Pakistan should be named 'People's Republic of Pakistan'

[baajey]

only Pakistan is enough for me

yaaaa baby pakistan roxxxxxx

 

[M. Sarmad]

You can make unfounded claims, quote black characters of our history, employ logical fallacies, use half truths and expect to be taken serious enough for an 'academic' discussion? Are you for real????

Rhetoric is great for exposing logical inconsistencies, and I did that. But ignoring information, analysis, and conclusions is dishonest of you. Your POV is not some holy cow that may not be touched. Your POV is just opinions based upon opinions of others, not facts.

I am going to list your claims, asking you to prove them. I will then watch with satisfaction as you run around trying to grab at straws to substantiate them. You may like to cut and run like you did above. But here we are in any case:

1. How can anyone in their right minds quote a person like Iskandar Mirza, who is well known as a discredited and ambitious fool who tore up Pakistan's first constitution and set the stage for a string of dictatorships that culminated in break up of Pakistan? How can any such person be taken seriously?

2. Islam was used as a tool against Bengalis? Well this is rather novel especially since you are placing this in context of criticism of Muslim League, 1954 provincial elections, & 1956 constitution. Care to explain the mechanics of the process? Before you point to 1956 constitution, be sure to read up on Objectives resolution (1949, much earlier than 1954 provincial election of East Pakistan). Also do attempt to answer as to how anyone would presume to counter Nationalists and Socialists with such a move.

3. I have no opinion about Nazriya-e-Pakistan. It is not important as far as I am concerned. But you claim that it has been used against minorities like Qadianis. You also claim that Shias (not a religious minority as you cleverly suggest) are a victim of this concept. How can you make such assertions? I can not understand as to how that could have happened. Pray do tell...

4. You claim that Communists in India supported Pakistan movement. But you provide no explanation as to why a non-communal organization would support a faith-based demand. You have also dismissed my suggested explanation as rhetorical. Why? Did it make you uncomfortable to address a logical inconsistency that seems to be important to you?

5. The mother of all half truths "Mullahs opposed creation of Pakistan" is a favorite one of yours. Why? What do you hope to accomplish by parroting an oft repeated but wrong opinion? Can your POV not stand of merit? Must you prop it via circuitous and selective BS?

Suppose you point to JUH's stance against Pakistan by quoting Molana Ahmad Hassan Madni. Would that prove your point? What about the fact that JUH was an off-shoot of Darul-Uloom Deoband, and can in no way be assumed to represent 'Mullahs'? I do not know if you are well-versed with theological underpinnings of their arguments or their shrewed political stance. But can you spare a thought for highly influential Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and his associates, also connected with Deoband, and suggesting religious reasons for supporting Pakistan movement? See the Deobandis were DIVIDED. Moreover, Deobandis were only one school of thought. Brelvi-aligned JUP proudly claim that their elders were all supporters of Pakistan movement.

Now that I have provided context in which to place your ill-intentioned assertion about Mullahs opposing Pakistan, can you begin to offer some sort of explanation as to how this counter-factual opinion be correct? I know a number of people say this, but other people's opinions are not facts. Either offer a defense or admit that you parrot other people's opinions as facts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I shall address your assertions about my last post:

Qadianis did commit folly. Look at their situation since many decades. While they consider Muslims as kafirs, they can not expect to be considered Muslims themselves. I am not getting into their ideas about Nabuwwat etc... just pointing out that they were wrong in participating in a Muslim political project when they did not believe in it to begin with. Perhaps they were over-ambitious. Perhaps they could not contemplate living with Hindus due to their own history - specifically rise of Mirza of Qadian as an anti-Hinduism preacher and campaigner. But whatever it may be, they did commit folly. Their history proves it. You can not argue against historical facts.

Communists (according to your words) did something illogical when they (being non-communal) supported demand for Pakistan. You can not wrap them in Pakistani flag and present them as nationalists today. I suggested an explanation, you are free to reject it. But do make an effort to explain why a non-communal political movement supported a call for Pakistan. You can not get away from this. You can not laugh it off. You can not make jests and think that you have explained a contradiction. You must explain why you adopt an illogical stance.

I have already written about your assertion that Mullahs were anti-Pakistan. Clearly this is a convenient falsehood and useful for those who wish to declare Pakistan as a secular project. This simplistic idea is part of a revisionist campaign used by some in service of their views. While you are dismissive of my last post, you offer no explanation as to how you can support this view. You merely dismiss it in jest. As though it is some how a self-evident truth. This is what happens when you take opinions as facts and spread the same. You are more like a missionary than a scholar.

And you talk about 'academic' discussion!
What academic discussion can exist in absence of facts?
What academic discussion employs jest as a proper device?
What academic discussion begins by calling a well explained position as being merely rhetorical?

Your want more? Here we go:

You say that I have asserted that 'sarkari version is not distorted'. When and where did I say that? Do quote me.... I merely questioned your rhetorical device. There is nothing wrong with doing so. If you call a version of history as distorted, does that mean that your version is any less distorted? Sarkari version supports a POV, do you not have a very partial one yourself? Or is it that you consider yourself to be the paragon of truth and all those who disagree with you as beneath the level of your academic discussions?

Please go ahead and do your best. Employ rhetoric, facts, references, and whatever else that you can think of... You shall not find me wanting.

The fact that we are having this exchange on a trash thread started by a non-Pakistani (who has no clue about most things Pakistani) and based on views of an attention seeking bimbo says a lot... Good place to start with combative assertions of superiority over a dissenter like myself. Good going bud.

I appreciate your effort . But with all due respect , I totally disagree with your POV, your post is full of factual inaccuracies and baseless assumptions . I would like to discuss all the points you have mentioned . Starting with the role of Mullahs in Pakistan movement (I guess you consider it to be your strongest point) . And I agree with you , this is not the proper thread .

 

[nana41]

You obvis famously knownously don't know the context of the conversion. Aeronaut claimed his people invented beer, the drink that I drink. Leave it anyway, it's getting childish now.

The beer you drink was brewed by Ganga Raam Jumna Daas.It Is famously known as Bovine beer.I am sure It was not "invented" by Aeronaut's people.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Can someone tell me what is Islamic republic and how it differ to Islamic sate or Muslim state? I see we have few Islamic republic but they differ greatly in laws and constitution. Our constitution is Islamic or secular or neither Islamic nor secular?


.

 

[Secularpakistani]

Name will change nothing you need to protect your minorities which are fleding away from your country.That will be the real game changer intstead of changing name.

First of all it,s when an indian cast such a judgement on the rights of minorities ,it,s fucking hilarious .Please stop killing sikhs,muslims and christians in your country and then talk about minority rights.
Secondly changing a name will change the way islamic laws are influencing the rights of other minorities in this country hence they won,t leave pakistan when the feel no alienation in this country.
Religion is a matter between man and god and state should be neutral and secular.

Can someone tell me what is Islamic republic and how it differ to Islamic sate or Muslim state? I see we have few Islamic republic but they differ greatly in laws and constitution. Our constitution is Islamic or secular or neither Islamic nor secular?


.

In reality we are a perfect combination of both and hence are confused and stands no where.

 

[Omar12345]

Secularism is a farce, a hypocritical way for the majority to get away with everything they want to get away with. What matters is the will of the people and that is exactly what we will see done. Minority rights are guaranteed in Pakistan's constitution, though we won't let anyone tell us what we should call ourselves.

Easy to say that buddy while you have a more tolerant place like Australia to be at.

 

[Secularpakistani]

Easy to say that buddy while you have a more tolerant place like Australia to be at.

Exactly in intolerant and less educated place like pakistan ,religion is a best poison .

 

[roxen]

Pakistan was created on name of Islam.. its 97 % population is muslim .. so Islamic Republic of Pakistan is what is reality. anybody differs than be happy with this... we are not a secular.. we are muslim state and we are very much proud of this. Islam is not a choice its a compulsion any individuals from other religion cannot understand. Love Islamic Republic of Pakistan Inshallah one day it will be the centre point of whole Muslim Ummah and Empire

 

[syedali73]

Can someone tell me what is Islamic republic and how it differ to Islamic sate or Muslim state? I see we have few Islamic republic but they differ greatly in laws and constitution. Our constitution is Islamic or secular or neither Islamic nor secular?.

Good question. Islamic republic is a country that is run through democratic system, which is based on Islamic shariah. An Islamic state is one that is run according to Islamic shariah but not through democracy (such as KSA). Our constitution is Islamic but only academically not practically.

Pakistan was created on name of Islam.. its 97 % population is muslim .. so Islamic Republic of Pakistan is what is reality. anybody differs than be happy with this... we are not a secular.. we are muslim state and we are very much proud of this. Islam is not a choice its a compulsion any individuals from other religion cannot understand. Love Islamic Republic of Pakistan Inshallah one day it will be the centre point of whole Muslim Ummah and Empire

This is a misconception, thanks to the adulterated history that is being taught to us. Pakistan's creation has nothing to do with Islam. It was a pure political issue, revolved around the fear of being dominated by the Hindu majority in a one-person one-vote democracy. I found myself more free to practice my religion when I was in States compared to Pakistan. Islam has become a curse in Pakistan, and there is no longer a place for those who do not belong to a certain school of thought, and this situation is only going to go worse. At this moment, Pakistan is an epicenter of religious hatred, and terrorism, and I don't see this changing in coming years, at least not in my life time.

 

[roxen]

Islam is a religion of peace... you cannot blame islam because of certain individuals like taliban .. we are also against them... but it is not possible that anybody can take out islam from pakistan... am not so religious but am in a favour of implementation of true teaching of islam in our society. sharia should be implemented but not that sharia which taliban want to impose.

 

[$elf]

Religion is for idiots

 

[roxen]

Religion is for idiots

if you are hindu them you belong hindu religion so should i call you idot?

 

[$elf]

if you are hindu them you belong hindu religion so should i call you idot?

Iam not even hindu .

Iam an atheist

 

[syedali73]

Islam is a religion of peace... you cannot blame islam because of certain individuals like taliban .. we are also against them... but it is not possible that anybody can take out islam from pakistan... am not so religious but am in a favour of implementation of true teaching of islam in our society. sharia should be implemented but not that sharia which taliban want to impose.

Question is which Islam? if you are talking about the Islam according to which you (or common muslims) are living your life, than indeed, it is a religion of peace. However, if you are talking about political Islam, Islam of Jamaat Islami and Jamiat ulema Islam, than I am sorry to inform you, it is religion of hatred and agony. As Allam Iqbal has said:

دین کافر فکر و تدبیرجھاد
دین ملا فی سبیل اللہ فساد

deen-e-kafir fikr-o-tadbeer-e-jihad
deen-e-mulla fi sabeelillah fasaad

 

[roxen]

Iam not even hindu .

Iam an atheist

then you can stay on mars...lolx