What's new

Launch of Pakistan Defence Party

“Ahmadis are Muslims, If They Say They are Muslims and No One, Not Even the Sovereign Legislature, has the Right to Say Otherwise." - Muhammad Ali Jinnah, 05 May 1944.


"I have been asked a disturbing question, as to who among the Muslims can be a member of the Muslim Conference. It has been asked with particular reference to the Qadianis. My reply is that, as far as the constitution of the All-India Muslim League is concerned, it stipulates that any Muslim, without distinction of creed or sect, can become a member, provided he accepts the views, policy and programme of the Muslim League, signs the form of membership and pays the subscription. I appeal to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir not to raise sectarian questions, but instead to unite on one platform under one banner. In this lies the welfare of the Muslims. In this way, not only can Muslims make political and social progress effectively, but so can other communities, and so also can the state of Kashmir as a whole. What right have I to declare a person non-Muslim, when he claims to be a Muslim’" - Muhammad Ali Jinnah, 23rd May, 1944, Srinagar

Tahrik Huriyyat Kashmir (History of Independence Movements in Kashmir), volume 2, 1936 - 1945, page 291)

====

Jinnah appointed Jogendra Nath Mandal (a Hindu) as the first Law Minister of Pakistan. The first two commanders in chief of Pakistan Army (i.e. Frank Messervy and Douglas Gracey) were also Non Muslims.

====

“You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or cast or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State ... Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State” - Muhammad Ali Jinnah. 11 August, 1947, while addressing the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan



--------

Again

In Jinnah's Pakistan, Religion will be a personal matter and not the business of the State

In Jinnah's Pakistan, Ahmedis will be Muslims.

In Jinnah's Pakistan, We can have a Hindu as our law minister, or A Christian as the Commander in Chief of our Army

Are you sure you want Jinnah's Pakistan ? Be careful what you wish for

Anyone who claims to be a Muslim is a Muslim.
Anyone who utters the shahadah is a Muslim.

The case of ahmedis lies with the people who democratically stated who they consider as Muslims.

Hindus have served in the justice department? Or did i miss something?

And as far as commander in chief goes you can go to the parliament and debate that.

One cannot force undemocratic will on people of Pakistan.

Be careful with your undemocratic wishes.
 
Anyone who claims to be a Muslim is a Muslim.
Anyone who utters the shahadah is a Muslim.

The case of ahmedis lies with the people who democratically stated who they consider as Muslims.

Hindus have served in the justice department? Or did i miss something?

And as far as commander in chief goes you can go to the parliament and debate that.

One cannot force undemocratic will on people of Pakistan.

Be careful with your undemocratic wishes.

In a Republic, minority has certain inalienable rights which can not be taken away by the majority.

Criticizing the majority for it infringing on the right to self-identification/personal religious identity of the minority, and refusing them equal rights as the citizens of the state isn't very "undemocratic" I believe. We need mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority" in any democratic government, but unfortunately in Pakistan we have no effective mechanism (or even a will) to prevent legal tyranny and constitutional discrimination against the minorities.
 
Last edited:
In a Republic, minority has certain inalienable rights which can not be taken away by the majority.

Criticizing the majority for it infringing on the right to self-identification/personal religious identity of the minority, and refusing them equal rights as the citizens of the state isn't very "undemocratic" I believe. We need mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority" in any democratic government, but unfortunately in Pakistan we have no effective mechanism (or even a will) to prevent legal tyranny and constitutional discrimination against the minorities.

The rights of every citizen belonging to any faith or religion are protected as per Constitution of Pakistan.

They are free to go to their respective place of worship and conduct their businesses. From wedlock to inheritance they can choose to solve the matter as per their perspective religion or use the system sanctioned by the state.

What you are referring to is a social problem they face which will not go away even if you put a secular form of government.

There is no legal tyranny in Pakistan except for those who are idealists and they can never be satisfied.
 
There is no legal tyranny in Pakistan except for those who are idealists and they can never be satisfied.
@Azlan Haider @Hell hound @Zibago

Article 41
41. The President.—(1) There shall be a President of Pakistan who shall be the Head of State and shall represent the unity of the Republic.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.

Start reading from "Blasphemy" laws on this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan#Blasphemy_laws

We can't even elect a Non Muslim PM so let's not just lie to ourselves close our eyes and say "ALL IZ WELL" cuz it won't change the reality neither it will make Pakistan Quaid ka Pakistan.

I would vote for a non corrupt honest patriotic non Muslim Pakistani in a blink of an eye in front of a corrupt to the core "Muslim" Pakistani candidate.
 
The rights of every citizen belonging to any faith or religion are protected as per Constitution of Pakistan.

They are free to go to their respective place of worship and conduct their businesses. From wedlock to inheritance they can choose to solve the matter as per their perspective religion or use the system sanctioned by the state.

What you are referring to is a social problem they face which will not go away even if you put a secular form of government.

There is no legal tyranny in Pakistan except for those who are idealists and they can never be satisfied.


What protection and freedom of religion are you talking about ? Ahmedis can't call themselves Muslims, they can't call their place of worship a Mosque, they are not allowed to propagate their faith, they aren't even allowed to recite the Holy Qur'an (which they consider a divine revelation) or Naat e Rasool publicly or print Quranic verses anywhere, including on their mosques or gravestones. The Constitution of Pakistan discriminates against Non Muslims. From Blasphemy Laws to Evidence Laws (Qanoon e Shahdat), from Hadood Ordinance to Blood Money laws, There are a lot of laws in Pakistan that discriminate against the Non Muslims. Whether it's Education, Inheritance, Marriage, Divorce or Conversion, Pakistani Non Muslims face severe institutionalized religious discrimination. If it is not legal tyranny then I don't know what is
 
Has anyone of you guys have flirted with the idea of forming a party?

Like internet has good uses too instead of usual.

With elections just around the corner maybe why not?
issi ki kasar rah gaee haa...
 
What protection and freedom of religion are you talking about ? Ahmedis can't call themselves Muslims, they can't call their place of worship a Mosque, they are not allowed to propagate their faith, they aren't even allowed to recite the Holy Qur'an (which they consider a divine revelation) or Naat e Rasool publicly or print Quranic verses anywhere, including on their mosques or gravestones. The Constitution of Pakistan discriminates against Non Muslims. From Blasphemy Laws to Evidence Laws (Qanoon e Shahdat), from Hadood Ordinance to Blood Money laws, There are a lot of laws in Pakistan that discriminate against the Non Muslims. Whether it's Education, Inheritance, Marriage, Divorce or Conversion, Pakistani Non Muslims face severe institutionalized religious discrimination. If it is not legal tyranny then I don't know what is
If i am not wrong Ahmedis aren't allowed to have name "Mohammad" that wiki link i gave tells a lot.
 
@Azlan Haider @Hell hound @Zibago

Article 41
41. The President.—(1) There shall be a President of Pakistan who shall be the Head of State and shall represent the unity of the Republic.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.

Start reading from "Blasphemy" laws on this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan#Blasphemy_laws

We can't even elect a Non Muslim PM so let's not just lie to ourselves close our eyes and say "ALL IZ WELL" cuz it won't change the reality neither it will make Pakistan Quaid ka Pakistan.

I would vote for a non corrupt honest patriotic non Muslim Pakistani in a blink of an eye in front of a corrupt to the core "Muslim" Pakistani candidate.

Its the democratic will of the people to have the top brass for themselves. If 90 percent of the people have made it a rule accept the democratic will of the people.

This is rampant idealism to suggest that 3 percent of the population can produce an honest leader if the rest of the 97 percent cannot afford that.

As far as blasphemy laws are concerned. The freedom of expression cannot be equated to freedom to offend. The laws can be ammended to help them work better and transparent but not be written off.

If i am not wrong Ahmedis aren't allowed to have name "Mohammad" that wiki link i gave tells a lot.

If Wikipedia remains your best source of knowledge than think twice before engaging in sensitive discussions.

issi ki kasar rah gaee haa...

Saray Haider agar khilaaf hai to phir party nahi ban paegi

What protection and freedom of religion are you talking about ? Ahmedis can't call themselves Muslims, they can't call their place of worship a Mosque, they are not allowed to propagate their faith, they aren't even allowed to recite the Holy Qur'an (which they consider a divine revelation) or Naat e Rasool publicly or print Quranic verses anywhere, including on their mosques or gravestones. The Constitution of Pakistan discriminates against Non Muslims. From Blasphemy Laws to Evidence Laws (Qanoon e Shahdat), from Hadood Ordinance to Blood Money laws, There are a lot of laws in Pakistan that discriminate against the Non Muslims. Whether it's Education, Inheritance, Marriage, Divorce or Conversion, Pakistani Non Muslims face severe institutionalized religious discrimination. If it is not legal tyranny then I don't know what is

It will be legal tyranny if their rights are not protected.

Impersonating the Muslim religion is considered an offence so if the ahmedis consider themselves as a different religion they should be able to clearly define it.

Inheritance or marriage laws once again can be referred to the state or through their own religious beliefs. They have the right to do so.

Once again be careful with what you wish for since what you have is possibly the best alternative.

There is no magic wand that will undo the stigma based on just clerical editing of the Constitution.
 
It will be legal tyranny if their rights are not protected.

Impersonating the Muslim religion is considered an offence so if the ahmedis consider themselves as a different religion they should be able to clearly define it.

Inheritance or marriage laws once again can be referred to the state or through their own religious beliefs. They have the right to do so.

Once again be careful with what you wish for since what you have is possibly the best alternative.

There is no magic wand that will undo the stigma based on just clerical editing of the Constitution.

In Pakistan, Neither the rights of minority are protected, nor do they have the same rights as the Majority ... Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional or is being disingenuous.

Ahmedis do not consider themselves as different religion, 'Impersonating' is out of question. Majority of Sunnis don't consider Shia as fellow Muslims, should they be declared 'Impersonators' too ?? Be careful, it's a slippery slope ..... There is no "definition of Islam" agreed upon by all sects. Varying/different human interpretations of the (same) divine revelation essentially tend to be contradictory in nature ... This was pointed out by the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1953/54 ... Mullahs belonging to different sects couldn't agree upon any definition of Islam (accepted by all) when the court asked them to define "Muslim". .... For details see "Munir's Report of 1954". The honorable judges observed:

Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has done, and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definition of everyone else.


Jinnah wanted same rights (and duties) for all the citizens of Pakistan regardless of religion, race, caste, or creed. But our current Constitution discriminates between Pakistani citizens on the basis of religion. You can't have it both ways. You either can be a supporter of Jinnah's Pakistan, or you can support the current Constitution/Pakistan. You can't support both at the same time as they are diametrically opposed to each other
 
Last edited:
In Pakistan, Neither the rights of minority are protected, nor do they have the same rights as the Majority ... Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional or is being disingenuous.

Ahmedis do not consider themselves as different religion, 'Impersonating' is out of question. Majority of Sunnis don't consider Shia as fellow Muslims, should they be declared 'Impersonators' too ?? Be careful, it's a slippery slope ..... There is no "definition of Islam" agreed upon by all sects. Varying/different human interpretations of the (same) divine revelation essentially tend to be contradictory in nature ... This was pointed out by the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1953/54 (You too were Pakistanis back then) ... Mullahs belonging to different sects couldn't agree upon any definition of Islam (accepted by all) when the court asked them to define "Muslim". .... For details see "Munir's Report of 1954". The honorable judges observed:

Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental? If we attempt our own definition, as each learned divine has done, and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim, but kafirs according to the definition of everyone else.


Jinnah wanted same rights (and duties) for all the citizens of Pakistan regardless of religion, race, caste, or creed. But our current Constitution discriminates between Pakistani citizens on the basis of religion. You can't have it both ways. You either can be a supporter of Jinnah's Pakistan, or you can support the current Constitution/Pakistan. You can't support both at the same time as they are diametrically opposed to each other

You need to revisit how it went in 1973 and what exactly resulted in their exclusion from the Muslim community.

Jinnah was a Muslim secular rather than a secular Muslim.

Try explaining two nation theory without religion if you may.

And refrain from sectarian baiting because I will have none of that. Instead of alarming others of the slippery slope first pull yourself away from it.
 
Its the democratic will of the people to have the top brass for themselves. If 90 percent of the people have made it a rule accept the democratic will of the people.

This is rampant idealism to suggest that 3 percent of the population can produce an honest leader if the rest of the 97 percent cannot afford that.

As far as blasphemy laws are concerned. The freedom of expression cannot be equated to freedom to offend. The laws can be ammended to help them work better and transparent but not be written off.



If Wikipedia remains your best source of knowledge than think twice before engaging in sensitive discussions.



Saray Haider agar khilaaf hai to phir party nahi ban paegi
chaloo El ji ap bano party , U ll be the first life time chairperson on this party ...


It will be legal tyranny if their rights are not protected.

Impersonating the Muslim religion is considered an offence so if the ahmedis consider themselves as a different religion they should be able to clearly define it.

Inheritance or marriage laws once again can be referred to the state or through their own religious beliefs. They have the right to do so.

Once again be careful with what you wish for since what you have is possibly the best alternative.

There is no magic wand that will undo the stigma based on just clerical editing of the Constitution.
 
You need to revisit how it went in 1973 and what exactly resulted in their exclusion from the Muslim community.

Jinnah was a Muslim secular rather than a secular Muslim.

Try explaining two nation theory without religion if you may.

And refrain from sectarian baiting because I will have none of that. Instead of alarming others of the slippery slope first pull yourself away from it.


What political motives Bhutto had (behind declaring Ahmedis Non Muslims) or what exactly resulted in the exclusion of Ahmedis from the Muslim community in 1974, that's entirely besides the point. Here we are discussing the views of Jinnah and Jinnah had categorically stated : "Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise." ...... By declaring Ahmedis as Non Muslims, our sovereign legislature has acted in sharp contrast to the view of the nation’s founding father.


The Two Nation Theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created tells us that Muslims living in British India were a single nation. The whole idea of Indian Muslim Nationalism developed by Sir Syed and Aligarians that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan was inspired by the political theories of John Locke, Milton and Thomas Paine. Orthodox Muslims had rejected this idea outright. And the Ahmedis were the only sect of Muslims that supported Two Nation Theory and Jinnah's Pakistan movement en masse, only to be excluded from the nation later on !!


Stating plain facts is not 'sectarian baiting' .. Instead of being evasive, bring forward counter arguments/facts if you can
 
What political motives Bhutto had (behind declaring Ahmedis Non Muslims) or what exactly resulted in the exclusion of Ahmedis from the Muslim community in 1974, that's entirely besides the point. Here we are discussing the views of Jinnah and Jinnah had categorically stated : "Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise." ...... By declaring Ahmedis as Non Muslims, our sovereign legislature has acted in sharp contrast to the view of the nation’s founding father.


The Two Nation Theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created tells us that Muslims living in British India were a single nation. The whole idea of Indian Muslim Nationalism developed by Sir Syed and Aligarians that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan was inspired by the political theories of John Locke, Milton and Thomas Paine. Orthodox Muslims had rejected this idea outright. And the Ahmedis were the only sect of Muslims that supported Two Nation Theory and Jinnah's Pakistan movement en masse, only to be excluded from the nation later on !!


Stating plain facts is not 'sectarian baiting' .. Instead of being evasive, bring forward counter arguments/facts if you can


We can continue on this properly when there is proper time and need.

Sorry that i could not come to this earlier but some important developments have taken priorities.
 
So once again people if you guys get tired from all the political drama in the country.

PDP still looks a better option.
 
Thanks for the commitment.

Well let me repeat

Prevailance of law.
Vision of Iqbal
Discipline of Jinnah

I guess it looks cheap rip off but that's all what we need.

Anyone who is willing to join PDP has to fulfill 3 conditions:

1) lawful citizen of Pakistan with a character certificate from work or police and no dual national and no serving public officers.

2) has a command of two nation theory its causes and its inception through the eyes of Iqbal and Jinnah.

3) willing to engage beyond racio ethno sectarian/religious bias.

@PakSword do you feel the need to add anything more?


The members will then choose among themselves a symbolic leader once the manshoor of the party is settled.

@The Accountant @The Sandman @Hell hound @Starlord @Narendra Trump @Well.wisher @Zibago @Spring Onion @tps77 @Lagay Raho @Mentee

Please tag others if you want this to work.


Does these sound familiar guys? New Election reforms are much similar to what I had proposed and next will probably be dual nationality....

mere ideas kon chura raha hai??????????????
 
Back
Top Bottom