Imran Khan shares historic picture of his ancestors on Pakistan's 71st independence day

[M. Sarmad]

... I posted the entire OR for you to point out where it clashed with Quaid’s vision. I am still waiting for proof.

Let me (re)post it here:

2) According to Muhammad Munir, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differed in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam's views e.g:

a). The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

b). There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

c) The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

d) The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.



3) The Ulema themselves claimed that the Quaid-i-Azam's conception of a modern nation state became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949. (Munir Report p-203)

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/thre...eir-potential-solutions.616604/#post-11423990

if one buys from halal earned money, no one can stop that.

We can agree to disagree on that...

one can always get a review. its a verdict not word of god himself.

And with whom would you lodge a review of the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ??


The Federal Shariat Court in its judgement (Dec, 1980) found nothing unIslamic about Land Reforms (by a majority of 4 to 1) .... It was the Shariat Appellate Bench (of the Supreme Court of Pakistan) which later overruled the Federal Shariat Court judgement in 1989, and declared that Land Reforms were unIslamic (by a majority of 3 to 2) ...

What happened between 1980 and 1989 ? Firstly, Ulema had been "added" to the Federal Shariat Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench (after 1982) ...... And secondly, the Cold War had ended and Socialism had fallen !! ... The world had changed and with the declaration that land reforms were prohibited by Islam, the Shariat Court had, in effect, declared the heart of the political agenda of the left in Pakistan to be un-Islamic.

When state appointed Men/Ulema begin to officially explore the meaning of God's law for the people of their own time, essentially, they are bound to get influenced by the prevailing local and global political realities. The whole idea of doing God's work is flawed, and it's best for the state not to involve itself with religion ..

 

[El Sidd]

And with whom would you lodge a review against the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan ??

a review petition can filed. a review petition is not unislamic.

 

[criticalerror]

Let me (re)post it here:

2) According to Muhammad Munir, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the terms of the Objectives Resolution differed in all the basic points of the Quaid-i-Azam's views e.g:

a). The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

b). There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

c) The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

d) The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.



3) The Ulema themselves claimed that the Quaid-i-Azam's conception of a modern nation state became obsolete with the passing of the Objectives Resolution on 12th March 1949. (Munir Report p-203)

You posted someone’s opinion. I posted both the Quaid’s speech and the Objectives Resolution which were quite in agreement.
I can only shake my head in pity with points you just made. Let me address your points then so you understand(should you choose to)

a). The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

The Objectives Resolution points that the people shall exercise this sovereignty on behalf of Allah as a sacred trust. Nowhere does it say the people don’t have the power. The point you made has nothing to do with what you are trying very hard to establish. Also since it’s about the Quaid’s vision, refer to His speech. Not second hand opinions . I posted it above. Gist of it is that Islam and it’s principles are the guiding light. Which is what OR enjoins.

b). There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion

Uh what? You disagree with the wording? Also please share where Quaid said “there will be no minorities”? The clause of OR says exactly that. Everyone will have freedom to religion and the state will ensure that right. The state will also ensure equality to all citizens. Please go and re read the Objectives Resolution.

c) The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

You are nitpicking because you are grasping at straws. The OR ensures equality for all. Please read the points thoroughly before pulling stuff out of thin air. The topic at hand is not modern democracy but Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan.

d) The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.

Ok so since the state is to ensure rights for Muslims(the reason of Pakistan’s existence) , it is clashing with secular values? How is ensuring rights for Muslims, when rights of other religions are equally enshrined in the OR, against secular values.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You posted someone’s opinion. I posted both the Quaid’s speech and the Objectives Resolution which were quite in agreement.
I can only shake my head in pity with points you just made. Let me address your points then so you understand(should you choose to)
.

Well, that 'someone' was the second Chief Justice of Pakistan ...
Who are you?

 

[criticalerror]

Well, that 'someone' was the second Chief Justice of Pakistan ...
Who are you?

My point is very much proven with your reply. You are blowing hot wind whereas not having any case against the Objectives Resolution. I am someone who quoted both the Quaid and the OR for a side by side analysis. To which you have no answer.

 

[M. Sarmad]

My point is very much proven with your reply. You are blowing hot wind whereas not having any case against the Objectives Resolution. I am someone who quoted both the Quaid and the OR for a side by side analysis. To which you have no answer.

Yes, your reply very much proves every thing.
Have a nice Day

 

[criticalerror]

Yes, your reply, indeed, very much proves every thing.
Have a nice Day

Why thank you. How so very gracious of you to say so. I know already though.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no proof that will satisfy @AgNoStiC MuSliM if that is your intent to seek out such records.

Still smarting over the Aafia Siddiqui exchange we had are you? There simply was no concrete or credible ‘evidence’ or sources presented by you, and the ‘theory’ that Pakistan arrested Aafia, handed her over to the US, which then staged an elaborate hoax in Afghanistan with her arrest and subsequent attack on US personnel, defies common sense. Her relatives & husband provide contradictory accounts and there are even some who question whether the children being raised by her sister are even hers.

With so much confusion and contradictory accounts, you can’t expect me to just buy into the version that fits your biases because you think it to be the most credible. Find more concrete evidence or sources and then we’ll talk.

In the mean time, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, leave the sarcastic one liners and insults out of this forum.

feudalism in itself is corruption of human rights.

How is feudalism different from people owning large tracts of land, land that they earned ‘legally’, under whatever government was present at the time?

i know you dream that i say something like that but as i have made it Clear. beneficial owners of jinnahs untimely demise were britisch proxies in Pakistan.

Now that is a point worth debating, and one I can agree with you to some degree. What you need to try and do is be a bit more careful about how you comment. Instead of implying that everyone in the OP picture was a feudal and corrupt, perhaps you should have made the point the way you did here, and quite a few people would agree with you.

I believe a lot of people have written about the failure to enact land reforms in Pakistan in the early days after independence, the absence of which resulted in the Waderas, Jagirdars, Sardars etc consolidating their hold on power.

this is a curse of the western system which we adopted in Pakistan and also proves my above point and you endorsed it here.

I keep hearing this ‘curse of the Western system’ argument - the West doesn’t have the same political system in place in all countries. You have the Presidential system in the US and the parliamentary system in the U.K., and within those broader definitions states have their own tweaks.

What political system would you like to see in Pakistan that is not ‘Western’, and do provide specifics on how it would be different.

Please don’t give me that cop-put BS argument of ‘Shariah based’ because no one can really explain, specifically, how such a system would be different from the Western political systems, outside of having a Mullah dictatorship.

 

[khail007]

I keep hearing this ‘curse of the Western system’ argument - the West doesn’t have the same political system in place in all countries. You have the Presidential system in the US and the parliamentary system in the U.K., and within those broader definitions states have their own tweaks.

Right ... but you think the system which is in Pakistan is for good of people of Pakistan? The system was not for flourishing Pakistan but to keep Pakistanis as slaves, as the Indians in the time of British colonialism. The system of slavery. Political mafia tweaked it and tweaking to reproduce educated slaves; so these could run in front on sides and back of their vehicles or even over run by their vehicles - no issues.

What political system would you like to see in Pakistan that is not ‘Western’, and do provide specifics on how it would be different.

Please don’t give me that cop-put BS argument of ‘Shariah based’ because no one can really explain, specifically, how such a system would be different from the Western political systems, outside of having a Mullah dictatorship.

In the very beginning you displayed your grudge against Islamic/Sharia system. If you are a believer then you are on very wrong path and as non-believer - no issues you are educated/trained for this.
Who is Mullah? There is no Mullahism in Islam. We ourselves created it, reason: we do not want to learn our religion. We make it very difficult by handing-over all religious responsibilities to him. Now whatever he says we have to listen and accept it blindly as we have no other choice and when things seems difficult to us, we started to curse Mullah rather than ourselves.
Shariah based Islamic system is the best of all - that system is based on the Book and Hadith.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Shariah based Islamic system is the best of all - that system is based on the Book and Hadith.

Give me the specifics of this system. How is it different from a democratic parliamentary or Presidential system of government?

 

[khail007]

Give me the specifics of this system. How is it different from a democratic parliamentary or Presidential system of government?

If I am going to explain here, it will take ages. Further I am not qualified to explain every bits n pieces of that system.
Advise you to google 'shariah governance system' and you will be abled to explore tons of material on that system to educate yourself. Don't expect to be expert in few readings but at least you will able to understand what is the basic difference.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If I am going to explain here, it will take ages. Further I am not qualified to explain every bits n pieces of that system.
Advise you to google 'shariah governance system' and you will be abled to explore tons of material on that system to educate yourself. Don't expect to be expert in few readings but at least you will able to understand what is the basic difference.

I expect you to provide the sources and material since you made the claim.

You should be able to answer simple questions like:

1. Is the leadership elected by the people?

2. How does the justice system differ from the current one?

This excuse of ‘its too complicated to explain’ is what every individual, who has no understanding of what ‘Shariah system’ really means, comes up with when challenged to provide specifics of the system and how it’s different.

Give me the specifics of how this so called system is different from a parliamentary or presidential form of democracy. If you can’t, I call complete and total BS on this Shariah system - it’s nothing but an excuse for a Mullah dictatorship.

 

[khail007]

I expect you to provide the sources and material since you made the claim.

You should be able to answer simple questions like:

1. Is the leadership elected by the people?

2. How does the justice system differ from the current one?

This excuse of ‘its too complicated to explain’ is what every individual, who has no understanding of what ‘Shariah system’ really means, comes up with when challenged to provide specifics of the system and how it’s different.

Give me the specifics of how this so called system is different from a parliamentary or presidential form of democracy. If you can’t, I call complete and total BS on this Shariah system - it’s nothing but an excuse for a Mullah dictatorship.

First thing first ... considering your biased reaction against Shariah/Islam since beginning of discussion; you have to answer simple question are you believer/Muslim or non-believer/Non-Muslim?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First thing first ... considering your biased reaction against Shariah/Islam since beginning of discussion; you have to answer simple question are you believer/Muslim or non-believer/Non-Muslim?

Irrelevant to the question asked. My faith is none of your business and it is between Allah and me. Lets just focus on the leadership question:

1. Will the political leadership be elected or not?

2. If political leadership is elected, how is that different from a democratic presidential or parliamentary system?

Surely you can answer some simple questions about how this ‘Shariah system’ will function.

 

[khail007]

Irrelevant to the question asked. My faith is none of your business and it is between Allah and me. Lets just focus on the leadership question:

1. Will the political leadership be elected or not?

2. If political leadership is elected, how is that different from a democratic presidential or parliamentary system?

Surely you can answer some simple questions about how this ‘Shariah system’ will function.

It is not irrelevant, I did not object on your faith. Everyone knows that this is a matter between ALLAH SWT and ABDULLAH.
In this world many places you have to declare that are you a Muslim/Qadiani/Ahmadi/Christian etc. and you have to answer. Even in Pakistan in oaths you have to declare it (which is very painful for some countries like in one you are living).
So just more simpler question than what your are asking. So don't hesitate. Answer it.