Minorities as Prez or PM of Pakistan: YLH

[Taimoor Khan]

Can Israel, the so called only democracy in middle east have a Muslim Prime minister and president?

 

[The Accountant]

https://dailytimes.com.pk/479553/minorities-as-president-or-prime-minister/

In April this year a minority member of the National Assembly tabled a bill for a constitutional amendment to allow religious minorities in Pakistan to become President or Prime Minister of this republic. It was summarily rejected by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on the ground that Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. Given Imran Khan’s shrill denunciations of India’s treatment of its minorities, the Indian media only recently picked it up and the news is doing rounds on the international media is a consequence. After any citizen of India can become the President or Prime Minister there. Not so with our Islamic Republic. By having this special qualification, Pakistan creates two distinct classes of citizens and the minorities are placed in the second class, though even those rights are denied to them.

Without going into whether or not Pakistan should be an Islamic Republic (and my view is that it should not be an Islamic Republic), let us proceed on the basis that Pakistan is constitutionally a federal, democratic and Islamic republic with the name “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. The question is that even as an Islamic Republic is it fair to religious minorities to deny them the right to aspire to the highest offices in the land. The question is a purely legal and constitutional question and has nothing to do with religion. I am not even going to quote Mr. Jinnah’s 11 August speech, which we have buried in this country practically. Instead I shall refer to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan’s express promise made on the day that the Objectives’ Resolution was passed. Responding to the objections of the minority representatives, the Prime Minister stated that “a Non-Muslim can be the head of government”, explaining that under a constitutional dispensation a head of administration is limited by the constitution. This is on record dated 12 March 1949 and a copy of this can be found on the National Assembly website under NA Debates section.

There are of course two offices that are in question here. The first is the office of the President of Pakistan, which is a ceremonial office, much like the British monarch, under parliamentary democracy and is the symbol of the federation. The second office is the office of the Prime Minister. Before 1956 the first office did not exist in Pakistan and the head of state was the British monarch. The British monarch was represented by the Governor General and that office could be held by any person of any religion. The 1956 Constitution which proclaimed Pakistan an Islamic Republic reserved only the office of the President for Muslims but left the office of the Prime Minister open to all citizens of Pakistan. The office of the Prime Minister was open to all citizens of Pakistan right up till 1973 though arguably the office of the Prime Minister did not exist from 1958-1969. From 1985 to 2010 there was ambiguity about the office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan because after the 8th Amendment a curious change in language meant that there was a technical possibility for a Non-Muslim to hold this office. However it was still subject to an oath that was designed for Muslims only. The 18th Amendment restored the 1973 language and therefore we returned to the position that only Muslims can hold the office of the President and the Prime Minister.

The most common example cited by the apologists for this discrimination is that of United Kingdom where the British monarch has to be an Anglican. The analogy does not hold up. For one thing the elected office of the Prime Minister of United Kingdom is open to all British citizens regardless of their religion. Secondly the British monarch is the head of the Anglican Church which necessitates that requirement. The obvious corollary of this is that the British Monarch is not an elected official and United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.

Islam does not have a Church and the President of Pakistan is not a religious office in the sense that the President of Pakistan is not the Mufti-e-Azam of Pakistan. There is no constitutional responsibility of the President to lead prayers or to officiate religious ceremonies because the President is not the Ameer-ul-Momineen and we have stoutly resisted any such attempts to make an elected constitutional office into the office of a Caliph. Therefore there is no discernible reason why a Pakistani who is not a Muslim cannot be the head of state in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Muslim bar on the office of Prime Minister is even more indefensible.

What it comes down to is this: According to Pakistani Constitution religious minorities in Pakistan cannot be as loyal to the country as Muslims. This is patently untrue. Even if the issue is loyalty to the undefined and ambiguous concept that we call Islamic ideology (which it must be stated was post hoc assumed to be rationale for Pakistan), then the most articulate exponent of the idea of Islamic legal and moral principles was none other than Justice Cornelius, a Christian. Still if religious minorities cannot be trusted, let that decision be of the people of Pakistan through each election and not mandated by a constitutional article. Who is to say that Cornelius or Rana Bhagwandas would not have been great presidents of Pakistan? Who is to say that a Non-Muslim cannot be a great Prime Minister of Pakistan? Let the people decide on a case to case basis in each election instead of a blanket ban.

As things stand religious minorities in Pakistan are not equal citizens. Imran Khan can accuse Narendra Modi of making Muslims and Christians in India second class citizens in practice but the truth is that Pakistan makes anyone who is not a Muslim a second class citizen by the force of constitution and law. Therefore all our claims sound very hollow on the global scene. There is no quid pro quo here. The minorities are not given a dual vote either nor are there any important constitutional positions reserved for them. How then can we say that Pakistan treats every citizen as equal? Let us at least learn to be honest for once.

Regards

Since when becoming PM or President is a basic human right ? We inserted a condition that only bachelor pass can be memeber of parliament . Does that means that lower then this education is a second class citizen ?

 

[LeGenD]

This is senseless NGO-driven agenda of sorts.

Pakistan is a Muslim-majority country and it need to respect sensitivities of Muslims above all by default. WE have no issues with Pakistani religious minorities having sufficient rights to practice their respective religions and have fair access to all manner of Public and Private services - they are equal citizens of Pakistan. However, leadership roles are a deeply sensitive matter.

The fact that this bill was unsuccessful in the National Assembly, is a democratic decision in the end. Democracy isn't a gateway to every manner of political appeasement but representative of the will of the majority in a country by default.

 

[GHALIB]

https://dailytimes.com.pk/479553/minorities-as-president-or-prime-minister/

In April this year a minority member of the National Assembly tabled a bill for a constitutional amendment to allow religious minorities in Pakistan to become President or Prime Minister of this republic. It was summarily rejected by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on the ground that Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. Given Imran Khan’s shrill denunciations of India’s treatment of its minorities, the Indian media only recently picked it up and the news is doing rounds on the international media is a consequence. After any citizen of India can become the President or Prime Minister there. Not so with our Islamic Republic. By having this special qualification, Pakistan creates two distinct classes of citizens and the minorities are placed in the second class, though even those rights are denied to them.

Without going into whether or not Pakistan should be an Islamic Republic (and my view is that it should not be an Islamic Republic), let us proceed on the basis that Pakistan is constitutionally a federal, democratic and Islamic republic with the name “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. The question is that even as an Islamic Republic is it fair to religious minorities to deny them the right to aspire to the highest offices in the land. The question is a purely legal and constitutional question and has nothing to do with religion. I am not even going to quote Mr. Jinnah’s 11 August speech, which we have buried in this country practically. Instead I shall refer to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan’s express promise made on the day that the Objectives’ Resolution was passed. Responding to the objections of the minority representatives, the Prime Minister stated that “a Non-Muslim can be the head of government”, explaining that under a constitutional dispensation a head of administration is limited by the constitution. This is on record dated 12 March 1949 and a copy of this can be found on the National Assembly website under NA Debates section.

There are of course two offices that are in question here. The first is the office of the President of Pakistan, which is a ceremonial office, much like the British monarch, under parliamentary democracy and is the symbol of the federation. The second office is the office of the Prime Minister. Before 1956 the first office did not exist in Pakistan and the head of state was the British monarch. The British monarch was represented by the Governor General and that office could be held by any person of any religion. The 1956 Constitution which proclaimed Pakistan an Islamic Republic reserved only the office of the President for Muslims but left the office of the Prime Minister open to all citizens of Pakistan. The office of the Prime Minister was open to all citizens of Pakistan right up till 1973 though arguably the office of the Prime Minister did not exist from 1958-1969. From 1985 to 2010 there was ambiguity about the office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan because after the 8th Amendment a curious change in language meant that there was a technical possibility for a Non-Muslim to hold this office. However it was still subject to an oath that was designed for Muslims only. The 18th Amendment restored the 1973 language and therefore we returned to the position that only Muslims can hold the office of the President and the Prime Minister.

The most common example cited by the apologists for this discrimination is that of United Kingdom where the British monarch has to be an Anglican. The analogy does not hold up. For one thing the elected office of the Prime Minister of United Kingdom is open to all British citizens regardless of their religion. Secondly the British monarch is the head of the Anglican Church which necessitates that requirement. The obvious corollary of this is that the British Monarch is not an elected official and United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.

Islam does not have a Church and the President of Pakistan is not a religious office in the sense that the President of Pakistan is not the Mufti-e-Azam of Pakistan. There is no constitutional responsibility of the President to lead prayers or to officiate religious ceremonies because the President is not the Ameer-ul-Momineen and we have stoutly resisted any such attempts to make an elected constitutional office into the office of a Caliph. Therefore there is no discernible reason why a Pakistani who is not a Muslim cannot be the head of state in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Muslim bar on the office of Prime Minister is even more indefensible.

What it comes down to is this: According to Pakistani Constitution religious minorities in Pakistan cannot be as loyal to the country as Muslims. This is patently untrue. Even if the issue is loyalty to the undefined and ambiguous concept that we call Islamic ideology (which it must be stated was post hoc assumed to be rationale for Pakistan), then the most articulate exponent of the idea of Islamic legal and moral principles was none other than Justice Cornelius, a Christian. Still if religious minorities cannot be trusted, let that decision be of the people of Pakistan through each election and not mandated by a constitutional article. Who is to say that Cornelius or Rana Bhagwandas would not have been great presidents of Pakistan? Who is to say that a Non-Muslim cannot be a great Prime Minister of Pakistan? Let the people decide on a case to case basis in each election instead of a blanket ban.

As things stand religious minorities in Pakistan are not equal citizens. Imran Khan can accuse Narendra Modi of making Muslims and Christians in India second class citizens in practice but the truth is that Pakistan makes anyone who is not a Muslim a second class citizen by the force of constitution and law. Therefore all our claims sound very hollow on the global scene. There is no quid pro quo here. The minorities are not given a dual vote either nor are there any important constitutional positions reserved for them. How then can we say that Pakistan treats every citizen as equal? Let us at least learn to be honest for once.

Regards

insecurity will never allow .

I think clear restriction is far better than hypocrisy when you not allow any Muslim to take charge of such office by devising other complexity and mechanism which make it impossible for Muslim to get this office.Tell me why in history of west not even single Muslim is elected to such office.In u.k Muslim mayor Sadiq is facing prejudice from western world and trump used hateful words against him openly and no leader of west condemned it, similarly mayor also received death threats from extremist white christan who killed Muslims in mosque of newzeland .I think Pakistan is much better than west in this regard

so in your opinion no muslim should be allowed to hold important office in west .

 

[War Thunder]

@Asimz

Asim bhai,

Thanks, that was quite useful. Can minorities be trusted to become COAS, which may be even more powerful than PM? And who heads an institution which maybe required to spearhead ghazwa/jihad against non-Muslim powers but also maybe required to defend its ideological frontiers.

Regards

Ghazwa and Jihad are not similar words nor interchangeable.

And since you can't already be bothered by doing some independent research despite having access to the Internet.

Jihad is not and cannot be an offensive war. Jihad is a struggle against oppression, a defensive one.
And Ghazwa is only a battle that saw participation of the Prophet (S.A.W) be physically or spiritually.
So no one can initiate a war on just any non Muslim nation on their own and call it a Ghazwa.

The conquest of Hind was foretold since ancient times and hence its referred to as Ghazwa-e-Hind, though I'm not sure about the usage of the term.
Conquest of Romans and Persians was also prophesied and it happened as told.

And Pakistan being a 97% Muslim Majority nation, cannot have a non Muslim sitting at the helms of government nor the armed forces to decide for the masses.

 

[Jackdaws]

I think clear restriction is far better than hypocrisy when you not allow any Muslim to take charge of such office by devising other complexity and mechanism which make it impossible for Muslim to get this office.Tell me why in history of west not even single Muslim is elected to such office.In u.k Muslim mayor Sadiq is facing prejudice from western world and trump used hateful words against him openly and no leader of west condemned it, similarly mayor also received death threats from extremist white christan who killed Muslims in mosque of newzeland .I think Pakistan is much better than west in this regard

There is no complexity or mechanism. Obama is black and had the middle name "Hussein" - he still became President. Of course there is societal prejudice but there is no constitutional restriction which means the constitution encourages the movement of society towards a more egalitarian horizon. Women were not even allowed to vote till 70 years ago. Progressive countries like Iceland and Ireland have even elected homosexuals to be PMs. Earlier they would have been considered criminals by their own Constitution.

 

[War Thunder]

insecurity will never allow .

You have 97 Lions and 3 chickens in a forest.
Will you put one chicken as their leader to decide for the lions?

It's called Logic, ever heard?

 

[Yaseen1]

first Muslim become their head of state then we will think about it

There is no complexity or mechanism. Obama is black and had the middle name "Hussein" - he still became President. Of course there is societal prejudice but there is no constitutional restriction which means the constitution encourages the movement of society towards a more egalitarian horizon. Women were not even allowed to vote till 70 years ago. Progressive countries like Iceland and Ireland have even elected homosexuals to be PMs. Earlier they would have been considered criminals by their own Constitution.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

This is senseless NGO-driven agenda of sorts.

Pakistan is a Muslim-majority country and it need to respect sensitivities of Muslims above all by default. WE have no issues with Pakistani religious minorities having sufficient rights to practice their respective religions and have fair access to all manner of Public and Private services - they are equal citizens of Pakistan. However, leadership roles are a deeply sensitive matter.

The fact that this bill was unsuccessful in the National Assembly, is a democratic decision in the end. Democracy isn't a gateway to every manner of political appeasement but representative of the will of the majority in a country by default.

This is just for propaganda really, just after IK speech in UN where he talked about minority rights. Of course, vested interests with links to outside will try to take the pi**.

 

[El Sidd]

https://dailytimes.com.pk/479553/minorities-as-president-or-prime-minister/

In April this year a minority member of the National Assembly tabled a bill for a constitutional amendment to allow religious minorities in Pakistan to become President or Prime Minister of this republic. It was summarily rejected by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on the ground that Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. Given Imran Khan’s shrill denunciations of India’s treatment of its minorities, the Indian media only recently picked it up and the news is doing rounds on the international media is a consequence. After any citizen of India can become the President or Prime Minister there. Not so with our Islamic Republic. By having this special qualification, Pakistan creates two distinct classes of citizens and the minorities are placed in the second class, though even those rights are denied to them.

Without going into whether or not Pakistan should be an Islamic Republic (and my view is that it should not be an Islamic Republic), let us proceed on the basis that Pakistan is constitutionally a federal, democratic and Islamic republic with the name “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. The question is that even as an Islamic Republic is it fair to religious minorities to deny them the right to aspire to the highest offices in the land. The question is a purely legal and constitutional question and has nothing to do with religion. I am not even going to quote Mr. Jinnah’s 11 August speech, which we have buried in this country practically. Instead I shall refer to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan’s express promise made on the day that the Objectives’ Resolution was passed. Responding to the objections of the minority representatives, the Prime Minister stated that “a Non-Muslim can be the head of government”, explaining that under a constitutional dispensation a head of administration is limited by the constitution. This is on record dated 12 March 1949 and a copy of this can be found on the National Assembly website under NA Debates section.

There are of course two offices that are in question here. The first is the office of the President of Pakistan, which is a ceremonial office, much like the British monarch, under parliamentary democracy and is the symbol of the federation. The second office is the office of the Prime Minister. Before 1956 the first office did not exist in Pakistan and the head of state was the British monarch. The British monarch was represented by the Governor General and that office could be held by any person of any religion. The 1956 Constitution which proclaimed Pakistan an Islamic Republic reserved only the office of the President for Muslims but left the office of the Prime Minister open to all citizens of Pakistan. The office of the Prime Minister was open to all citizens of Pakistan right up till 1973 though arguably the office of the Prime Minister did not exist from 1958-1969. From 1985 to 2010 there was ambiguity about the office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan because after the 8th Amendment a curious change in language meant that there was a technical possibility for a Non-Muslim to hold this office. However it was still subject to an oath that was designed for Muslims only. The 18th Amendment restored the 1973 language and therefore we returned to the position that only Muslims can hold the office of the President and the Prime Minister.

The most common example cited by the apologists for this discrimination is that of United Kingdom where the British monarch has to be an Anglican. The analogy does not hold up. For one thing the elected office of the Prime Minister of United Kingdom is open to all British citizens regardless of their religion. Secondly the British monarch is the head of the Anglican Church which necessitates that requirement. The obvious corollary of this is that the British Monarch is not an elected official and United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.

Islam does not have a Church and the President of Pakistan is not a religious office in the sense that the President of Pakistan is not the Mufti-e-Azam of Pakistan. There is no constitutional responsibility of the President to lead prayers or to officiate religious ceremonies because the President is not the Ameer-ul-Momineen and we have stoutly resisted any such attempts to make an elected constitutional office into the office of a Caliph. Therefore there is no discernible reason why a Pakistani who is not a Muslim cannot be the head of state in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Muslim bar on the office of Prime Minister is even more indefensible.

What it comes down to is this: According to Pakistani Constitution religious minorities in Pakistan cannot be as loyal to the country as Muslims. This is patently untrue. Even if the issue is loyalty to the undefined and ambiguous concept that we call Islamic ideology (which it must be stated was post hoc assumed to be rationale for Pakistan), then the most articulate exponent of the idea of Islamic legal and moral principles was none other than Justice Cornelius, a Christian. Still if religious minorities cannot be trusted, let that decision be of the people of Pakistan through each election and not mandated by a constitutional article. Who is to say that Cornelius or Rana Bhagwandas would not have been great presidents of Pakistan? Who is to say that a Non-Muslim cannot be a great Prime Minister of Pakistan? Let the people decide on a case to case basis in each election instead of a blanket ban.

As things stand religious minorities in Pakistan are not equal citizens. Imran Khan can accuse Narendra Modi of making Muslims and Christians in India second class citizens in practice but the truth is that Pakistan makes anyone who is not a Muslim a second class citizen by the force of constitution and law. Therefore all our claims sound very hollow on the global scene. There is no quid pro quo here. The minorities are not given a dual vote either nor are there any important constitutional positions reserved for them. How then can we say that Pakistan treats every citizen as equal? Let us at least learn to be honest for once.

Regards

So when is he freeing the murshid slaves of his family?

 

[Rusty]

I don't understand why we engage in this nonsense, every few years this topic comes.

The answer is:

US allows discrimination based on where you are born.
Pakistan allows it on your religion
End of story.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@Yaseen1

Yaseenbhai,

first Muslim become their head of state then we will think about it

3 Muslims have been heads of state in neighbouring India and 1 Sikh as well. Now you will think about it?

Regards

 

[Adonis]

i think ylh should ask this question from u.s and europe for not allowing any Muslim to become their president or p.m

Mate Barak "Hussain" Obama ex. president U.S. was born Muslim

Can Israel, the so called only democracy in middle east have a Muslim Prime minister and president?

So you are comparing Pakistan with Israel? Also, Israel never cries on world forum on minority suppression but your PM does and that too only for Muslim minorities in other country, conveniently ignoring status of minorities in his own country.

 

[Yaseen1]

there is difference between born Muslim and being converted to other religion,the matter is that they not allow any Muslim who has not converted to other religion

Mate Barak "Hussain" Obama ex. president U.S. was born Muslim

 

[Adonis]

there is difference between born Muslim and being converted to other religion,the matter is that they not allow any Muslim who has not converted to other religion

Same is also true for Pakistan....

Allama Iqbal's father was Rattan Lal Sapru (kashmiri Pandit) converted to Islam and became Sheikh Noor Mohammad Sapru

Mohammad Ali Jinnah's father Poonjabhai Jinno was from Hindu Baniya caste from Kathiawar Gujrat (India) and converted to Islam.

Verify if you like....