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

[Neelo]

You talk such nonsense but have Imran Khan in PFP. You are a living oxymoron.

What nonsense have I spoken.

I've directly quoted Jinnah.

You folks are just huffing hot air and threatening us with violence.

Lol.

 

[Neelo]

So how the hell do you deal with an extremely religious population base with relatively low levels of education?

By educating them. By removing the hyper religious nonsense that was implemented by Zia ul Haq in Pakistan Studies curriculum?

Education is more important than your silly jets which you don't even have the balls to use when daddy America is droning our own citizens.

Might as well use that money to educate our population.

Of course they are likely to buy into ideas of sharia if the state becomes more secularised,

Why? You're telling me the average Pakistani when given the choice, the average person would ditch living in a free society for a hyper-religious society?

All the more why education and Pakistan Studies reforms are crucial.

Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of why that doesn't work. Add in the paradise of Mauritania.

as the anti-state actors will have more leverage in targeting state institutions with the aid of the people.

?

This could very well lead to the fragmentation of Pakistan.

Ah yes. Teaching people to love the land and their people will "fragment" the country. That makes total sense.

Abandon your mother tongues and speak broken English and broken Urdu. Science and technology are of the devil. Only memorise quran.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Watch where you tread with that.

Watch your mouth. You don't threaten my country you terrorist sympathizer.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

A secular Pakistan would stabilise Pakistan and remove power from pedophile mullahs and pseudo mullahs like Diesel and others who use religion as a weapon.

How dare you threaten us.

Religion of peace eh?

I don't know what you've been smoking... every single Pakistani on this forum puts ills of the state on Zia, a military dictator.
The state, it's rulers and politicians by no mean have been all Mullah... but your trojan is a fringe candidate... reflecting frailty of the argument itself.
Demonstrating a great aversion to objectivity... only peddling my side bias... Doubling down on the said as instructed... clearly they're not your thoughts, manifested in lack of ability to build upon or copy pasting supporting materials.

Anyhow, your thesis is that Jinnah wanted a secular state... great! Ones ruling have clearly not been secular enough to your standards. They haven't been religious either. That failure. One where the true secular have not been able to manifestly establish or take over the reigns of power is your gripe, essentially!
No manifest Mullah ruled the state! Not once!
But you fail... you think it is the failure of leadership or ability to govern. No!
As it never occurred to you, the unwashed never wanted a truly secular. Jinnah himself perhaps... as some pop culture axiom goes "You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain" ... which is evidently what happened to his sister.
To clear it up... you want to install a regime that upholds the virtues of secularism and as your fellow menace here goes full Mussolini on the masses... Kemalist the least!

So, Which is it... ?

Instead, Pakistan and its people have had enough... let them go, free them... dismiss the neocolonial menace, move on, do bigger and better things on your own!

 

[AlKardai]

What nonsense have I spoken.

I've directly quoted Jinnah.

You folks are just huffing hot air and threatening us with violence.

Lol.

Jinnah may have been the founding father, but he was by no means an adequate yardstick for us to govern by in the modern day.
He would definitely not have seen how ingenuine the leaders after him would be with his own legacy and policies.

The militancy we see now is to be counteracted by moving towards islam, rather than further away from it.
Turkiye was able to transition into a country far from Islamic ideals because the IS terrorist hotbed next door was small in number.
The taliban next door to PK are larger than IS ever were and we have to compensate with their influence whilst keeping a religious population relatively moderate.

 

[Tornado23]

What nonsense have I spoken.

I've directly quoted Jinnah.

You folks are just huffing hot air and threatening us with violence.

Lol.

You are clearly anti Islam yet you have Imran Khan,who is clearly pro Islam, as your pfp. You are a fake Imran Khan supporter. Simple as. Liberal

 

[AlKardai]

By educating them. By removing the hyper religious nonsense that was implemented by Zia ul Haq in Pakistan Studies curriculum?

Education is more important than your silly jets which you don't even have the balls to use when daddy America is droning our own citizens.

Might as well use that money to educate our population.

Military matters have no place in this conversation.

Why? You're telling me the average Pakistani when given the choice, the average person would ditch living in a free society for a hyper-religious society?

All the more why education and Pakistan Studies reforms are crucial.

Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of why that doesn't work. Add in the paradise of Mauritania.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are both more prosperous than Pakistan is. Guess who has the more secular constitution?

?



Ah yes. Teaching people to love the land and their people will "fragment" the country. That makes total sense.

Abandon your mother tongues and speak broken English and broken Urdu. Science and technology are of the devil. Only memorise quran.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Teaching people about their land is paramount, and has been done.
Going further back and instilling a sense of national pride on an Indus civilisational level would be good, but it must not pass the religious identity that has been formed.

Watch your mouth. You don't threaten my country you terrorist sympathizer.

Watch your mouth and don't threaten my country either, you Secularist dickrider

 

[Menace2Society]

A secular Pakistan would invite more religious extremists to polarise the highly religious population by labelling the state as Kuffar even further.

You live in the UK right? Have the white folk here ever rebelled? The only anti state folk were from the Muslim community.

Well organised sincere secularism will kill off any anti state ideology before it can create a movement and promote devotion to the state.

It's not rocket science, a foreign ideology like political Islam is designed to culturally and socially assimilate non Arab countries, that was its original purpose.It's hegemonic, parasitic in nature. This is why Turkey took the route it did and they had an empire based on it so why is Pakistan any different? Who is doing better?

Right now Pakistan is in no mans land, its a hybrid and it flirted with extremism because their influential clergy said Osama Bin Dickhead was the good guy whilst he labelled Pakistanis as Kaffirs and an enemy. 20 years of terrorism followed. Isn't it anymore obvious it isn't working?

The solution is not going more Islamic as that will legitimize the fringe extremist elements even more. The mullahs who's grandparents did'nt want Pakistan to be created would love this because they can finally distenegrate the state so they can become influential again under control of India. It's a wet dream of theirs. You ask any of them and they will pick Islam over Pakistan. How is that patriotism? I classify that as a traitor. What if someone said they will choose Hinduism or Christianity over Pakistan? Everyone would be quick to label them agents of chaos.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

A Parody really.

Dwelling on stereotypes, you forget your own reflection.

You live in the UK right? Have the white folk here ever rebelled?

Rioting is a part time profession. Less so now but significant historically.
Have Google help you.
English Civil wars stopped as they started projecting their men on foreign wars... and aggression outside... not much different from Alexander of Macedon. And yes they did rebel(let google be your guide, going forward shortened for expediency as, lgbyg)... remember you used "ever"... and if you count Scottish and Irish then until very recently. The only redeeming factor here was E.U which obviated the need to separate from the crown, UK or Britain... whatever really.

The only anti state folk were from the Muslim community.

Anarchists, far right and left movements... you really need this elaborated any further. Are they all anti state?
With propaganda network of Britain keeping a lid on all things assumed negative, only amplifies external threats or traitors within... you try to oblige!
Don't let the door hit you on the way out... if ukip finds traction.

Well organised sincere secularism will kill off any anti state ideology before it can create a movement and promote devotion to the state.

Obviously you're not talking UK here ... as Scott's may still find their way out. Britain did via brexit didn't it? Where did the good ole "sincere secularism" go?

It's not rocket science, a foreign ideology like political Islam is designed to culturally and socially assimilate non Arab countries, that was its original purpose.

foreign ideology is what you're promoting on a people with a professed faith and state they helped create... To Protect and Profess it in complete liberty.

While you get a bonner on images of Jinnah in suit and tie... you probably reconcile that with your native monotheism theory... given enough time natives would have found their own version of suit and tie, right?

It's hegemonic, parasitic in nature. This is why Turkey took the route it did and they had an empire based on it so why is Pakistan any different?

Your current abode helped create exactly the environment conducive for a nationalism... it is obviously a European creation imported by Arabs that started the whole Arab nationalism and it's subsequent iteration in Turks.

Who is doing better?

In relation to Pakistan? Almost everyone... but not all pretend changing masters as a solution. However, Pakistanis don't just pretend they expressly employ their former lords agenda... laws, legislation and discourse.

Right now Pakistan is in no mans land, its a hybrid and it flirted with extremism because their influential clergy said Osama Bin Dickhead was the good guy whilst he labelled Pakistanis as Kaffirs and an enemy.

A trojan horse ... a whataboutism, neither here nor there... care to elaborate? Pakistan joined a project of aggression designed and abated from within... than milked it for CSF. Leaving all back to point A. Your protagonist was previously a war hero fighting a godly war against the godless commies.

Used then... used again.

20 years of terrorism followed. Isn't it anymore obvious it isn't working?

Your pal mushy made the most out of it... ran a program in contrast to his predecessor in Zia and sold own and foreign citizens for a buck. Impunity and wholesale disregard of human life followed... Pakistan's own became opponents. Milked further for CSF... till it stopped... the whole charade stopped.
Why?
Who got the message?

The solution is not going more Islamic as that will legitimize the fringe extremist elements even more.

More Islamic or follow Islam?
fringe elements are formed a political spectrum seeking traction and appeal. It is the contemporary method of establishing facts on ground... not much different from zionist play book.

The mullahs who's grandparents did'nt want Pakistan to be created would love this because they can finally distenegrate the state so they can become influential again under control of India.

Which Mullah runs the state in Pakistan, none!
It is a moot point... only to satiate own narrative.

It's a wet dream of theirs. You ask any of them and they will pick Islam over Pakistan. How is that patriotism?

Should that even be an option. Didn't they pick the right option already? It actually proves your obsession on your psyche and ideals that conflict with Islam and Pakistan.

I classify that as a traitor. What if someone said they will choose Hinduism or Christianity over Pakistan? Everyone would be quick to label them agents of chaos.

Yes, MENACE!
Chaos is your game.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Why compare Quran to secularism again? Is secularism good or something amazing? It is Islam it doesn't need to held to any standard created by others. Also Islam doesn't need us we need it and we must serve in its interests and sometimes violence is required to do so you don't allow ideologies of your foes to enter your society uncontested then try to control your society.
Pakistan is more of an Idea than a nation because as a nation we make no sense why are we united as Pakistan if not to be an Islamic country and Jinnah is smart enough to know that thus its a bit of no brainer honestly.

Perhaps you are not grasping my argument. While I maintain that the idea of secularism, as it is understood in contemporary times, may not be an inherent part of Islam (similarly to the concept of a nation-state), I contend that the West assimilated the principle of the separation of church and state from Islamic philosophy. I have made it clear that the Quran does not specify any material sanctions and punishments for religious infractions, such as apostasy, blasphemy, missing prayers, etc. However, it does establish distinct penalties for acts of criminality committed against society and humanity. From that vantage point, Islam's essence is nearer to the modern concept of secularism than a theocratic form of government.

And again, using violence as a means to deal with ideologies that one disagrees with or considers foreign to Islam is not acceptable either in Islam or in society as a whole. The Quran instructs Muslims that there should be no compulsion in religion and that religion is a matter of personal belief for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Islam does not condone any form of violence based on ideological differences. Therefore, such an approach cannot be justified in any way. On the contrary, such an approach is highly condemned in Islam, and those who resort to violence against other Muslims for ideological differences are considered misguided and condemned as Kharijites, the worst of people who have strayed from the true path and are considered residents of hell in Islamic tradition.

 

[AlKardai]

Perhaps you are not grasping my argument. While I maintain that the idea of secularism, as it is understood in contemporary times, may not be an inherent part of Islam (similarly to the concept of a nation-state), I contend that the West assimilated the principle of the separation of church and state from Islamic philosophy. I have made it clear that the Quran does not specify any material sanctions and punishments for religious infractions, such as apostasy, blasphemy, missing prayers, etc. However, it does establish distinct penalties for acts of criminality committed against society and humanity. From that vantage point, Islam's essence is nearer to the modern concept of secularism than a theocratic form of government.

It is clear that the Quran does not specify real-world sanctions for blasphemy, but the sunnah (which we get a majority of quranic interpretations from), does.
Are you going to claim that you will only follow the Quran now, and disregard hadith?

And again, using violence as a means to deal with ideologies that one disagrees with or considers foreign to Islam is not acceptable either in Islam or in society as a whole. The Quran instructs Muslims that there should be no compulsion in religion and that religion is a matter of personal belief for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

What on earth?
Are you really watering the religion down to that?
There should be no compulsion in religion, but you damn well should do it if you want to be saved from the hellfire.

Therefore, such an approach cannot be justified in any way. On the contrary, such an approach is highly condemned in Islam, and those who resort to violence against other Muslims for ideological differences are considered misguided and condemned as Kharijites, the worst of people who have strayed from the true path and are considered residents of hell in Islamic tradition.

But as per your own definition, people are not to be judged on the validity of their faith!








In the event of a truly secularised state, true Islamic shahadat is removed, as dying or being prepared to die for a banner that does not directly stand for Islam is Shirk.

 

[CLUMSY]

Aaaaaaaaa

 

[Enigma SIG]

Pakistan needs a dose of Jewish philosophy.

State first. Jews trample anything and everything the path of "Zion".

Musalmano ko ghulami se hi fursat nahi hai.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It is clear that the Quran does not specify real-world sanctions for blasphemy, but the sunnah (which we get a majority of quranic interpretations from), does.
Are you going to claim that you will only follow the Quran now, and disregard hadith?

It is encouraging that we concur that the Holy Qur'an does not outline real-world consequences for blasphemy.

The topic of Sunnah/Hadith (narrations credited to Prophet Muhammad PBUH almost 200 years after his demise) is a subject of considerable controversy among Muslims. Not all Muslims are in agreement about the content of Sunnah. Moreover, there is no Sahih Hadith that declares that all blasphemers must be executed. Abu Hanifa upheld this stance as well


But as the focus of this thread is the vision of Pakistan's founding fathers, it is worth noting the viewpoint of Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who stated:

“.. if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah]..." (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)

Taking into account that various Muslim sects have their own collections of Hadiths that they deem authentic, and considering that the Holy Qur'an is the only text universally agreed upon by all Muslim sects, it would be appropriate to base laws solely on the Qur'an, this view is acceptable to Allama Muhammad Iqbal

You are free to disagree but it's important to recognize that there are different schools of thought within Islam and If you label liberal Muslims as unbelievers, then you would also have to declare Imam Abu Hanifa a kafir, who practically did not use Hadith as a source of law. Allama Muhammad Iqbal also endorsed the idea of avoiding the indiscriminate use of traditions as a source of law.

But as per your own definition, people are not to be judged on the validity of their faith!

Quite the contrary, I am not making a judgment on the credibility of someone's beliefs, but rather assessing them based on their actions and conduct, and the acts of violence they support.

 

[Neelo]

You live in the UK right? Have the white folk here ever rebelled? The only anti state folk were from the Muslim community.

They all live in the secular western. When I bring this up they retort by claiming "oh I didn't come here because of secularism".

These morons think secularism is just about a man wanting to be a woman.

The whole notion of separating religion from state is what gives the west its stability. It's education system is built around the notion of empirical evidence.

That alone helps them churn out well rounded students who go on to become productive members of society, which in turn creates a healthy economy and the cycle continues.

Lol.

Well organised sincere secularism will kill off any anti state ideology before it can create a movement and promote devotion to the state.

The funny thing is I haven't even said anything about secularism. These ISIS boys are the ones skewing the debate.

Muslim Pakistan wouldn't be 100% secular. But these people we're being attacked by are so extremist and right wing that they think a Muslim country equates to secularism.

And yes it would create better Nationalism....naturally. I've always maintained that Pakistan should promote itself as a multi ethic state.

The world's largest population of Punjabis live in Pakistan not India. Why isn't Shahmukhi the dominant script? Why isn't Punjabi taught in Punjab's schools?

The world's largest population of Pashtuns live in Pakistan not Afghanistan. Why isn't Pashtun media more dominant and playing a bigger role in reeling in anti Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan?

All our ethnic groups shared with other countries are the majority here. Same goes with Sindhis and Baloch.

We have thrown all that away so we can pretend to be arab? It's just ridiculous.

We should be dominating the Punjabi and Pashtun spheres.

The Sindhis do a relatively good job as do the Baloch. But still.

It's not rocket science, a foreign ideology like political Islam is designed to culturally and socially assimilate non Arab countries, that was its original purpose.It's hegemonic, parasitic in nature. This is why Turkey took the route it did and they had an empire based on it so why is Pakistan any different? Who is doing better?

This is exactly why the Islamic empire failed and led to the eventual rise of the Gunpowder Empires.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0dwC5WtoyBizVTpTVcEeNYmsiUvHG7yGWeRWfaYPwTd2T4gQYKVP15vtXby8rpTfAl&id=780770378649615

You ask any of them and they will pick Islam over Pakistan. How is that patriotism? I classify that as a traitor. What if someone said they will choose Hinduism or Christianity over Pakistan? Everyone would be quick to label them agents of chaos.

That question alone proves how narrow minded these people are. The inability of Zia bots to differentiate religious affiliation, with ethnicity and nationality is astounding.

It really comes down to an identity crisis. And this was deliberately created by Zia during his 1982 Education reforms.

Completely destroyed the psyche of the nation.

 

[Neelo]

The topic of Sunnah/Hadith (narrations credited to Prophet Muhammad PBUH almost 200 years after his demise) is a subject of considerable controversy among Muslims. Not all Muslims are in agreement about the content of Sunnah. Moreover, there is no Sahih Hadith that declares that all blasphemers must be executed. Abu Hanifa upheld this stance as well

This is so understated.

Imagine crying to establish a political system based on writings that can be wildly interpreted differently person to person.

I'm sure that's a perfect recipe for creating a stable environment.

And imagine what would happen to those who opposed?

But as the focus of this thread is the vision of Pakistan's founding fathers, it is worth noting the viewpoint of Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who stated:

“.. if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah]..." (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)

Taking into account that various Muslim sects have their own collections of Hadiths that they deem authentic, and considering that the Holy Qur'an is the only text universally agreed upon by all Muslim sects, it would be appropriate to base laws solely on the Qur'an, this view is acceptable to Allama Muhammad Iqbal

You are free to disagree but it's important to recognize that there are different schools of thought within Islam and If you label liberal Muslims as unbelievers, then you would also have to declare Imam Abu Hanifa a kafir, who practically did not use Hadith as a source of law. Allama Muhammad Iqbal also endorsed the idea of avoiding the indiscriminate use of traditions as a source of law.

Exactly my point I've been arguing. Good luck getting this into their skulls.