Pakistan-Iran-Turkey confederation

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I would disagree with bold part, Islam itself is our religion, in this case no difference in Arab or so called Ajam, but Arabs trying to sell their culture, name, ..... as our religion, only our religion language is Arabic nothing more.

That is a very good point... Other than language we dont have to take anything from the Arabic culture!!!

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

First: as long as we involve other sides domestic issues this confederation wont happen. if you come to Ayatollah's topic i would say dispute of many dislike, Ayatollahs are leading Iran to higher level of international level which did not happen in last 300 years, and you just compare with your own leaders.
every independent improvement has cost and pressure and Iran is ready to pay but we will have better future when we pass through problems.
confederation will not happen in one day, we must start with economic relations which Pak is under Arabs and US pressure do not improve relation with Iran e.g. electricity and gas projects, but it seems in turkey side is going better

Confederation will never happen because all the countries involve have nationalist agendas... and seldom they agree on things... As long as nationalism remains the main theme, no unity can exist... It will be another failed attempt like what we have seen with Gamal Nasir's Arab Nationalism...

 

[Meengla]

Like what?
Well pakistani has a shia president and has had shias in high postions in govt.......theres a mix of sunni and shias in iran as there is in pakistan and they have lived in peace for a long time other then the attacks on both communties by terrorist.

Yes.
And Pakistanis should be proud of the relative ease with which all mind of ethnic and religious minorities have made it to the topmost positions in military, civil, and political officials: Baluchi Prime Minister (Jamali). Hindu ad hoc Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Justice Bhagwandas). Sindhi PMs (Junejo. Benazir. ZAB..). Pathan Presidents (Ayub. Ishaq Khan...). Mohajir Army Chiefs and Presidents (Aslam Baig. Musharraf). Punjabi Army Chiefs and PMs (Sharif. Kayani). Shia PMs (Benazir. ZAB).... Women PMs and NA Speaker (Benazir. Fehmida Mirza)...
This is a short list with many omissions.
The point being that Pakistan is more than 'Shia' or 'Sunni' or Arab or Turkish or Iranian etc. Perhaps it is the only Muslim state with such room for political accommodation? It is a true melting pot.

Anyway, back to the topic: Yes, a federation of Pakistan-Iran-Turkey is not a too far-fetched idea. Good points made by many others above me. Early EU history is a very good starting model. I will only add that Pakistan is not really bound by any Arab or American constraints. I am sure both political and military planners of Pakistan know the cost-benefit ratio and thus calibrate relationships.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Yes.
And Pakistanis should be proud of the relative ease with which all mind of ethnic and religious minorities have made it to the topmost positions in military, civil, and political officials: Baluchi Prime Minister (Jamali). Hindu ad hoc Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Justice Bhagwandas). Sindhi PMs (Junejo. Benazir. ZAB..). Pathan Presidents (Ayub. Ishaq Khan...). Mohajir Army Chiefs and Presidents (Aslam Baig. Musharraf). Punjabi Army Chiefs and PMs (Sharif. Kayani). Shia PMs (Benazir. ZAB).... Women PMs and NA Speaker (Benazir. Fehmida Mirza)...
This is a short list with many omissions.
The point being that Pakistan is more than 'Shia' or 'Sunni' or Arab or Turkish or Iranian etc. Perhaps it is the only Muslim state with such room for political accommodation? It is a true melting pot.

Anyway, back to the topic: Yes, a federation of Pakistan-Iran-Turkey is not a too far-fetched idea. Good points made by many others above me. Early EU history is a very good starting model. I will only add that Pakistan is not really bound by any Arab or American constraints. I am sure both political and military planners of Pakistan know the cost-benefit ratio and thus calibrate relationships.

I totally disagree with the last point... Our leadership resides in the pockets of Americans... forget constraints...

 

[maverick1977]

the idea of Khalafat or federation with other muslim countries always made me teary eyed. The fact is that, its like united we stand and divided we fall. Most of the Salahuddin's life he fought to unite muslims land and when he was able to do it, he kicked the king of jeruselum out of Holy lands... the point is, if you want your voice to be heard, then you have to join hands, let it be a secular federation, i want to see unity amongst muslims lands....

 

[Jigs]

Islamic Khilafah Is the Answer to Islamic World's Plight.

May Allah Kareem make it Possible. Ameen. Such a Power would be heared in the whole Universe. Then India and Israel would sit under our feet and act upon our Wish or would get vanished.

And then there was reality.

 

[KOEKOE]

 

[KOEKOE]

up

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

people have short memory... Iran-Turkey-Pakistan alliance already existed.. it was called CENTO..

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

- - - I support Khilafat. . .

But still have a question and want a logical answer. .

Q. When we talk about Khilafat we give examples of Khulafa-e-Rashideen and Hazrat Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, who we know were people of extra ordinary qualities.
The examples we give to explain Khilafat reflects that it depends totally on the Khalifah's decision. When this Khalifah is someone like Hazrat Ali (R.A), even the jews get their rights. But when someone like Abdul Mulk becomes Kaliph, even the Muslims dont get their rights.

So how come Khilafat is the best system when it totally depends on the ruler?

Q. Secondly in modern context, can someone explain that how will a Kalipha be selected??

 

[Kompromat]

- - - I support Khilafat. . .

But still have a question and want a logical answer. .

Q. When we talk about Khilafat we give examples of Khulafa-e-Rashideen and Hazrat Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, who we know were people of extra ordinary qualities.
The examples we give to explain Khilafat reflects that it depends totally on the Khalifah's decision. When this Khalifah is someone like Hazrat Ali (R.A), even the jews get their rights. But when someone like Abdul Mulk becomes Kaliph, even the Muslims dont get their rights.

So how come Khilafat is the best system when it totally depends on the ruler?

I can answer this bit:

As per the Quran , the Khilafat is not an authoritarian model lead by a single man but the Quran tells us to Choose the best amongst you means that the system works on 2 main segments.

1: Shura lets say a Parliament which has been chosen through voting by the people.

2: Ameer or Khalifa Which would also be selected by the people not the parliament (shura) alone.

Q. Secondly in modern context, can someone explain that how will a Kalipha be selected??

Here is it how it may work.

In my opinion (which is strictly my opinion) the Khilafat system is identical to current democracy because the "Election of the leaders comes in" - now in modern days we should use the Electoral system to elect those members of shura as well as the Ameer.

Now one can think that the Khulfa e rashideen were nominated by the Prophet SAW but what one wont think is that Prophet SAW had the full support of his followers to nominate them.

But that does not apply in my opinion to the later systems ie Ottomons and Sulimanki's. They were not Khilafat but Malookiat or in other words dictatorship or authoritarian rule which lead to their destruction. In the last days of the ottomons and Sulimanis they used to have jokers in their courtyards to entertain the ameers - thats how bad it was.


Lastly , this system can be effectively used in modern days as i explained earlier but the problem is not the system but the people. Moreover the notion that the power would be in a single hand is wrong as the purpose of the Shura is to take decisions by consensus.

An Ameer has to be a Political , Military and Spiritual leader of a nation , in these days the President of Pakistan is a Political and Military (Commander in chief ) leader of the country but not the spiritual leader which leaves the current system in the dark.

Its a challenge to select the right person who can take this immense responsibility.


Regards:

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

@ Black Blood

You did clear some part of my question. . . as Majority is authority system is seen in Islam too. Example:

In the battle of Uhad, there were 2 strategies to face the enemy
1- Fight the enemy inside Madina
2- Fight the enemy outside Madina

- - Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) was in favor of the 1st option but turned it down because majority was in favor of the 2nd option.

BUT


I still dont agree that todays democratic system is similar to Khilafat.

- - Because a verse of Holy Quran says:

CAN THOSE WHO KNOW AND THOSE WHO KNOW NOT, BE EQUAL?

The answer is NO, they are not equal. In context of the above example it can be observed that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) did not ask the whole of Madina or not even from all of his 1000 men to give their opinion.

They were only the Think Tanks. The people who knew, and that is why we cannot trust the whole nation to elect the right Shura as there will be illiterate people voting as well. .

 

[Kompromat]

@ Black Blood

You did clear some part of my question. . . as Majority is authority system is seen in Islam too. Example:



BUT

Spot on.

I still dont agree that todays democratic system is similar to Khilafat.


- - Because a verse of Holy Quran says: CAN THOSE WHO KNOW AND THOSE WHO KNOW NOT, BE EQUAL?

Actually its not what you have posted this is how it translates "Can Knowledgeable & Illiterates be equal ? "

The answer is NO, they are not equal

The concept of Equality does not take into account how educated a person is but Taqwa. - so yes Educated & Illiterates are absolutely equal and one can be better by the parameters of Taqwa.Remember Prophet SAW didn't knew how to read and write.

In context of the above example it can be observed that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) did not ask the whole of Madina or not even from all of his 1000 men to give their opinion.

That is common sense because Military leaders proceed through a process of ranks and only the high ups make decisions about strategies and tactics not because they are "Better than soldiers " but because of their Experience.

There were only the Think Tanks. The people who knew, and that is why we cannot trust the whole nation to elect the right Shura as there will be illiterate people as well.

I have answered it above. In Islam being educated is a liability so if we follow this concept which means that no illiterates would be left & society can bring its best leaders out don't you think ?

Prophet SAW asked prisoners of war who knew how to read and write to teach Muslims in exchange for their freedom.

As a matter of fact we cannot choose to implement one segment of the islamic system and ignore other because it will turn this system on its head & it will become an Iran like system or like Saudi arabia which in my opinion isn't an Islamic model at all.

Regards:

 

[maverick1977]

it can be either secular khalafat or religoius one with shias having their own laws in iran and sunni having their own laws in turkey and pakistan...

i will stress this again, the main purpose of federation should be sharing of resources, foriegn policy, currency and military, anything else like religion should come secondary.

 

[Nothing]

what about india, isnt it seeking american blessings, and waiting for chinese blessings???

There is difference between BLESSING and BUSINESS

and difference between BEGGARY and BUSINESS too....

you know what i am trying to tell you .....