of a Jewish state, happened due to exceptional situations at that point of time.

Pakistan though formed on the basis of two nation theory, where it was proposed that people of two religions cannot co-exist peacefully, could have built a alternate idea for nation building. Say like we did, where different regions co existing who are divided by language/ethnicity/religion etc but united as a nation.

However the problems faced aren't because of use of religion to form a state, but because of concentration on a single factor from the start that is Security (from India and then the Soviets and then others etc etc), which made Pakistan a garrison state. Had there been a civilian rule, perhaps over decades some form of nation building might have happened.

Some argue that the civilians have more urgency in conceptualizing the challenges posed by India.

A war with India with a civilian figurehead is likely to exceed any scale set forth in the prior conflicts of 65 and 71.
 
Some argue that the civilians have more urgency in conceptualizing the challenges posed by India.

A war with India with a civilian figurehead is likely to exceed any scale set forth in the prior conflicts of 65 and 71.
One can't deny that possibility, as its a hypothetical scenario altogether now, and such scenarios can lead one anywhere.

My thought about Pakistan possibly making a alternate idea of nationhood, was simply based on the absence of civilian rule from the start. Which again is a hypothetical, but not completely unfounded given how politicians usually look for self serving policies which sometimes end up helping the nation along.

Pakistan's relation vis a vis India is an altogether different topic, and civilian or military leadership may or may not have altered the course of history till date.
 
In the 1950s, Punjab had to be put under martial law because of massive anti ahmedi riots.

Wrong, there were plenty of bombings in Pakistan, not sure if they were suicide. KGB and Afghanistan alone killed 400 Pakistanis in terrorist attacks in a few months.

Yes that is recent and definitely seems engineered

Has been there forever, Baloch are a tribal people it is their lifestyle. Not everyone lives like a Lahori burger in DHA. The last major Baloch nationalist revolt happened under Bhutto, the very popular civilian dictator.

Apparently social media fanboys know what's best
Point is, ghq behind every evil in Pakistan. I forgot to mention East Pakistan 1971 and surrender.
 
The excessive praise given to the Banu Umayya and Muawiyah under various pretexts actually reveals a profound bias and disapproval towards Ali. Bughz-e-Ali ka koi ilaaj nahi duniya mein

As Engineer Mirza rightly pointed out, there's an underlying inclination in every Sunni to harbor Nasibi sentiments, and likewise, every Shia tends to conceal their Rafidhi sentiments.

It's logically inconsistent to claim profound reverence for Ali and Aal-e-Rasool while simultaneously showing great respect for their sworn adversaries and those responsible for their deaths, i.e. Muawiyah and the Banu Umayya

The Ahlus Sunnah belief is that all Sahaba RadiAllahanhu were stars of Islam, yes some have made errors/lack of judgement but we still consider them all great servants of Islam. It is a sectarian mindset which is opening up old discussuon and trying to make a dispute out of it to further divide the ummah. We have some swearing or disrespecting the blessed Sahaba, Some using the same propaganda against the blessed wives of Prophet peace be upon him, some then attack even the holy Prophet peace be upon him, but all use the same excuses and hatred, the same tactics are used all the time. The Ahlus sunnah belief is clear, we respect and honour all the Prophets, Sahabas, Ahle Bayt, wives of Prophets, the awliyah Allah and saliheen.
 
One can't deny that possibility, as its a hypothetical scenario altogether now, and such scenarios can lead one anywhere.

My thought about Pakistan possibly making a alternate idea of nationhood, was simply based on the absence of civilian rule from the start. Which again is a hypothetical, but not completely unfounded given how politicians usually look for self serving policies which sometimes end up helping the nation along.

Pakistan's relation vis a vis India is an altogether different topic, and civilian or military leadership may or may not have altered the course of history till date.

Two nation theory, objective resolution and other core fundamentals of the State weren't inspired by military intervention. These have solely been a civilian endeavour. The military did not formulate the concept of the supernation, Millat i Pakistan.

On the contrary the military has sought to dilute the vigour be it through Ayub, Yehya or Musharraf. Ayub sought a joint defence agreement with India till China intervened in 1962. Musharraf bent over backwards for India and sought a new enemy. Similarly recently Pakistan's military has stated that it does not see India as a competitive force.
 
The Ahlus Sunnah belief is that all Sahaba RadiAllahanhu were stars of Islam, yes some have made errors/lack of judgement but we still consider them all great servants of Islam. It is a sectarian mindset which is opening up old discussuon and trying to make a dispute out of it to further divide the ummah. We have some swearing or disrespecting the blessed Sahaba, Some using the same propaganda against the blessed wives of Prophet peace be upon him, some then attack even the holy Prophet peace be upon him, but all use the same excuses and hatred, the same tactics are used all the time. The Ahlus sunnah belief is clear, we respect and honour all the Prophets, Sahabas, Ahle Bayt, wives of Prophets, the awliyah Allah and saliheen.

The unwarranted glorification of the Banu Umayya is primarily a Nasibi trait, which is erroneously portrayed as part of the mainstream Sunni perspective. Unfortunately, many uninformed Sunnis have been influenced by this Nasibi propaganda.

As for Muawiyah I, the Sunni perspective on him, as elucidated by Dr. Tahir ul Qadri in his extensive 3-hour lecture (available on YouTube) has remained consistent for the past 1400 years. It suggests refraining from speaking ill of him despite his rebellion against a rightfully guided caliph, solely due to his status as a Sahabi (albeit of the lowest standing). Dr. Qadri contends that individuals who excessively extol Muawiyah and talk about bearing his flag are hypocrites

Also, considering all Sahaba (without any exceptions) as beacons of guidance is not only illogical but also runs counter to explicit Quranic directives.

While it of course is unwise and divisive to insult certain Sahaba (as Shia do), elevating them to such a superhuman status that they become immune to criticism even for their glaring wrongdoings is also not a rational approach.
 
The unwarranted glorification of the Banu Umayya is primarily a Nasibi trait, which is erroneously portrayed as part of the mainstream Sunni perspective. Unfortunately, many uninformed Sunnis have been influenced by this Nasibi propaganda.

As for Muawiyah I, the Sunni perspective on him, as elucidated by Dr. Tahir ul Qadri in his extensive 3-hour lecture (available on YouTube) has remained consistent for the past 1400 years. It suggests refraining from speaking ill of him despite his rebellion against a rightfully guided caliph, solely due to his status as a Sahabi (albeit of the lowest standing). Dr. Qadri contends that individuals who excessively extol Muawiyah and talk about bearing his flag are hypocrites

Also, considering all Sahaba (without any exceptions) as beacons of guidance is not only illogical but also runs counter to explicit Quranic directives.

While it of course is unwise and divisive to insult certain Sahaba (as Shia do), elevating them to such a superhuman status that they become immune to criticism even for their glaring wrongdoings is also not a rational approach.

The issue is certain foreign funded molvis speak ill of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya RadiAllahanhu, they do this on purpose to show their hatred for the blessed Sahaba, and to divide the ummah further, then the Ahlus Sunnah praise Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ra because they have no choice, he was the Khalifah and he was a Sahabi, we have no ill feelings towards him or any hatred against any Sahaba. Fitna people on purpose bring these old disputes and try to make a youtube rating out of it. Shame.

The rest we leave to Allah almighty to judge because the disagreement between Hazrat Ali Ra and Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ra is alot deeper than we know, many other disagreements and disputes took place. Yes I listened to Dr Tahir ul Qadri lecture and I disagree with him, somebody after listening to him didn't say RadiAllahanhu after mentioned the name of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya Ra, and Dr Tahir ul Qadri had to stop him.

You see this is clear proof that Ahlus Sunnah is on haqq, we dont attack any Prophets, Sahabas, Ahle Bayt, Awliyah, the wives of Prophets. We show respect to all of them, if any dispute happened between them, then we don't really comment on it, because extremists like nowadays will take it to the next level. Hazrat Ali Ra had disputes with other great personalities of Islam too but we never mentioned much about it, because they are all blessed servants of Allah almighty.

Its best to leave their disagreements and wars between them but unfortunately the youtube mullahs love to exploit. Yes Sahaba are not immune from error, all Ahlus Sunnah believe that but we would be on more error if we try to find faults in them, this all leads to hatred.
 
The issue is certain foreign funded molvis speak ill of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya RadiAllahanhu, they do this on purpose to show their hatred for the blessed Sahaba, and to divide the ummah further, then the Ahlus Sunnah praise Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ra because they have no choice, he was the Khalifah and he was a Sahabi, we have no ill feelings towards him or any hatred against any Sahaba. Fitna people on purpose bring these old disputes and try to make a youtube rating out of it. Shame.

The rest we leave to Allah almighty to judge because the disagreement between Hazrat Ali Ra and Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ra is alot deeper than we know, many other disagreements and disputes took place. Yes I listened to Dr Tahir ul Qadri lecture and I disagree with him, somebody after listening to him didn't say RadiAllahanhu after mentioned the name of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya Ra, and Dr Tahir ul Qadri had to stop him.

You see this is clear proof that Ahlus Sunnah is on haqq, we dont attack any Prophets, Sahabas, Ahle Bayt, Awliyah, the wives of Prophets. We show respect to all of them, if any dispute happened between them, then we don't really comment on it, because extremists like nowadays will take it to the next level. Hazrat Ali Ra had disputes with other great personalities of Islam too but we never mentioned much about it, because they are all blessed servants of Allah almighty.

Its best to leave their disagreements and wars between them but unfortunately the youtube mullahs love to exploit. Yes Sahaba are not immune from error, all Ahlus Sunnah believe that but we would be on more error if we try to find faults in them, this all leads to hatred.

Well, political correctness doesn't always lead to productivity, and as we can see, for the last 1400 years, the inconsistent idea of glorifying both Aal-e-Rasool and their enemies/killers simultaneously has clearly not achieved its stated/intended goal of unifying Muslims. At times, straightforwardly addressing the truth is the most effective course of action
 
These darbari clown shia/sunni/brailvi maulvi's are ready to defend their beliefs, but they are not ready voice against tyranny and state oppression being unleashed in the neighbourhood on political workers/journalists/etc.

That's the level of munafiqat and ignorance our society is in.
 
Well, political correctness doesn't always lead to productivity, and as we can see, for the last 1400 years, the idea of glorifying both Aal-e-Rasool and their enemies/killers simultaneously has clearly not achieved its intended goal of unifying Muslims. At times, straightforwardly addressing the truth is the most effective course of action

Ummah didn't just divide because of religious differences but Muslims and leaders became traitors, corrupt, backstabbers, dunya daar the list can go on. The position of Ahlus Sunnah is the most correct, we witness it ourselves when people go too much in to the disputes and some end up swearing at the Sahaba, some at Prophet Pbuh wives, these people always exist who spread hate against the blessed personalities of Islam. I don't see much point in discussing this in the 21st century, only because sectarian mullahs use hatred to divide people and it works, they are getting famous.

Brother I respect your knowledge on Islam and I do agree with you, but keep in mind there are Muslims out there who find faults in Prophets and then spread it everywhere, some even leave Islam, some find faults in wives of Prophets, you will be shocked, the same are busy trying to cause more division.

Everyone knows its Ijima of Ahlus sunnah that we believe Hazrat Ali Ra was on haqq, isn't that supposed to end the conversation but now they want you to talk bad about Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ra, then keep going deep in to the hatred, some people falsely believe by not attacking or condemning Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah means your anti Ahle Bayt, which clearly shows their real attentions. Regarding Molvis, every corner has a Molvis hanging around it, from all sects, waiting to give fatwas but the Ahlus sunnah believe is clear as I mentioned above.
 
Ummah didn't just divide because of religious differences but Muslims and leaders became traitors, corrupt, backstabbers, dunya daar the list can go on. The position of Ahlus Sunnah is the most correct, we witness it ourselves when people go too much in to the disputes and some end up swearing at the Sahaba, some at Prophet Pbuh wives, these people always exist who spread hate against the blessed personalities of Islam. I don't see much point in discussing this in the 21st century, only because sectarian mullahs use hatred to divide people and it works, they are getting famous.

Brother I respect your knowledge on Islam and I do agree with you, but keep in mind there are Muslims out there who find faults in Prophets and then spread it everywhere, some even leave Islam, some find faults in wives of Prophets, you will be shocked, the same are busy trying to cause more division.

Everyone knows its Ijima of Ahlus sunnah that we believe Hazrat Ali Ra was on haqq, isn't that supposed to end the conversation but now they want you to talk bad about Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ra, then keep going deep in to the hatred, some people falsely believe by not attacking or condemning Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah means your anti Ahle Bayt, which clearly shows their real attentions. Regarding Molvis, every corner has a Molvis hanging around it, from all sects, waiting to give fatwas but the Ahlus sunnah believe is clear as I mentioned above.


You, my friend, are entitled to your belief that Sunnis are more aligned with the Haq than others but the fact remains that there exist numerous inconsistencies and irreconcilable contradictions within the predominant Sunni perspective concerning the Companions of the Prophet. The main issue lies in the fact that many of the assertions made by the Shia can be traced back to sources deemed authentic by Sunnis themselves. Even if all Shia literature were to be discarded, and all Shia scholars silenced, individuals could still gravitate towards Shia beliefs by simply studying Sunni texts.

By this, I certainly do not imply that Shia perspectives are inherently superior or more enlightened than those of Sunnis. Both groups have their respective imperfections, and the ultimate truth likely resides somewhere in the middle ground.

Our aim should be the pursuit of unity, and unity should not be equated with the suppression or elimination of diverse opinions. Instead, it involves welcoming and incorporating this array of viewpoints, with a focus on finding common principles and values, rather than fixating on differences. It's rather fortunate that both Shia and Sunni still share the same Quran. Instead of emphasizing divisive secondary sources, greater attention should be directed toward the Quran (which explicitly forbids Muslims from splitting into sects or groups) as the central focus and a unifying guide
 
Last edited:
ghbourhood on political workers/journalists/etc.

That's the level of munafiq

We were too linient with the Awami League which emboldened and gave impetus to the bengali movement.

We should learn from the mistakes that we did in the east pakistan.

Take no prisoners. Just crush these people before it is too late.
Crushing a huge population doesn't make the state stronger.

History shows that It creates dissenting separatist movements that often turn to violence.

We have seen it in 71 and now we are seeing in Tribal Belt and Baluchistan.

But duffers will never learn. they're trained to follow a given script.
 
Make up your mind tripod
I said the situation with Israel was exceptional. Aren't the differences obvious to you ? The Jews had suffered the worst genocide in recorded history and Israel was created as the first Jewish in nearly two thousand years. Jewish scientists were instrumental in the Allies winning the war and Jewish bankers were powerful players in the global financial system. The US, USSR, UK, France and China all strongly supported the creation of Israel.

How is Pakistan, which is one of over 50 Muslim nations and could not survive for even 25 years comparable to Israel, which guarantees citizenship to all Jews anywhere in the world ?
 
The internal wing duffers closed the GB assembly after removing the people mandated CM Khalid Khursheed, he was a choice of the locals and the PTI members.

Once you muzzle the voices of the people and put them against the wall and leave no room for the majority people, the only route left is choas and protests, and arson.

The GB assembly was the representative of the people, the neutral duffers closed it down, and closed the room for voices which acts as Catharsis, no place to talk about issues and problems.

The duffers are dangerous for Pakistan, will break this country just as in 1971.

Only people without any mental faculty, deranged, morons and idiots can do this.
Pakistan won't break
Things won't change
Establishmemt Wil find someone from central punjab and people will back them up just like they have always have found people

The good thing about Pakistan is that central punjab is populous and largest group that can forcefully hold the country

It's challenging this time because IK is popular over there but establishment has a time and tested solution

Nawaz sharif
He will be coming back soon.
Ipp failure means nawaz sharif

We were too linient with the Awami League which emboldened and gave impetus to the bengali movement.

We should learn from the mistakes that we did in the east pakistan.

Take no prisoners. Just crush these people before it is too late.
Agree too lienient in killing 3 million people in Bengal
Should have been like Hitler

Allah will grant Pakistanis great favours for our jihad against Muslims

Since we have special Punjabi Islam and are special then inferior creatures of Bengal

Honestly ask anyone including your chachu zubair sahab/shirtless guy he was in Bengal in 1970 and use to say we would consider them as inferior animals. He has widely available interview where he says how the people who lived in base thought of them selves as British raj and superior creatures

He was there when it all happened
 

Back
Top Bottom