‘Doomed’ dialogue: TTP faction demands rewriting of Constitution

[jaibi]

I'm pretty sure you are not being serious, but I'll answer: Yes, it is possible to be not secular, and non sharia. It is not a choice between just those two. Britain is not secular, but that doesn't mean that it needs to follow biblical law. Only a few countries like Saudi implements sharia. Most muslim countries don't.

There's a country created for a religious ethnicity that has secular philosophies at its base: Israel. So are we, we were created for the Indian Muslims, that was our inception. Our Quaid said: 'You are free, free to go to your mosques, your churches, your temples'. Muslim nations are in the midst of a crises of dealing with modern problems with traditional handicaps, we never had the time to evolve into the nation-state: the post-colonial era birthed us into misfit territories and age old conflicts and that's what we have had to deal with. I hope people try to see that.

 

[rafiqali]

You, sir, need to read some history. Pakistan was created for the Indian Muslims, not Islam. Islam needs no territory. Read the Quran it never addresses the country of Islam, it addresses those who believe in it. Pakistan has repeatedly shown its priority in terms of political will by never electing religious parties in majority.

Yes. So Muslims demanded partition on the basis of religion....that was the defining feature of the new country.

So obviously Pakistan is a Muslim country by implication. Or are you trying to say that the new country was asked for on basis of religion, and the citizens would be Muslim, but the country will be secular....that is absurd.

 

[jaibi]

Your answer has no value for me since you are quoting irrelevant examples.

What has Britain got to do with Islam. Christianity has a different paradigm.

If you want to be convincing, quote specifically if Islam permits a half way house, hanging between secularism and Islamic polity.

Every religion gives a moral system, it is not just Islam. Chirstianity, Judism and Islam share a source, they are called Abrahamic faiths for a reason. More or less, they address the premise for a nation state in a similar way. As nation states it is up to the people to control the degree of influence these clauses have on them. Politics, like everything else human, is more complex then what you are seeing it as. Anyway, Pakistan is for Pakistanis to think about, sir, as an Indian, you need not tell us where we want to go or where we should. Focus on your nation, let's focus on ours.

 

[rafiqali]

There's a country created for a religious ethnicity that has secular philosophies at its base: Israel. So are we, we were created for the Indian Muslims, that was our inception. Our Quaid said: 'You are free, free to go to your mosques, your churches, your temples'. Muslim nations are in the midst of a crises of dealing with modern problems with traditional handicaps, we never had the time to evolve into the nation-state: the post-colonial era birthed us into misfit territories and age old conflicts and that's what we have had to deal with. I hope people try to see that.

Quid was a political leader. Who is he to pronounce how Muslims should behave vis a vis Islam.

I m surprised that you are deliberately unable to see the absurdity of your position.

So India is secular, Pakistan is secular... What was then the partition for? If Islam was to be a purely private affair, then what was wrong with the Indian political space?

Every religion gives a moral system, it is not just Islam. Chirstianity, Judism and Islam share a source, they are called Abrahamic faiths for a reason. More or less, they address the premise for a nation state in a similar way. As nation states it is up to the people to control the degree of influence these clauses have on them. Politics, like everything else human, is more complex then what you are seeing it as. Anyway, Pakistan is for Pakistanis to think about, sir, as an Indian, you need not tell us where we want to go or where we should. Focus on your nation, let's focus on ours.

I m surely unconcerned. I m only trying to show that you have an undefendable, schizophrenic position which cannot be long sustained.

 

[pak-marine]

they are gagging for one .. The day PTI decides to join up with the rest of the country there wont be any place to hide for Talibans in Pakistan

 

[jaibi]

Yes. So Muslims demanded partition on the basis of religion....that was the defining feature of the new country.

So obviously Pakistan is a Muslim country by implication. Or are you trying to say that the new country was asked for on basis of religion, and the citizens would be Muslim, but the country will be secular....that is absurd.

Actually, the leaders of the time imagined Pakistan and India more like Canada and the USA. Friendly and cooperative. In fact, up till the 1960s there was considerable thinking in Pakistani upper echelons to have a defence treaty with India against external aggression in the region. Our inception of the 1940s modernist era is very different than what you are seeing. Pakistan was suppose to be for the India Muslims who are an immensely diverse group and for the people who were already here. Did you know that Lahore is holy for the Sikhs? There was no plan to go for mass migration with the exception of CP and Bihar from where considerable support for ML rested.

Anyways, Pakistan is a nation-state and nation-states make their own destiny. America was founded for white free men: it became free for all by the will of the people. 'Each generation would have to reinterpret the constitution to fit its won era'- Thomas Jefferson. That's true for all nation-states. India started socialist, that term is still in your constitution, easily adapted to capitalism. China, isolationist, communist, trumped capitalism. Why should Pakistan be any different and for those people who are not even a part of it and have no good will for her?

 

[jaibi]

Quid was a political leader. Who is he to pronounce how Muslims should behave vis a vis Islam.

I m surprised that you are deliberately unable to see the absurdity of your position.

So India is secular, Pakistan is secular... What was then the partition for? If Islam was to be a purely private affair, then what was wrong with the Indian political space?



I m surely unconcerned. I m only trying to show that you have an undefendable, schizophrenic position which cannot be long sustained.

The absurdety is in your position. You are taking a point of logical totalism and defaming the source, that is no way to measure arguments. Anyways, I'm not here to teach you, the point is, the Quiad stated that 'Pakistan is not a theocracy nor anything like it.' Again, read up on the man. He encouraged pride in the source of our identity.

Pakistan was the 'State of Pakistan' for the first 10 years of her life, or do you dispute that as well? Read please, it'd be on Wikipedia.

Go by facts and see what's defendable or must I come down to your simplistic arguments he said this so that this must mean that?

And kindly, keep to your own nation. You are not green and white, leave our nation to us.

Quid was a political leader. Who is he to pronounce how Muslims should behave vis a vis Islam.

I m surprised that you are deliberately unable to see the absurdity of your position.

So India is secular, Pakistan is secular... What was then the partition for? If Islam was to be a purely private affair, then what was wrong with the Indian political space?



I m surely unconcerned. I m only trying to show that you have an undefendable, schizophrenic position which cannot be long sustained.

Let me write it so you can read it, PAKISTAN WAS CREATED FOR THE INDIAN MUSLIMS, THE BASE WAS SAFEGUARDING ETHNIC, NOT IDEOLOGICAL INTERESTS OF A PEOPLE.

they are gagging for one .. The day PTI decides to join up with the rest of the country there wont be any place to hide for Talibans in Pakistan

It's high time PTI wakes up.

 

[rafiqali]

The absurdety is in your position. You are taking a point of logical totalism and defaming the source, that is no way to measure arguments. Anyways, I'm not here to teach you, the point is, the Quiad stated that 'Pakistan is not a theocracy nor anything like it.' Again, read up on the man. He encouraged pride in the source of our identity.

Pakistan was the 'State of Pakistan' for the first 10 years of her life, or do you dispute that as well? Read please, it'd be on Wikipedia.

Go by facts and see what's defendable or must I come down to your simplistic arguments he said this so that this must mean that?

And kindly, keep to your own nation. You are not green and white, leave our nation to us.



Let me write it so you can read it, PAKISTAN WAS CREATED FOR THE INDIAN MUSLIMS, THE BASE WAS SAFEGUARDING ETHNIC, NOT IDEOLOGICAL INTERESTS OF A PEOPLE.



It's high time PTI wakes up.

Indians Muslims are not an "ethnicity" . It is only a religious differentiation.

So all your other arguments fall flat.

 

[janon]

Actually, the leaders of the time imagined Pakistan and India more like Canada and the USA. Friendly and cooperative. In fact, up till the 1960s there was considerable thinking in Pakistani upper echelons to have a defence treaty with India against external aggression in the region. Our inception of the 1940s modernist era is very different than what you are seeing. Pakistan was suppose to be for the India Muslims who are an immensely diverse group and for the people who were already here. Did you know that Lahore is holy for the Sikhs? There was no plan to go for mass migration with the exception of CP and Bihar from where considerable support for ML rested.

Anyways, Pakistan is a nation-state and nation-states make their own destiny. America was founded for white free men: it became free for all by the will of the people. 'Each generation would have to reinterpret the constitution to fit its won era'- Thomas Jefferson. That's true for all nation-states. India started socialist, that term is still in your constitution, easily adapted to capitalism. China, isolationist, communist, trumped capitalism. Why should Pakistan be any different and for those people who are not even a part of it and have no good will for her?

That's a misconception. The word "socialist" was added to the preamble of our constitution in 1976, as a response to the emerging cold war power blocks. Much like USA added "In god we trust" to its currency, and "one nation under god" to the pledge of allegiance to show that it was different from the atheistic soviet union. So India did not really start out to be socialistic, it was simply a secular nation state with equality for all, with no particular economic ideologies. The turn towards socialism proved disastrous, and we had to turn it into a free market economy in the 90s, when our economy was on the verge of complete collapse.

That nitpick apart, I agree with the larger point that constitutions and legal frameworks should be constantly reinterpreted and updated to stay relevant. Any legal or social system that remains ossified and rigid will petrify into irrelevance. "Chalna jeevan ki kahani, rukna maut ki nishani..."

 

[faisal6309]

TTP is absolutely right in demanding Sharia.

Pakistan is a fake Muslim nation. On the one hand it craves sympathy and cooperation of the Muslim world by pretending as a Muslim nation, and on the other it promotes un-Islamic polity.

Muslims must live by Sharia... There is no second option.

You don't know their version of Shria. That's why you are saying that.

 

[faisal6309]

Quid was a political leader. Who is he to pronounce how Muslims should behave vis a vis Islam.

I m surprised that you are deliberately unable to see the absurdity of your position.

So India is secular, Pakistan is secular... What was then the partition for? If Islam was to be a purely private affair, then what was wrong with the Indian political space?



I m surely unconcerned. I m only trying to show that you have an undefendable, schizophrenic position which cannot be long sustained.

Quaid-e-Azam also create Islamic Reconstruction of Pakistan. At that time where were they?
Oh! I can tell you. Busy in burning it. They burn it because they want to implement their own version of Shria. Our current politicians are incompetent to implement Shria in Pakistan.
We want that version of Shria Quaid want for Pakistan and not talibani modified version of Shria.
They just deserved to be killed.

 

[rafiqali]

Quaid-e-Azam also create Islamic Reconstruction of Pakistan. At that time where were they?
Oh! I can tell you. Busy in burning it. They burn it because they want to implement their own version of Shria. Our current politicians are incompetent to implement Shria in Pakistan.
We want that version of Shria Quaid want for Pakistan and not talibani modified version of Shria.
They just deserved to be killed.

Hmm..so you are ready to accept a Shia's interpretation of Sharia? Strange.....

 

[faisal6309]

Hmm..so you are ready to accept a Shia's interpretation of Sharia? Strange.....

What? Where the hell Shia's interpretation of Shria came from?

Hmm..so you are ready to accept a Shia's interpretation of Sharia? Strange.....

Don't know if you are calling Quaid-e-Azam Shia

 

[jaibi]

Indians Muslims are not an "ethnicity" . It is only a religious differentiation.

So all your other arguments fall flat.

I see, I'm who I am dealing with. Do you believe in social sciences? Well if you do then consider how social scientiests define ethnicity,

Peoples, James; Bailey, Garrick (2010). Humanity:An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology (9th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage learning. p. 389. " In essence, an ethnic group is a named social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or ancestry. Members of the ethnic group see themselves as sharing cultural traditions and history that distinguish them from other groups, essentially, non-genetic or biological components of identy formation play a role in ethnic identities thus differentiates it from a racial identity. Ethnic group identity has a strong psychological or emotional component that divides the people of the world into opposing categories of “us” and “them.” In contrast to social stratification, which divides and unifies people along a series of horizontal axes on the basis of socioeconomic factors, ethnic identities divide and unify people along a series of vertical axes. Thus, ethnic groups, at least theoretically, cut across socioeconomic class differences, drawing members from all strata of the population."

Please, educate yourself.

That's a misconception. The word "socialist" was added to the preamble of our constitution in 1976, as a response to the emerging cold war power blocks. Much like USA added "In god we trust" to its currency, and "one nation under god" to the pledge of allegiance to show that it was different from the atheistic soviet union. So India did not really start out to be socialistic, it was simply a secular nation state with equality for all, with no particular economic ideologies. The turn towards socialism proved disastrous, and we had to turn it into a free market economy in the 90s, when our economy was on the verge of complete collapse.

That nitpick apart, I agree with the larger point that constitutions and legal frameworks should be constantly reinterpreted and updated to stay relevant. Any legal or social system that remains ossified and rigid will petrify into irrelevance. "Chalna jeevan ki kahani, rukna maut ki nishani..."

I know the reason why it was added, similarly, the 'Islamic' in front of Republic of Pakistan was added to align the Pakistan with the emerging Pan-Islamic movement at the time. For the PPP government it also enabled them to gain support from the vocal and influential religious class.

The point was the material forces behind nation-states and their history and their adoption to it.

 

[jaibi]

Hmm..so you are ready to accept a Shia's interpretation of Sharia? Strange.....

Quaid-e-Azam was Ismali Shia and the Jamiat called him 'Kafar-e-Azam'. The arguments that he wanted an Islamic state thus we must be so fall here. There is a wide variety of Islamic interpretation of law, as always, he wanted a State for the Indian Muslims. You would keep ignoring history because you are here to troll, not argue, not learn, not listen, not talk.