‘Pakistan is for Islam’

[FaujHistorian]

Wow what a logic !

In Pakistan while Muslims have no competition to the posts of "managers", doctors, engineers etc-- hence most of them would be Muslims -- , in India they have competition. In simple words - percentages matter and not absolute numbers.

Anyway coming to the point, if the oppression was true as sun rises in the east, why are your relatives still in India ? I mean why did they not leave India in the first place ? Are they masochists?

Typical reaction from an Indian nationalist.

My dear dear dear poster, you all have been fed lies over an over and over again (just like the Islamo-fascist lies fed on our side of the border). As a result, you are defending the status quo rather than accepting a sincere debate.


you are utterly my dear dear poster utterly confused at so many levels, making it really really tough to have a good debate.

Remember few things.

1. people live on their ancestral land even in the face of oppression. Why else Hindus in Sindh still live their, and even if they migrate, their hearts are still in their ancestral lands. Why else a Pakistani-Hindu who died in the West wanted his ashes to be sent to Indus river and not Ganga? Because people have that special bond with their ancestral lands that many on this forum do not care to understand. Please read up some of those heart wrenching accounts first before asking really really $tupid questions. As these questions that smack of stuff spread by the likes of TTP or RSS or Nazis.


2. Hindu oppression on political, economic, education level was HUGE even in Muslim majority provinces like Bengal, Punjab, Sindh, and KPK. Didn't you read my post before spewing knee-jerk $pit?


And no this is not an effort to justify Islamo-fascist's stance in Pakistan these days.

Instead this is just to point out false felatio fallacies in the post by samantk I was responding too.

I appeal to both Indian and Pakistani posters to READ, and READ, and READ about their shared history and AVOID spreading false info.


peace

 

[Armstrong]

@ Fauji : How about a democratic pluralistic state where Shi'ites, Sunnis, Ahmedis, Bohras, Ismailis etc. along with Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Atheists sit together as equal citizens of the State and exchange their view points. Let a Sunni's interpretation of the Shariah which manifests itself as one of the 4 Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence or a Shi'ite's interpretation of the same in the shape of the Jafiri School of Jurisprudence, a Christian's Justinian Code or an Atheist's Swiss Civil Law all be treated equally in principle, to be scrutinized for their merits and demerits, to be argued and debated and then finally put to the test in the form a popular vote ! How does that sound like instead of either a 'Secular State' where only (in the above example) an atheist would get validity for his/her view whilst the others are not even considered or an Islamist state where an imposed 'agenda' of one segment against the will and wants of countless many is set ? If democracy is the namesake of 'popular will' then let the people decide with all its merits and demerits. If it isn't then where else do we go ? An imposed system that preaches 'democratic and liberal' values....? Would such an inherent contradiction be sustainable in the long run never mind actually being in the 'right' to begin with ?

All of this of course would require the society itself to evolve to more liberal values and by liberal I mean - Let each person's view point be respected and let reasoning be its litmus test for you and popular will be the same for the State in light of 'governance'. But the point is if it seems utopic now, one might argue that a 'Secular Pakistan' is probably more unachievable when compared with it because for the vast majority of us, right or wrong, 'political Islam' means something !

 

[ajtr]

@armstrong log into gmail.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@ Fauji :

1.

How about a democratic pluralistic state where Shi'ites, Sunnis, Ahmedis, Bohras, Ismailis etc. along with Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Atheists sit together as equal citizens of the State and exchange their view points.


2.

Let a Sunni's interpretation of the Shariah which manifests itself as one of the 4 Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence or a Shi'ite's interpretation of the same in the shape of the Jafiri School of Jurisprudence, a Christian's Justinian Code or an Atheist's Swiss Civil Law all be treated equally in principle,


to be scrutinized for their merits and demerits, to be argued and debated and then finally put to the test in the form a popular vote ! How does that sound like instead of either a 'Secular State' where only (in the above example) an atheist would get validity for his/her view whilst the others are not even considered or an Islamist state where an imposed 'agenda' of one segment against the will and wants of countless many is set ? If democracy is the namesake of 'popular will' then let the people decide with all its merits and demerits. If it isn't then where else do we go ? An imposed system that preaches 'democratic and liberal' values....? Would such an inherent contradiction be sustainable in the long run never mind actually being in the 'right' to begin with ?

All of this of course would require the society itself to evolve to more liberal values and by liberal I mean - Let each person's view point be respected and let reasoning be its litmus test for you and popular will be the same for the State in light of 'governance'. But the point is if it seems utopic now, one might argue that a 'Secular Pakistan' is probably more unachievable when compared with it because for the vast majority of us, right or wrong, 'political Islam' means something !

Dear poster,

There is no doubt that you have all the sincerity in your heart. I can see this in your post.

So here is my response that is in no way an effort to challenge your Muslim belief system nor your sincerity.


1. Any modern Western style democratic system allows this. So there is no disagreement on your point #1.


2. Let's focus on 4 schools of thought and Fiqh jafriya for a moment. I'll call it 4+1 approach (some may say 4+12 but let's not make it more complicated than what it should really be).

We as Pakistanis must realize that jurisprudence based on 4+1 is like trying to design a modern railway system using horses and mules.

That is! 4+1 is old old ancient jurisprudence system that was debated and it existed 10s of 100s of years ago. We would ditch it in a heartbeat if we were not obsessed with ancient stuff.

To be honest 4+1 belongs to museum and not on our streets. Because you can see what happens when you put 5 km an hour carts on a 50 km an hour road system. Yes it results in unnecessary crashes, death, and destruction. We should love 4+1 system with all the care, wrap it in green fluffy silky cloth and put it on the bookshelf. The only thing we can extract from it is the concept of truth, trustworthiness, and tolerance. that is the spirit of justice and then use that spirit to evolve modern systems based on contemporary rules and regulations.

But please do not bring 4+1 as a whole, in the middle of contemporary discussions on how to improve our system.


peace

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

I agree with his speech about Pakistan and Islam. Islam is going to play a vital role in a country where 97 % peoples are Muslim by faith but it actually takes more than religion to form a nation

 

[SamantK]

"Supposed oppression of Hindu majority"? Supposed???????????????


Oh Bhai, the oppression was as real as sun or the moon. And if you don't know about our "shared history", then I pity your intellect.

Yes, it was no guesses why it was as such... Last I heard the British actively wanted to divide on the basis of religion to delay giving freedom to India..

I tell you what!

You agree that population of Muslims in India is similar (or at least comparable) to what we have in Pakistan. Right?


Now compare the number of engineers, doctors, judges, top level manager etc. across the border. Ideally India being more progressive, more dynamic, more developed means that higher number of Muslims should show up in such statistics.

Agree, but then you are not talking about the demographics of the country.. Majority of this population is concentrated in states which have not performed well right from the time of Independence, what would you call that oppression?

Even if we compare the numbers of engineers, doctors and such can you tell me how is it related to oppression? Just like you I can declare that it is because of the backward thoughts of the community at large, like having more than 2 children ( I have seen Muslim families in cities having more than 5 children, if we go to villages then the scene becomes worse) how can all get good education with such family makeup. But I believe there are more factors, there is a factor of oppression but not as large or as wide in haunting the whole society as you put it out...

But I tell you something simple.

I visit my cousins every other year, and I see Indian Muslims in pitiful dark situation, even if you factor in the death and destruction in Karachi all thanks to my own community's support for fascist mohajir party MQM and resulting chaos and Bhatta khori.

Which state, which area, did you take a survey of what problems they are facing? How cdid you come to the conclusion that just because they are in pitiful conditions they are being oppressed, there are many Hindus also living in pitiful conditions, I have seen them too.. How does it prove anything?

Before 1947 every Muslim majority region suffered greatly at the hands of Hindu minority in every province including Bengal, Punjab, KPK (then Frontier), Sindh etc.

how did the minority opress the majority? Iam curious...

So my dear dear dear ignorant poster, read up a bit before shaming your country by posting 3rd grade sarkari school history.


Sure Pakistan is deep doodoo. But let's not mutilate our history. let's not mutilate it please.

I was not changing the history, muslim oppression Before 1947 with British caring a damn and may be fuelling it does not provide a logical picture of what the country would become with a constitution which aimed at being secular..

 

[FaujHistorian]

...... Last I heard the British actively wanted to divide on the basis of religion to delay giving freedom to India......

Sorry to take one sentence out of your post. But unfortunately it is filled with so many fallacies that perhaps we need days if not months and discuss these complex things over loads of tea and box upon boxes of biscuits.

Here you are incorrect my dear dear poster.

FYI. British were ready to wash hands from India long time before 1947/1948.

The reason was simple. Most of the people (Muslim, Hindus, Sikhs) had learned English, Gandhi had acted as British army recruiter and thus proven his loyalty, locals had learned the British system of government, so there was no need for Brits to stay.

However Congress and ML both were $tupid and continued to infight.

Do you even realize why Brits arranged "round table" meetings 3 years in a row?

Do you know why they were called "round table" as opposed to "square table" or "triangular table"?

What was there purpose?

And when were these meetings held?


You gotta get out of this history that you just "hear".

That's the problem with Indians and Pakistanis that people do not read. They just "hear". They are lazy intellectually. And it is by choice.


So I say Read, Read, Read. Otherwise you will continue arguing based on ignorance.

Perhaps I am wrong in many ways. But at least I am willing to say good bye to my 3rd grade sarkari school history books. Do you?



peace

 

[SamantK]

Sorry to take one sentence out of your post. But unfortunately it is filled with so many fallacies that perhaps we need days if not months and discuss these complex things over loads of tea and box upon boxes of biscuits.

Here you are incorrect my dear dear poster.

FYI. British were ready to wash hands from India long time before 1947/1948.

The reason was simple. Most of the people (Muslim, Hindus, Sikhs) had learned English, Gandhi had acted as British army recruiter and thus proven his loyalty, locals had learned the British system of government, so there was no need for Brits to stay.

However Congress and ML both were $tupid and continued to infight.

Do you even realize why Brits arranged "round table" meetings 3 years in a row?

Do you know why they were called "round table" as opposed to "square table" or "triangular table"?

What was there purpose?

And when were these meetings held?


You gotta get out of this history that you just "hear".

That's the problem with Indians and Pakistanis that people do not read. They just "hear". They are lazy intellectually. And it is by choice.


So I say Read, Read, Read. Otherwise you will continue arguing based on ignorance.

Perhaps I am wrong in many ways. But at least I am willing to say good bye to my 3rd grade sarkari school history books. Do you?



peace

Ok, I will assume that I am wron here, what about the rest of the post.. Care to share your view on that too..

 

[SHAMK9]

this is all i have to say here

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."
- Muhammad Ali Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan; 11 August 1947

 

[Abdal Ali]

I agree with his speech about Pakistan and Islam. Islam is going to play a vital role in a country where 97 % peoples are Muslim by faith but it actually takes more than religion to form a nation

I agree. Islam should play a role. A vital role....

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi publishes beheading Shiakilling Video +18 - YouTube

 

[fatman17]

pakistan is for 'pakistanis" of all race, religion, sect, creed, colour - these are the words of our 'Founding Father'. it dosnt get any simpler than this.

 

[Zarvan]

this is all i have to say here

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State."
- Muhammad Ali Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan; 11 August 1947

Sir should I show you many other words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in those he said laws will be made according to Quran and Sunnah several times

 

[FaujHistorian]

Sir should I show you many other words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in those he said laws will be made according to Quran and Sunnah several times

This is true that Jinnah made many speeches and some of them can be bent around to show Mullahism would be the true future of Pakistan.


I urge you however to read "Pakistan Resolution" the sacred document for all of us. The document written by our country's forefathers. And thus no single person could be used to give credit to or take credit from.

Here is what the resolution said:

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities,



It was not Jinnah but Liaqat Ali Khan who was first to introduced Islamo fascism when Objective Resolution was passed in 1949 soon after Jinnah died.

Liaqat knew that Jinnah would oppose this kind of Mullahiyat.


peace

 

[Abdal Ali]

.....We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State" - Muhammad Ali Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan; 11 August 1947

Even though I agree that the Quaid made this statement, I must insist that simple logic dictates that it cannot possibly be true for Pakistan.

The reason is quite simply this:This is exactly the same argument made by Gandhi & the Indian National Congress against the very creation of Pakistan. This idea of maintaining Muslim religious identity, but replacing Muslim political identity with a secular "national" identity was exactly what Gandhi wanted.

Pakistan was created precisely because the Muslim League felt that "Hindus would not cease to be Hindus and Muslims would not cease to be Muslims in the political sense".

Pakistan cannot become a secular country. Muslims cannot cease to be Muslims in the political sense. This is the very basis of the argument for the creation of Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Quaid was contradicting himself and the very ideology of the Muslim league when he made this statement.....

 

[timetravel]

Even though I agree that the Quaid made this statement, I must insist that simple logic dictates that it cannot possibly be true for Pakistan.

The reason is quite simply this:This is exactly the same argument made by Gandhi & the Indian National Congress against the very creation of Pakistan. This idea of maintaining Muslim religious identity, but replacing Muslim political identity with a secular "national" identity was exactly what Gandhi wanted.

Pakistan was created precisely because the Muslim League felt that "Hindus would not cease to be Hindus and Muslims would not cease to be Muslims in the political sense".

Pakistan cannot become a secular country. Muslims cannot cease to be Muslims in the political sense. This is the very basis of the argument for the creation of Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Quaid was contradicting himself and the very ideology of the Muslim league when he made this statement.....

I disagree. Pakistan was meant to be SECULAR same as INDIA. No DOUBT about that as mentioned in Jinnah's comment. The vision of a state with equal rights for all caste, colour, religion was the same for both Pakistan and India.

Then why Pakistan? Because Jinnah felt that in a Hindu Majority Country which will be secular by constitution, he doubted the ABILITY of the state to provide a TRULY secular and discrimination free environment to the Minority Muslims .You can call it lack of trust on Hindus and Congress to provide non discriminatory environment to Muslims in SPIRIT, even though they made the constitution as secular in constitution and values.

But Jinnah had confidence in himself and muslims, that if the country would be Muslims majority then he would be able to PROVIDE the the SECULAR and EQUAL rights to all religion people, to all citizens of Pakistan in both CONSTITUTION and SPIRIT.

That was the reason for DIFFERENT Pakistan as envisioned and asked for by Jinnah.

But Jinnah also saw a vision for Pakistan of a truly secular country, where the function of STATE is irreligious and religion is a personal choice only. There was no difference in this desire of Jinnah or Congress/Gandhi. The only reason for asking Pakistan was he was more confident that such a secular treatment would be provided to ALL CITIZENS in a Muslim majority country, but would be DEVOID to Muslims in a Hindu majority country.

But after his death, the bad elements took control of the country and changed the CONSTITUTION and VISION of the country, and now Pakistan is not what it was envisioned to be - a secular and liberal country with EQUAL POLITICAL rights for all CITIZENS irrespective of RELIGION.