Musharraf's 'glorious' words about the Constitution of Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Recently the laws of finality of prophethood were changed in an unconstitutional manner which amounts to Article 6.
Why are no actions being taken to ensure supremacy of law and constitution?

Have the courts been petitioned? The laws on finality of prophethood are themselves against Islamic principles and therefore unconstitutional since the constitution is based on Islamic principles.

The argument works both ways. One can argue you are forcing your beliefs and views by hiding behind alleged Jinnahs interpretation.

My argument does work both ways - Muslims who are non-Ahmadi will remain free to preach and believe that Ahmadis are 'non-Muslim', and Ahmadis should be free to preach and believe that they are Muslims. It is the State/Government that has no business declaring who is a Muslim and who isn't and should not violate the Islamic principle of ''no compulsion in religion' through the 'finality of prophethood' laws.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

What’s selective here? Do you think it should also be applied to dead dictators too? The Musharraf defence counsel could say the same should apply to co-conspirators but this isn’t a valid argument, article 6 says that they are also guilty of high treason, but not that a conspirator in chief, as Musharraf, was couldn’t be tried alone.


The contrast here is funny.

Zia had no respect for democracy, the state or the constitution...

And he met a grizzly end in a plane crash, and scarcely anyone remembers him for anything good, mostly just for creating the problems we face today.

On the other hand, Bhutto, as bad of a politician as he was...

Bhutto and his name are still remembered by his followers and he’s treated like a martyr. His daughter was twice elected PM, and people even now overlook some of his bad aspects because Zia had him killed and turned him into a political icon.

Point being, nobody reveres Zia, a large population of people revere Bhutto.

Completely subjective analysis. Again you're exposing the problem with Pakistanis. We should support any correct action by anyone, rather than signing our lives away to one person/family/institution. This is why Pakistanis don't understand democracy or constitution or such institutions. They simply agree to support whoever brings them the most short term personal benefit, then they stubbornly stick to that line, imposing the same stupidity on future generations within their families.

The same problem is rife within British Pakistani communities.

"Why do you vote Labour or conservative?" "Because my nana did and he told me to"

I'm sure Zia did some good things. I'm sure zulfiqar Bhutto also did. But I will judge the current crop on merit, not blind loyalty.

Musharraf was better than nawaz at the time. Nawaz should hang for treason, not Musharraf. Yet we apply the "constitution" to bring one down, while the other spits on our constitution, laws, and intelligence by faking illness to escape justice.

Pakistanis don't understand democracy. We don't deserve democracy or a constitution. We cannot implement them fairly. We are always at risk of selling out.

 

[El Sidd]

Have the courts been petitioned? The laws on finality of prophethood are themselves against Islamic principles and therefore unconstitutional since the constitution is based on Islamic principles.

There is a due process for solving this. The Islamic Ideology Council and the Federal Shariah Courts are open to everyone. If you believe the spirit of the two mentioned laws are against the Quran and Sunnah, you can challenge them there or have the parliament debate over it.
By taking shortcuts and keeping the masses unaware are detrimental not just towards progress but transparency and democracy itself.

My argument does work both ways - Muslims who are non-Ahmadi will remain free to preach and believe that Ahmadis are 'non-Muslim', and Ahmadis should be free to preach and believe that they are Muslims. It is the State/Government that has no business declaring who is a Muslim and who isn't and should not violate the Islamic principle of ''no compulsion in religion' through the 'finality of prophethood' laws.

If the State cannot define who is a Muslim and who is not, the state cannot provide rights to them either.
It is not a religious issue but a social issue and socials issues are dealt by lawmaking.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is a due process for solving this. The Islamic Ideology Council and the Federal Shariah Courts are open to everyone. If you believe the spirit of the two mentioned laws are against the Quran and Sunnah, you can challenge them there or have the parliament debate over it.
By taking shortcuts and keeping the masses unaware are detrimental not just towards progress but transparency and democracy itself.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, not the IIC or FSC, which are merely advisory bodies. The decision therefore to strike down the anti-Ahmadi & Blasphemy laws (which clearly violate Islamic principles), if the politicians cannot, rests with the Supreme Court.

If the State cannot define who is a Muslim and who is not, the state cannot provide rights to them either.
It is not a religious issue but a social issue and socials issues are dealt by lawmaking.

The State is intended to be blind to race, religion and gender, therefore identifying someones religion should have no impact on its ability to dispense justice & rights to ALL its citizens.

 

[El Sidd]

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, not the IIC or FSC, which are merely advisory bodies. The decision therefore to strike down the anti-Ahmadi & Blasphemy laws (which clearly violate Islamic principles), if the politicians cannot, rests with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can only interpret laws passed by the parliament. It must try the parliament under Article 6 for its unconstitutional attempt to change the finality of prophethood laws which the government must make a case for.

As far as violation of islamic principle in your argument is concerned, it is your opinion which you are not only entitled to but should be given respect as an individuals beliefs.

The State is intended to be blind to race, religion and gender, therefore identifying someones religion should have no impact on its ability to dispense justice & rights to ALL its citizens.

It is still the case as per spirit of 1973 Constitution. There are no discrimination in the penal code when it comes to gender, race or religion. A muslim and an ahmadi faces the same punishment for murder as a hindu. An ethnic pashtun faces the similar penalty for robbery as does an ethnic Sindhi.

 

[Maarkhoor]

Bhutto and his name are still remembered by his followers and he’s treated like a martyr. His daughter was twice elected PM, and people even now overlook some of his bad aspects because Zia had him killed and turned him into a political icon.

Point being, nobody reveres Zia, a large population of people revere Bhutto.

Bhutto was a c@nt for Iqtidaar he let Mujeeb to partition country.....He became civil dictator and died like a scum while Gen. Zia got shahadat......
Don't prove hard to me that your are anti armed forces liberal....

One my cousin son got martyred last year in uniform Lt. We receive his body in parts so what ? Soldiers die like that so the Generalls as well....what is your point about disgrassing Gen. Zia's death?

 

[Jungibaaz]

Bhutto was a c@nt for Iqtidaar he let Mujeeb to partition country.....He became civil dictator and died like a scum while Gen. Zia got shahadat......
Don't prove hard to me that your are anti armed forces liberal....

One my cousin son got martyred last year in uniform Lt. We receive his body in parts so what ? Soldiers die like that so the Generalls as well....what is your point about disgrassing Gen. Zia's death?

I agree on Bhutto. But not on Zia, he and his politics caused havoc in Pakistan. If justice had prevailed after Bhutto’s execution. Zia would have been tried for high treason and killing Bhutto and he’d be then hanged himself.

As for your family army credentials, martyred soldiers aren’t the target of my criticism, I’m sure your cousin’s son served his country and should be respected as a martyr. But opulent generals who undermine democracy are the target of my criticism. I won’t retort with a personal attack as you have done against me.

 

[Kabira]

1973 constitution is a joke. Making non-muslims 2nd class citizens as they cannot become PM and COAS. Stabbing ahmadis in the back despite the fact that they supported Pakistan movement. Still there is time to rectify this piece of paper for good. Otherwise I don't see Pakistan lasting much. Another 1971 awaits us as one can see in this thread where kids think law doesn't matter and army should rule us with impunity. lanat

 

[Saifullah]

It's not hard. We know what he thought, at least the broader principles, and the current constitution does not do justice to those broader principles Jinnah articulated nor does it do justice to Islamic principles of justice & equality for all regardless of faith, gender or race.

The laws against Ahmadis & the blasphemy laws should be stricken down as unconstitutional by the SC just on the basis of Islamic principles alone.

Ahmadis are Non Muslim and should be categorized as such nothing wrong in it. Sahab fought against the imposters before at the very least we should call them what they are.

 

[Maarkhoor]

who undermine democracy

I would like to piss on f@king democracy especially in Pakistan where voters are illiterate and sell vote for qeema naan or biryani plate...

 

[fitpOsitive]

Had they judged for the rule of, I was with Justice Khosa. But if someone thinks that he the ruler of this country and others are not, then this verdict is on foot.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I would like to piss on f@king democracy especially in Pakistan where voters are illiterate and sell vote for qeema naan or biryani plate...

Quaid envisioned a democratic republic, probably because he and others were better statesmen than most today. I wonder what he’d have to say if knew a corrupt civilian elite ruled the poor, and another illegitimate and equally morally bankrupt military elite ran the state.

Military rule is partially the reasons we lack the strength in institution and civilian process to hold people accountable. Economic development is predicated upon the political stability, and the latter in turn is predicated upon the development and refinement of a state’s governance structure, internal political mechanisms and the amalgamation of a credible jurisprudence. None of which has happened in Pakistan, or rather has been prevented from happening multiple times.

 

[Yaseen1]

there are no measures or defenses available to protect constitution from illegal amendments against national interests when corrupt and traitors parties get elected and change constitution for their personal interests as happened after 18th amendment so these amendments will result constitution merely a piece of paper,there should be much controls over amendment of constitution to make it more valuable otherwise it will have to be suspended for saving national interests and country existence and constitution comes after national security

 

[El Sidd]

The State is intended to be blind to race, religion and gender, therefore identifying someones religion should have no impact on its ability to dispense justice & rights to ALL its citizens.

If i may ask you a personal question, How many protests have you participated in to grant non anglo saxons of colonies of Guam and Puerto Rico equal rights of the States?

 

[The Accountant]

The piece of trash was developed by the representatives of the people of Pakistan and every political party has consensus on it. The common people also didn't care if Musharraf's plane had crashed, why did he overthrew their elected Government?



Since you missed the important point, this piece of trash if the foundation on which Armed Forces stand today and every soldier takes oath on it.

WHich representative. The one who is responsible for division of Pakistan (Bhutto) or the one who were not even favor of creation of Pakistan (Jamiat and other religious parties)?

Dont be deluded. Constitution is important only if its able to protect the rights of the people of the country and not jsut some power group.