What's new

My religion is not the business of the state: YLH

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)
Actually most Muslim fundamentalists were for Pakistan.

Its only a myth propagated by the liberals that the Muslim fundamentalists were not for Pakistan.

Don't confuse the people.
 
.
you just need to stick to this same justification when you talk about minority muslims being asked to follow the rule of the land where they are staying.

I believe in judging & conducting with non-muslim societies based on what they claim to be. Principally its holding people to account according to their standards and self-professed values. So if liberal switzerland or Belgium persecute normative Islamic beliefs while at the same time lecture Muslim world on morality & human rights and claim to respect religious freedom then yes obviously Muslims in those countries should call their hypocrisy out and do everything within legal means to get back their constitutionally mandated rights. Just recently UN Human Wrongs council backed by some European states, passed a resolution calling for the decriminalization of degenerate acts like sodomy even though 13 Muslim & many non-muslim countries opposed it. WHen KSA wanted to pass a resolution calling for non-interference in internal matters of countries when it come to issues concerning "human rights", it was hypocritically oppsed by many european states. What does that tell you about who is trying to force whose rule on whom?

Another important thing is there should NOT be any false equivalency between Islam and other religions which are false anyway. Unlike other religion Islam is the truth. Many muslim countries like KSA, Qatar, Pakistan, Malaysia, Sudan,Somalia do NOT claim to be secular so why judge them according to standars set by non-muslim. Hold muslims to account according to Islam & Islamic principles.
 
. .
Among the many commendable things the state of Pakistan achieved is the objective resolution and declaring declaring qadiyanis to be what they actually are - non-muslim and serious anti-islamic cult. Yes , yes , yes Islam definitely mandates regulation of public space by the state in favor of Islam and Islamic principles because it is the only truth and guidance for mankind ordained by the Creator of everything that exists. Its the duty of the state that Muslims are NOT subjected to corruption by deviant, heretics and falsehood of non-muslims and that entails there is restriction on what one can say in public if that involves calling people to false, trying to deceive people and lead them astray.

The very notion that state has nothing to do with ones religion is alien to islam and is NOT from the rich islamic history & tradition but it is imported from anti-religion post-"enlightenment" europe. There is absolutely NO room for such non-sense in Islam. Why should it be that muslims who are in majority organize their state polity based on alien ideas and beliefs of fringe minority - liberals, secularists & qadiyanis? By any measure of commonsense & logic that is absoultely absurd.

Also, one has to note that qadiyani cult originated in India and unfortunately this cult group thanks to british patronage have considerable numbers in the subcontinent specially India & PAK. Thus it was imperative on PAK state to make sure that the deception & corruption of this cult group was called out & prevented by the state. PAK owed it to the Muslim world and they have done their job. Congrats to my PAK brothers for that.
Excellent post...I couldn't say better than that..

Respect,
W&P
 
. . . . . .
Actually most Muslim fundamentalists were for Pakistan.

Its only a myth propagated by the liberals that the Muslim fundamentalists were not for Pakistan.

Don't confuse the people.
" Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
Sayonara
 
. .
you just need to stick to this same justification when you talk about minority muslims being asked to follow the rule of the land where they are staying.

The Constitution, not the 'rule of the land', and one that guarantees their freedom of faith, consistent with the Constitution.
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom