What's new

Muslim Pakistan versus Islamic Pakistan - Which Was Jinnah’s Vision?

What did the Muslim League & Jinnah want Pakistan to become?


  • Total voters
    50
Pakistan should rename itself to Indus and remove the star and crescent from the flag and become a secular republic based on principles and teaching of Jesus so that it can become a fair, just and an egalitarian society where everyone is equal under the flag of Indus. Dogma is replaced with progress and judgement is replaced by inclusivity. Become disciplined with a strong work ethic and self aware, moral and become a clean, developed 1st world country with abundant jobs and wealth, a tourist hotspot and a place to make a living for an immigrant.

I know that would be too much to ask so I will happily take a secular attaturked Pakistan.

I don't know what Pakistan is aiming for at the moment, it's a corrupt, violent and harsh society which burns people alive in public and dishes out mob justice. It's poor, unjust, dirty and full of suffering. It's a place where the mentally ill, psychopaths are religious leaders and political leaders. No sense of calm, civility, no grace of God. Just this vapid harshness. I don't know if it's because of a lack of education and self awareness or just a crab bucket of religious extremism on a mass scale creating a nation of abused dogs.
 
Where is the word Pakistan in the Quran then?

Yes, Pakistan as a political entity was established in 1947, but in comparison Iraq was established in 1932 and Egypt in 1953.

When we talk about “Ancient Iraq”, we are talking about the collective history of that land, spanning thousands of years between the River Tigris and River Euphrates (Mesopotamia).

When we talk about “Ancient Egypt”, we are talking about the collective history of that land, spanning thousands of years along the River Nile.

As such, when we talk about “Ancient Pakistan”, we are talking about the collective history of this land, spanning thousands of years along the River Indus and her tributaries (Indus Valley).

Pakistan was first used by Chaudhary Rehmat Ali in his 1933 political pamphlet “Now or Never”. In it he explained the etymology of “PAKISTAN” as being an acronym of several historic nations that would make up the country in the future. These nations were:

P – Punjab
A – “Afghania” (Gandhara, now Khyber Pakthunkhwa)
K – Kashmir (now Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan respectively)
S – Sindh
-STAN – BalochiSTAN

Punjab, Gandhara, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan are all regions that have been around for thousands years, some stretching back to the early Vedic civilization from roughly 1200 BCE. Each of these regions has its own rich history, languages and cultures.

Imagine thinking a religious state binds these people together. LMFAO. More like under occupation.

View attachment 926949
View attachment 926951
View attachment 926955
PAKISTAN, in the words of Ch Rehmat Ali, means the five Northern units of India, viz: Punjab, KP (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan."... Pakistan is a geographical entity. There is no "Islam" in it. We weren't even born Islamic. It was only in 1954 that we embarked on an experiment that would make history: we became the first nation in world history to append the adjective "Islamic" to our republican status. A hybrid was born, with the "Islamic" component gradually gaining ascendancy over the "Republican" one over time.

We broke down into smaller independent countries even WITH Islam... The secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan highlights the limitations of Islam as a unifying factor in a diverse country.
Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Illaha Illal Allah

People always talk about Muhammad Ali Jinnah but never mentioned the ideological founder of Pakistan which is Allama Iqbal. Jinnah was the best politician chosen to fulfil the dream of Allama Iqbal of a modern Islamic state. Yes JUI and others opposed Pakistan but Jamat Ulema e Pakistan supported Pakistan, they held rallies all over Pakistan in support of Pakistan. An extremist Pakistan was not their dream but a modern Islamic riasat, which promotes education, justice, protection of minorities. Only Zia ul Haq and Afghan jihad changed this, but then again who wouldn't want billions of petrodollars.
Exactly!
They always talk about Ch Rehmat Ali but his plan for the subcontinent was multiple Muslim states not just 1 Pakistan. That’s why it made sense.
These people ignore the Ulema who lead Pakistan’s freedom struggle. Jinnah was just a politician fighting on the political front.

This ⬇️
PREACH!!

These seculars of today talking shit about Iqbal and dismissing him as a reactionary, and claiming Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan, forget Iqbal was the ideological mentor of Quaid's struggle after he ended his exile. Quaid said so himself.

Quaid was just the vehicle. The driver was Iqbal.

And anyone with a barely double digit IQ will know Iqbal was a huge proponent of Ijtehad and modern Islam.

It's a shame we barely understand the genius of Iqbal. Molvis use him for their own narrow purposes and seculars dismiss him completely.
Couldn’t have explained it better.
 
Last edited:
Neelo Bibi, You live in Canada yourself and keep berating people for living in the West. You're a supporter of PTI. Our Glorious Leader will be shocked by your promotion of Indus Valley ethno-nationalism. Please reconsider.

BTW, I got a random mailing list email from a lady called Neelo selling real estate. Could that be you?
Their breed is born munafiqs. What do you expect?
They’re the same filth as Tarek Fateh but minus the open anti Pak sentiment.
You shouldn’t even call it a lady. As you know nowadays, these people are too “modern” and “progressive” to have a gender.

secular republic

based on principles and teaching of Jesus
So how is it secular?

Muslims want Pakistan to be based on the principles and teaching of Islam which Jesus PBUH followed. It’s you secularists who go against the teaching and principles of Jesus PBUH.
 
You must be joking.
90% of the Indians on this forum loathe me. The feeling is not entirely without reciprocation
Well, it's our forum. And we Pakistanis hereby do a regime change on PDF's indian populace and install you as their leader.

But, seriously though. It's a theme, we've noticed. Most of us Pakistanis tend to appreciate sane voice from across the wire, and vice versa. A rare breeze of cool wind amidst a storm of hot air.
 
So how is it secular?

Muslims want Pakistan to be based on the principles and teaching of Islam which Jesus PBUH followed. It’s you secularists who go against the teaching and principles of Jesus PBUH.

Secularism doesn't mean Godless or atheism. It means state and religion are separate so that governance is impartial, without favouritism and doesn't face constant pressure from the religious right to do their bidding . You can argue Islam and secularism can coexist but I have my doubts.
 
Their breed is born munafiqs. What do you expect?
They’re the same filth as Tarek Fateh but minus the open anti Pak sentiment.
You shouldn’t even call it a lady. As you know nowadays, these people are too “modern” and “progressive” to have a gender.
I will never get this logic of secular house niggers in the West (and some mental slaves whose heart is in the West but their body feels trapped in Pakistan). If you are not a completely Godless overseas Pakistani, you have no right to be in the host country.

They say things like "overseas pakistanis support sharia for Pakistan but enjoy western liberties". Like bitch, do you srsly think overseas Pakistanis are there for western liberties and not to earn a livelihood? Does the simple fact of wanting to earn a better livelihood, deprive one of the right to have an opinion?

Secularism doesn't mean Godless or atheism. It means state and religion are separate so that governance is impartial, without favouritism and doesn't face constant pressure from the religious right to do their bidding .
India is secular.

You can argue Islam and secularism can coexist but I have my doubts.
It's about creating a balance. Islamic countries like Turkey and Malaysia have much better track record on non-muslim minorities. Secular communist states? Not so much.

So, you are comparing apples to oranges. The issue is state-overreach, not state ideology.
 
India is secular.

India is not secular. It's an extremist Hinduvita country led by a RSS member mass murderer.

Malaysia have much better track record on non-muslim minorities. Secular communist states? Not so much.

I've been to Malaysia and I was drinking a cocktail in a bar while the locals where going to Friday prayers. , everyone minding their own business. Let me know when Pakistan can achieve a tolerant society like that. The issue has to be forced with our lot unfortunately.
 
For all of its history Pakistan has been run by whiskey-drinking secular generals. I was actually told by a retired senior Air Force officer that they weed out Islamic types by making everyone drink whiskey.

So, to say that Islam has failed is not correct. It is the secular generals and corrupt politicians who have run the country into the ground.

To suggest that we need to be Christians to have justice and rule of law is nonsense. We can have both while remaining Muslim.

We don't need mullahs to run the country, just clean and honest elected leaders. That's something the whiskey generals are not allowing.
 
For all of its history Pakistan has been run by whiskey-drinking secular generals. I was actually told by a retired senior Air Force officer that they weed out Islamic types by making everyone drink whiskey.

So, to say that Islam has failed is not correct. It is the secular generals and corrupt politicians who have run the country into the ground.

To suggest that we need to be Christians to have justice and rule of law is nonsense. We can have both while remaining Muslim.

We don't need mullahs to run the country, just clean and honest elected leaders. That's something the whiskey generals are not allowing.

Even Christian don’t want to be Christians lol. This guy doesn’t want a star or crescent on the flag, but he sure would love a Cross like that other fool in our midst supporting Ukraine with the Christian cross in his avi.

Non Muslims will always favor other non Muslims. I’m a Shia but will always favor Muslims as long as they’re not takfiris beheaders.

I’m a reverse orientalist, meaning I’ve lived amongst the westerners, partaken in their lifestyles, fought their wars, but I don’t fully support it. I have a right to say this as Ive shed blood and sacrifice a lot. Some of these guys here rather I stfu because I’m not a Gora secular/Christian. This neo-Christian has said that Indus would’ve found monotheism even if Islam wasn’t around. What he means is christian missionaries were too late to convert us and it pains him.

In my last trip to Lahore, I saw an evangelical shack from a U.S. based missionary. I pray to God that an actual Muslim in Pakistan burns it down. I’ve seen these satan spawns go to Africa and use food and clothes as a tactics to convert people. With us Muslims, they use green cards/visas to entice them to convert. You see some Iranians do it and I’m sure some Pakistanis are doing it well.

They tried to do the same thing right after the Iraq invasion, but the honorific Iraqis took them out and they fled like the cowards they are.

One day in the field, they served us Asian food. Now I always ask the army cooks what type of meat is it. If it looks like chicken I will eat it.
The Asian meat looked like pork and kind smelled disgusting. I had this Gora Christian in my unit. He purposefully tells me it’s chicken. I had many other friends around me who would tell me if something had pork and I will give them my ration. They never misled me. This Christian tried to do that. They would try to convert you by hook or crook.
They’re our enemy through and through.
 
Last edited:
@LeGenD @waz @SQ8 thats two strikes on the same thread right per PDF rules.

روتے رہو

Bro, You know what's easy? Venting out frustration and anger on online forums. We all have done that at some point, haven't we? But here's the thing, it's just not fair to judge people solely based on their online behavior. I mean, let's be real, most people tend to exaggerate or act in ways they wouldn't dare to do in real life when hiding behind a screen. So, it's essential not to assume that someone's online behavior reflects their true character. In reality, people are often much more reasonable and tolerant than what they portray themselves to be online hiding behind anonymous usernames and profiles

I suppose....but it's still fun.
 
You can argue Islam and secularism can coexist but I have my doubts.
You are correct in your doubts.
God Almighty created the whole universe and everything in it. He also created rules and limits for us. He created a system for us to rule with.
Secularism is putting the state first even before religion.
Islam simply isn’t just a “religion”.
Every Muslim believes Islam is the truth and Islam tells us how to rule when in power and what system to implement. A Muslim choosing to rule with secularism means he put his state before what he believed was the truth which puts his belief in his religion in danger.
Secularism is not just simply removing religion from state. And theirs is no state that is religionless. We can argue communism and capitalism are religions it self. Every state even secular states have some beliefs they follow by and hold in high regard. Secular USA has capitalistic beliefs its adheres by and holds its constitution in high regard. Isn’t that a religion in its self?
If we believe God exists and the religion we follow is the truth, and God created rules and limits for us, how can we create a state that doesn’t adhere to the rules and limits of the religion we believe is the truth? That puts our belief in our religion in danger.
Hence, your doubts are correct. Islam is only compatible with an Islamic system as defined by Islam it self. Islam is not compatible with an ideology that puts it under the interests of the state. Islam always comes first.

I will never get this logic of secular house niggers in the West (and some mental slaves whose heart is in the West but their body feels trapped in Pakistan). If you are not a completely Godless overseas Pakistani, you have no right to be in the host country.

They say things like "overseas pakistanis support sharia for Pakistan but enjoy western liberties". Like bitch, do you srsly think overseas Pakistanis are there for western liberties and not to earn a livelihood? Does the simple fact of wanting to earn a better livelihood, deprive one of the right to have an opinion?
Exactly! They think we’re here to be secularists and abandon our Islamic values.
We are only in west because the conditions in Pakistan aren’t good. No true Muslim would like to live in a kaffir country. We only do it because we have no other choice. Middle East won’t accept us and Pakistan’s situation isn’t good. Even tho we’re in west we created our own communities here, built masjids, give Dawah, create Islamic schools, and try to make our areas as Islamic as possible.
That’s why western Muslims are much more religious compared to some people living in Muslim countries.
 
Last edited:
These people ignore the Ulema who lead Pakistan’s freedom struggle. Jinnah was just a politician fighting on the political front.

‏‎لَّعۡنَتَ اللّٰهِ عَلَى الۡكٰذِبِيۡنَ
 
the BAATHISTS were doing secularism.. like SADDAM and ASSADS of Iraq and Syria.
 
Back
Top Bottom