What's new

My religion is not the business of the state: YLH

SoulSpokesman

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
3,633
Reaction score
-15
Country
India
Location
India
http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/09-Oct-17/my-religion-is-not-the-business-of-the-state

This last week when the Electoral Reforms Bill was introduced, someone — someone who is gifted with both heart and a first rate brain — removed the ‘religious oath’ from the bill. It was about time. What kind of nation state in the 21st century is still bothered by what the personal faith of an individual is? Need I remind you of what the founder and maker of this country, Jinnah, — “You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state”.

Why then in God’s name are my religious beliefs then the business of this ‘Islamic’ constitution imposed on us by those in the National Assembly of 1973?

One of these constitution makers, Ahmad Raza Kasuri, made quite a scene in Islamabad High Court two weeks ago after his cell phone rang during court proceedings. He refused to turn the phone in screaming at the judge “I am the founding father of the constitution, how dare you take my phone away”. Yes he is many of the founding fathers of the so-called ‘Islamic’ Constitution.

Another founding father of the Constitution was Maulah Bux Soomro, brother of Allah Bux Soomro, the arch pro-Congress “secular politician” who presided over conferences of Ahrars and Momins in Delhi against the Muslim League some time before the Hurs got rid of him for killing Pir Pagaro. Maula Bux Soomro would take special pleasure in abusing and attacking Jinnah and who later, quite appropriately, became chief advisor to Martial Law dictator General Ziaul Haq. He had wanted his son Illahi Bux Soomro to become the Prime Minister instead of Muhammad Khan Junejo.

Yet another founding father of the Constitution of ours is Khan Abdul Wali Khan. This brilliant Pushtun nationalist politician – scion of ‘secular’ Khan dynasty and Bacha Khan’s political heir had voted on serial no8 on the list to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim through the 2nd Amendment. He did so along with his entire party — the ‘National Awami Party. His father Bacha Khan, the great non-violent secular saint was alive and well then. No protests were heard from these self styled champions of secularism and liberalism while Pakistan converted into a theocracy. Instead, for decades they evaded the question so long as the proceedings were under the wrap but truth did come out. We now know that not only did Wali Khan vote alongside his party, but he also asked the Ahmadi leader that question which seemingly sealed the fate — “do you consider us Muslims?” Should it matter to a secular leader whether someone else considered him or her Muslim? The issue is and will always be of the state making that determination.

And then we had Mr Zufikar Ali Bhutto – the gallant soldier of Islam, the Islamic Socialist hero, the arch-patriot, the Quaid-e-Awam and the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party. The PPP likes to claim that ZAB threw the question of Khatm-e-Nabuwat to the National Assembly as a last resort. Whether that is true or not, for years Bhutto took credit for it. In a recent interview to a TV journalist, Khurshid Shah even implied that Bhutto was assassinated as part of an international conspiracy because he dared to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim. Have some shame at long last Mr Shah.

Even more shameless than the shameless leader of the opposition was the politician from Rawalpindi — Shaikh Rasheed. He invoked the memory of Majlis-e-Ahrar and Ataullah Shah Bokhari in the next session. Yes the same Atatullah Shah Bokhari who famously said that those who vote for Jinnah or the Muslim League are the same as those who eat pork. Majlis-e-Ahrar called Pakistan Kafiristan and called Jinnah Kafir-e-Azam, but in this country that Jinnah founded, we have to live by the diktat of these personnel. The purpose of the Constitution is not to fix your religious belief or aqeedah. A constitution’s sole purpose is to exist as a social compact between the state and the governed. It is not the state’s business if I believe or disbelieve. My religion is no business of the Constitution. I call upon all citizens of Pakistan reading this article to rise up against this religious tyranny imposed on us.

No, they say, the state was founded in the name of Islam. No, that is not an accurate narration of historical events leading up to the Partition. The state was founded because Muslims and Hindus as legally-defined ethnic groups under the British could not find a constitution acceptable to both. They came close. It was known as the Cabinet Mission Plan. But it didn’t happen. Whatever the case, Pakistan was not founded so that the constitution framed for it impinges upon citizens’ right to exist as free individuals. Jinnah promised as much repeatedly – he repeatedly said that a person’s religion is his personal matter and not the business of the state. So why have the elected representatives of this country spent the last week debating a non-issue? Pakistan will not progress – whatever you imagine its founding myth – unless it separates religion from state completely and uncompromisingly.

Regards
 
. .
Well that backfired and any such effort will always be shot down in a 97% Muslim country that was created in the name of Islam so these libturds cannot impose their secular tyranny over the majority against its will.
 
. .
Well that backfired and any such effort will always be shot down in a 97% Muslim country that was created in the name of Islam so these libturds cannot impose their secular tyranny over the majority against its will.
Someone else is more active than these liberals.
 
. .
http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/09-Oct-17/my-religion-is-not-the-business-of-the-state

This last week when the Electoral Reforms Bill was introduced, someone — someone who is gifted with both heart and a first rate brain — removed the ‘religious oath’ from the bill. It was about time. What kind of nation state in the 21st century is still bothered by what the personal faith of an individual is? Need I remind you of what the founder and maker of this country, Jinnah, — “You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state”.

Why then in God’s name are my religious beliefs then the business of this ‘Islamic’ constitution imposed on us by those in the National Assembly of 1973?

One of these constitution makers, Ahmad Raza Kasuri, made quite a scene in Islamabad High Court two weeks ago after his cell phone rang during court proceedings. He refused to turn the phone in screaming at the judge “I am the founding father of the constitution, how dare you take my phone away”. Yes he is many of the founding fathers of the so-called ‘Islamic’ Constitution.

Another founding father of the Constitution was Maulah Bux Soomro, brother of Allah Bux Soomro, the arch pro-Congress “secular politician” who presided over conferences of Ahrars and Momins in Delhi against the Muslim League some time before the Hurs got rid of him for killing Pir Pagaro. Maula Bux Soomro would take special pleasure in abusing and attacking Jinnah and who later, quite appropriately, became chief advisor to Martial Law dictator General Ziaul Haq. He had wanted his son Illahi Bux Soomro to become the Prime Minister instead of Muhammad Khan Junejo.

Yet another founding father of the Constitution of ours is Khan Abdul Wali Khan. This brilliant Pushtun nationalist politician – scion of ‘secular’ Khan dynasty and Bacha Khan’s political heir had voted on serial no8 on the list to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim through the 2nd Amendment. He did so along with his entire party — the ‘National Awami Party. His father Bacha Khan, the great non-violent secular saint was alive and well then. No protests were heard from these self styled champions of secularism and liberalism while Pakistan converted into a theocracy. Instead, for decades they evaded the question so long as the proceedings were under the wrap but truth did come out. We now know that not only did Wali Khan vote alongside his party, but he also asked the Ahmadi leader that question which seemingly sealed the fate — “do you consider us Muslims?” Should it matter to a secular leader whether someone else considered him or her Muslim? The issue is and will always be of the state making that determination.

And then we had Mr Zufikar Ali Bhutto – the gallant soldier of Islam, the Islamic Socialist hero, the arch-patriot, the Quaid-e-Awam and the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party. The PPP likes to claim that ZAB threw the question of Khatm-e-Nabuwat to the National Assembly as a last resort. Whether that is true or not, for years Bhutto took credit for it. In a recent interview to a TV journalist, Khurshid Shah even implied that Bhutto was assassinated as part of an international conspiracy because he dared to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim. Have some shame at long last Mr Shah.

Even more shameless than the shameless leader of the opposition was the politician from Rawalpindi — Shaikh Rasheed. He invoked the memory of Majlis-e-Ahrar and Ataullah Shah Bokhari in the next session. Yes the same Atatullah Shah Bokhari who famously said that those who vote for Jinnah or the Muslim League are the same as those who eat pork. Majlis-e-Ahrar called Pakistan Kafiristan and called Jinnah Kafir-e-Azam, but in this country that Jinnah founded, we have to live by the diktat of these personnel. The purpose of the Constitution is not to fix your religious belief or aqeedah. A constitution’s sole purpose is to exist as a social compact between the state and the governed. It is not the state’s business if I believe or disbelieve. My religion is no business of the Constitution. I call upon all citizens of Pakistan reading this article to rise up against this religious tyranny imposed on us.

No, they say, the state was founded in the name of Islam. No, that is not an accurate narration of historical events leading up to the Partition. The state was founded because Muslims and Hindus as legally-defined ethnic groups under the British could not find a constitution acceptable to both. They came close. It was known as the Cabinet Mission Plan. But it didn’t happen. Whatever the case, Pakistan was not founded so that the constitution framed for it impinges upon citizens’ right to exist as free individuals. Jinnah promised as much repeatedly – he repeatedly said that a person’s religion is his personal matter and not the business of the state. So why have the elected representatives of this country spent the last week debating a non-issue? Pakistan will not progress – whatever you imagine its founding myth – unless it separates religion from state completely and uncompromisingly.

Regards
Simple answer
This isn't Quaid's Pakistan more he fought for.
It's goes to religious fundos who were anti Pakistan and anti Jinnah ( the majority)
 
Last edited:
.
Someone else is more active than these liberals.
Make a correction mate...they ain't any liberals in the parliament (or on this forum)...they are libturds and libtards. The author is a mentally retarded person who urgently needs psychological treatment and look at his face... even wearing a nice dress doesn't do anything to reduce the la'naat on his laa'nati face.
 
Last edited:
. .
I challenge positive rating for OP. This is a hindu back patting another hindu for an article he didn't write himself, just to extol the secular agenda. This circle jerk of secular interests simply cannot be allowed on a Pakistani forum, a country whose ministers are on record saying "I wish before my death, this assembly dies".

@WebMaster @The Eagle @Horus @Oscar @waz @Dazzler @The Deterrent @Chak Bamu
 
.
@Joe Shearer
Sir, this rating is undeserved. Perhaps you would want to award it to YLH if he were to post it here? BTW was he ever around? Though I can take a guess based on writing style, I can not say for sure.

Aside the above, I see YLH's article as a below-the-belt attack on Pakistan's constitution. The quality of the attack too is very very low. It does him no credit that he chose to abuse people, most of whom are not around to defend themselves against his vituperations.

Many liberal-minded people have problem with declaration of Qadianis as non-Muslims by Pakistan's assembly. They take it as a major flaw and a mis-step. Indeed a constitution ought not to concern itself with religion as such, but then Pakistan is an Islamic Republic, and that make matters complicated in matters where questions of religion and state arise. But the 'Qadiani question' had been vexatious feature of public life in Pakistan since early 50s at least. I have read a good part of Justice Munir report that dealt with anti-Qadiani agitation. It is an important document. I read it to be able to explore some questions raised by a very well-read and overly aggressive Pakistani poster on PDF about three and a half years ago.

I tangled with YLH over Twitter (which is totally unsuited to debate, but used excessively so). I found him to be someone who picks and chooses his arguments based on his emotions, even if he ends up contradicting himself or denying simple & undisputed facts.

My position is to let sleeping dogs lie. Kicking the constitution is no good, particularly when it gets such little respect in Pakistan in any case. There are bigger issues like civ-mil imbalance, slow pace of legislation, issues with quality of governance, prevalence of corruption, etc... Why unbottle a genie, when there are a number of other issues crying for attention?
 
.
@Joe Shearer
Sir, this rating is undeserved. Perhaps you would want to award it to YLH if he were to post it here? BTW was he ever around? Though I can take a guess based on writing style, I can not say for sure.

No, I believe not. The closest he got was the membership of his very close friend.

Aside the above, I see YLH's article as a below-the-belt attack on Pakistan's constitution. The quality of the attack too is very very low. It does him no credit that he chose to abuse people, most of whom are not around to defend themselves against his vituperations.

Many liberal-minded people have problem with declaration of Qadianis as non-Muslims by Pakistan's assembly. They take it as a major flaw and a mis-step. Indeed a constitution ought not to concern itself with religion as such, but then Pakistan is an Islamic Republic, and that make matters complicated in matters where questions of religion and state arise. But the 'Qadiani question' had been vexatious feature of public life in Pakistan since early 50s at least. I have read a good part of Justice Munir report that dealt with anti-Qadiani agitation. It is an important document. I read it to be able to explore some questions raised by a very well-read and overly aggressive Pakistani poster on PDF about three and a half years ago.

I tangled with YLH over Twitter (which is totally unsuited to debate, but used excessively so). I found him to be someone who picks and chooses his arguments based on his emotions, even if he ends up contradicting himself or denying simple & undisputed facts.

My position is to let sleeping dogs lie. Kicking the constitution is no good, particularly when it gets such little respect in Pakistan in any case. There are bigger issues like civ-mil imbalance, slow pace of legislation, issues with quality of governance, prevalence of corruption, etc... Why unbottle a genie, when there are a number of other issues crying for attention?

Fair enough.

I am personally very attached to him and consider him a brave man who stands up for his beliefs, in the face of numerous threats (not from your class, but from the violent sections that pollute society on both sides of the border). As what he is saying may be an emotive issue, I am reducing my positive rating, which in any case would have gone to @SoulSpokesman, to a thanks.

Your opinion has considerable weight with me, and I accept, after reading what you wrote, that this rating may have been emotional.

The biggest Professional troll I ever witness.

I didn't ban you; you achieved that your own unprofessional self. Congratulations, btw.
 
Last edited:
. .
@Joe Shearer

Why don't you practice what you preach and stay away from Pakistani politics or discussions regarding the constitution and internal policies?

This holier than thou attitude once it gets past the amusement phase will probably fall under annoying phase and that cannot possibly be good for any Indian on this forum let alone the alleged Professional ones.

@The Eagle This guy should not be allowed to hand any ratings to any Pakistani to begin with and most of his given ratings end up being controversial.
 
.
@war&peace @Joe Shearer

War&peace bhai,

Well that backfired and any such effort will always be shot down in a 97% Muslim country that was created in the name of Islam so these libturds cannot impose their secular tyranny over the majority against its will.

The author of this piece is a very dear friend of mine and I do hope he lives long enough to see his beloved Pakistan become a secular nation that he wants it to become, or at least something very close to it. Not because it is good for me, or him or even to the 5% minorities of Pak, but because IMHO it is the best thing for the greatest number for all Pakistanis.

Having said that, I do acknowledge that a state cannot be stable or sustainable if it is based on an ideology or principle which is acceptable to the vast majority of its citizens. If indeed, a vast majority of Pakistanis reject secularism as a principle of the state and want an Islamic state that is the way it should be. Not because secularism is a flawed principle, but because to try and build a secular state under such conditions is to attempt to build a castle of sand.

Regards
 
.
Back
Top Bottom