What's new

Secularists should 'mend ways or leave country', says PTI lawmaker

Allah says in the Holy Qur'an that legislation is for none but Allah. The Qur'an describes several hudud crimes and sets out their punishments. Any action that has been made Haram by Allah almighty in the Holy Qur'an would remain Haram regardless of whether or not that action is "legal". A Muslim should abstain from Haram for love of Allah, not for fear of prosecution/arrest under the law of the land. At gun point, you can create "Munaifiqeen", not "Momineen". Ever wondered why homosexuality/sodomy is so rampant in Madrasas ? ...

About just a 100 years ago, pedophilia was legal in the oldest democracy and common practice amongst the British Parliamentarians! Laws were brought in to curb it.

Effective enforcement of law is required, not legalisation of rampant sexual practices!
 
By that logic no system can be a success. Quaid e Azam specifically said he wants Islamic values as the basis of our economic and political system. That is the complete opposite as secularism. In secular nations laws can be changed or legalised, if you have a political system based on Islam that's impossible and changing it is Shirk which Allah will not forgive. By giving the world a new economic system and Islamic Socialism Pakistan will be a an inspiration for other nations. Separating the state and religion in Pakistan will never work and is a grave mistake.

no system is perfect .. and who told you that Islamic System is against secularism ?? and creating new rules and bending are not shirk , read about how new reconciliations Hazrat Omer ibn Khatttab bring to Islamic empire , many of them has no mentioned in Quran/Hadith ..
Allah did not say that put religion into state matters specially when religion itself is divided into no less than 50+ different sects.
 
Not true. "Ideology of Pakistan" is a lie concocted by Mullahs, why should we not criticize them ?

The term ‘Pakistan Ideology’ (Nazriah-e-Pakistan’) was nowhere in Jinnah's speeches before or after the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Prof. Khurshid Ahmed, one of the leading members of Jamat e Islami (JI), is said to have first coined the term ‘Nazriah-e-Pakistan’ in 1962 in "response" to Ayub Khan's (a Dictator) policy of evolving Pakistan's nationhood in accordance with progressive dictates of Jinnah. Jamat e Islami, of course, was opposed to Jinnah's vision of a progressive and modern Muslim State, and that's why it had opposed Pakistan Movement during 1940's. JI had it's own vision. JI suggested that Pakistan Ideology should be squarely based on policies constructed on the teachings of the Qu’ran and Sunnah and should strive to turn Pakistan into an Islamic State.

Keep at it.

You won't succeed in your agendas.
 
YES, MODERATION!!! If someone call himself a MULLAH and preaches the wrong version of Islam it is not something wrong with ISLAM but with that person and more importantly with us who despite being Muslims are not aware of our religion’s teachings and have to rely on the what those guys calling themselves ALMIS tell us. Yes there are good people in that too but what we come across on regular basis are usually the school drop outs who were not good enough to pass matric and thus ended up in the madrassa!! HOW MUCH MORE SHAMEFUL DO WE WANT IT TO BE???? And it is not even the Mullahs that are to be blamed for all this, WE ARE TO BE BLAMED for being so illiterate our self in matters of the religion we follow that we are being fooled and misled by this bunch!!
I don't follow any mullah except listening to Tariq Jamils stories and yes but what can we normal Muslims do about it? if we try to correct mullahs or try to correct misconceptions about Islam we're labeled as a western jewish agents and we get death threats. On this very forum me and zibago got death threats because we called spade a spade we called qadri and ilm deen criminals just imagine what would happened to us if we were sitting in front of them?
I guess things like hard work, nationalism, education, honesty and devotion to whatever work you do, rules and laws that are meant to be followed and discipline are some “small matters” that might as well have played a part in the progress the west have made, don’t you think? Just being SECULAR wont make us progress, the things that will help us in this regard is working hard, honestly and with devotion, as taught by the religion as well.
I agree just being secular won't make us a progressive country but it will work as a booster and yes our religion teaches us these things.
I find it funny how our people just put it all on the religion just because all the others things are personal attributes and we our self will be blamed for not doing these right things and thus we our self will be responsible for being where we are today and not the religion, not even those thugs and scum so called mullahs!!
Those who blame religion are absolutely wrong if someone has misunderstood Islam or intentionally did that for his own personal agenda than it's him who's at fault bro i believe in "That Islam is the best religion but it has the worst followers" but here i would like to blame our elders who allowed mullahs to hijack religion and Pakistan who allowed mullahs to brainwash them.
On other hand, if we study our religion, we will be surprised to see that it is Islam that teaches us all these virtues that I have mentioned above and that I think all of us will agree to have played a part in that progress of west. From hard work to education, from honesty to discipline, name one thing that you feel have nothing to do with the progress the west have made OR that you think is something that Islam do not teaches and preaches us about!!
Yes it's after joining PDF i started to learn more and more about Islam and i know how liberal our religion is and as fallen king repeatedly said Islam is a liberal and a secular religion already and west have adopted these things but how are you gonna explain it to molvis and their supporters? you tell me can you convince even one guy on this thread without getting abused and labeled as a western agent?
P.S. When I say “you” in above post, I am not pointing you out @The Sandman . It is not point you out in person just because I quoted your post bro. What I say and ask is from the general public. From all our members here and I want you all to please just think about it, use your brain and point out where you think I am wrong.
Arsalan bhai i know you weren't talking about me. :P

and @Luffy 500 yes i consider zia a shaitan because he ruined everything in my country he's responsible for literally every problem we face in Pakistan today from corruption to bhatta khori to extremism/terrorism he's responsible for all of it may he burn in hell for what he did to my beautiful country he gave power to zombies in my country who have now infected the 90% of population and one more thing luffy it's better for you stay out of our (Pakistan's) personal matters and we don't need you to learn about Islam keep your conspiracy theories of people waging war against Islam to your self it's people like you who've actually damaged the image of Islam
 
Good news that liberal will succeed, hence the prophecy of Greater Pakistan. So keep up the good work, and hopefully in the nearest future, people may judge liberal outlook in good ways, God Willing. :-)
khud ko tasalli denay se kuch faida nai hona :-)
 
Allah has decreed in the Holy Qur'an that the truth shall prevail and falsehood shall vanish. Your kind had been misleading Muslim masses for very long time. But your time is over now. Internet is doing to the Mullahs (and their followers) what printing press had done to the Church.

So you are now doing what you accused me of earlier in this thread. Well done!

My kind? :woot:
You don't know jack about me to classify me.

People like you want to create your preferred version of Liberal Secular Islam (just as Khawarij took to the other extreme), so go ahead ... or take Internet as your religion if you prefer.

You and I are both going to our graves ultimately, I don't know what teer-marrka you are claiming in this life that you are harping on about my time being over. You are using a keyboard on one portal, and I am on another and you are insignificant in my life.

And in Hadith, time for you people is clearly mentioned as well. When morality will be zero, mosques will be decorated yet empty, etc etc. Yes, you liberals will have your days for sure. But you and I won't be around then, maybe some from your seed will be around. Do leave them something about your online struggle to liberate them. :cheers:

btw, read my signature!
 
Unfortunately this is also going to be another one of a very long post and likely to test the reader’s patience, but there is a misconception about the creation of Pakistan that the matter cannot be dealt satisfactorily in any other way.

The problem is that majority of the younger generation of Pakistan do not know the “raison d’etre” or reason of existence of Pakistan. Mr Ali Mohammed Khan is obviously one such person. Since I was born before the partition and grew up reading ‘Zamindar’ newspaper of Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, who was one of the speakers on the 23rd March session, perhaps I am in a better position to know why Pakistan came into being in the first place.

First lest us agree as to what is implied when we refer to a secular state? As I understand, it means that a "Secular State is officially neutral in the matter of religion". In other words the state does not give preference / precedence nor discriminates her citizens on the basis of religion.

Neutrality does not mean that people are silent people about the religious basis of their convictions. What it requires is that articles of faith, or other substantive conceptions of the good life, do not carry any weight simply because they are matters of faith.

It also needs to be acknowledged that secularism is not and should not pretend to be "neutral" in various important respects. Most obviously, it clearly asserts the values that are widely shared among the otherwise diverse population, such as tolerance, freedom of expression, rule of law and so on. It can also treat different faiths and sects differently depending on how benign or malign they are. Nor does this kind of neutrality mean, in effect, always imposing one set of values on everyone.

Therefore despite whatever her constitution says, in its true sense of the word; India under the BJP and the Hiduvta government is no longer a secular state.

Now let us read the Lahore Resolution. It must be clear that the name “Pakistan” was never mentioned or referred to in the resolution or by any of the speakers.

The Resolution

On March 23, A.K. Fazul Haq, the Chief Minister of Bengal, moved the historical Lahore Resolution. The Resolution consisted of five paragraphs and each paragraph was only one sentence long. Although clumsily worded, it delivered a clear message. The resolution declared:


“While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd of February 1940, on the constitutional issue, this session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of Federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935 is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939, made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935 is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguard shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

This session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary”.

Besides many others, the Resolution was seconded by Chaudhary Khaliquzzam from UP, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan from Punjab, Sardar Aurangzeb from the N. W. F. P, Sir Abdullah Haroon from Sindh, and Qazi Muhammad Esa from Baluchistan. Those who seconded the resolution, in their speeches declared the occasion as a historic one. The Resolution was eventually passed on the last day of the moot, i.e. March 24.

Now let us re-visit the address of the Quaid E Azam MA Jinnah of 11Th august, 1947

“I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. 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.”

It is obvious that Quaid’s concept of Pakistan was very close to what a secular state should be. Primarily because the real motivation behind the creation of Pakistan was that Muslims being only about 25% of the British India, there was a genuine fear that an overwhelming Hindu majority would / could ramrod Hindu cultural values such as a ban slaughtering the cows or a ban on Azaan sometime in the future. Pakistan was never meant to be a “Theocratic” Islamic State such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Religious parties on the other hand were against the partition. No mullah or member of the religious parties was involved in drafting or preparation of the Lahore Resolution.

The following is the full list of the 25 original, formally designated members of the Special Working Committee of the All India Muslim League, 1940, which met between 21 and 24 March 1940, and which largely drafted the Lahore Resolution.

· Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah

· Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan

· Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan

· Sir Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot

· Amir Ahmed Khan Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad

· Maulvi A.K. Fazlul Huq

· Sir Abdullah Haroon

· Al-Hajj Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin

· Amjadi Bano Begum ( Wife of Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauahr)

· Molana Muhammad Akram Khan

· Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman

· Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan

· Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim

· Ali Muhammad Khan Dehlvi

· Qazi Muhammad Isa

· Sardar Aurangzeb Khan

· Abdul Mateen Chauhdry

· Ashiq Mohamed Warsi

· Haji Abdus Sattar Essak Saith

· S.M. Sharif

· Syed Abdul Rauf Shah

· Mohammad Latif ur Rahman

· Abdul Rehman Siddiqui

· Malik Barkat Ali

· Sadullah Khan Umarzai


Whereas that non-Muslims could also live happily on Quaid’s Pakistan; PTI would like to rid of ‘Secularist’ as well !
This reminds me a song by Munni Begum where one of the verses was:

“Jab bhi Gulistan ko Lahoo ki zaroorat pari, subse pehle to gardan hamari kati. Ab ye kahtey hein hum se ahle chaman, ye chaman hai hamaraa tumhara nahien” meaning whenever the garden needed, our blood was used as fertiliser. Now the residents are claiming that the garden is not ours but theirs alone.

P.S.
Finally, I would like to say that I am a liberal, not a secularist. I would discriminate against non-Muslims but to the extent that positions of President, Prime Minister, Head of the Armed forces, Governors & Chief Ministers of the provinces and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be restricted to Muslims only.
 
Finally, I would like to say that I am a liberal, not a secularist. I would discriminate against non-Muslims but to the extent that positions of President, Prime Minister, Head of the Armed forces, Governors & Chief Ministers of the provinces and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be restricted to Muslims only.
I know this is your personal opinion and i respect that but if you're ok with it can i ask you why it should be restricted to Muslims only? I mean isn't it better to vote for loyal non-corrupt non Muslim Pakistani who can serve Pakistan much better than a corrupt disloyal Muslim leader who only thinks about himself?
 
Unfortunately this is also going to be another one of a very long post and likely to test the reader’s patience, but there is a misconception about the creation of Pakistan that the matter cannot be dealt satisfactorily in any other way.

The problem is that majority of the younger generation of Pakistan do not know the “raison d’etre” or reason of existence of Pakistan. Mr Ali Mohammed Khan is obviously one such person. Since I was born before the partition and grew up reading ‘Zamindar’ newspaper of Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, who was one of the speakers on the 23rd March session, perhaps I am in a better position to know why Pakistan came into being in the first place.

First lest us agree as to what is implied when we refer to a secular state? As I understand, it means that a "Secular State is officially neutral in the matter of religion". In other words the state does not give preference / precedence nor discriminates her citizens on the basis of religion.

Neutrality does not mean that people are silent people about the religious basis of their convictions. What it requires is that articles of faith, or other substantive conceptions of the good life, do not carry any weight simply because they are matters of faith.

It also needs to be acknowledged that secularism is not and should not pretend to be "neutral" in various important respects. Most obviously, it clearly asserts the values that are widely shared among the otherwise diverse population, such as tolerance, freedom of expression, rule of law and so on. It can also treat different faiths and sects differently depending on how benign or malign they are. Nor does this kind of neutrality mean, in effect, always imposing one set of values on everyone.

Therefore despite whatever her constitution says, in its true sense of the word; India under the BJP and the Hiduvta government is no longer a secular state.

Now let us read the Lahore Resolution. It must be clear that the name “Pakistan” was never mentioned or referred to in the resolution or by any of the speakers.

The Resolution

On March 23, A.K. Fazul Haq, the Chief Minister of Bengal, moved the historical Lahore Resolution. The Resolution consisted of five paragraphs and each paragraph was only one sentence long. Although clumsily worded, it delivered a clear message. The resolution declared:


“While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd of February 1940, on the constitutional issue, this session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of Federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935 is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939, made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935 is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguard shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

This session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary”.

Besides many others, the Resolution was seconded by Chaudhary Khaliquzzam from UP, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan from Punjab, Sardar Aurangzeb from the N. W. F. P, Sir Abdullah Haroon from Sindh, and Qazi Muhammad Esa from Baluchistan. Those who seconded the resolution, in their speeches declared the occasion as a historic one. The Resolution was eventually passed on the last day of the moot, i.e. March 24.

Now let us re-visit the address of the Quaid E Azam MA Jinnah of 11Th august, 1947

“I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. 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.”

It is obvious that Quaid’s concept of Pakistan was very close to what a secular state should be. Primarily because the real motivation behind the creation of Pakistan was that Muslims being only about 25% of the British India, there was a genuine fear that an overwhelming Hindu majority would / could ramrod Hindu cultural values such as a ban slaughtering the cows or a ban on Azaan sometime in the future. Pakistan was never meant to be a “Theocratic” Islamic State such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Religious parties on the other hand were against the partition. No mullah or member of the religious parties was involved in drafting or preparation of the Lahore Resolution.

The following is the full list of the 25 original, formally designated members of the Special Working Committee of the All India Muslim League, 1940, which met between 21 and 24 March 1940, and which largely drafted the Lahore Resolution.

· Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah

· Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan

· Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan

· Sir Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot

· Amir Ahmed Khan Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad

· Maulvi A.K. Fazlul Huq

· Sir Abdullah Haroon

· Al-Hajj Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin

· Amjadi Bano Begum ( Wife of Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauahr)

· Molana Muhammad Akram Khan

· Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman

· Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan

· Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim

· Ali Muhammad Khan Dehlvi

· Qazi Muhammad Isa

· Sardar Aurangzeb Khan

· Abdul Mateen Chauhdry

· Ashiq Mohamed Warsi

· Haji Abdus Sattar Essak Saith

· S.M. Sharif

· Syed Abdul Rauf Shah

· Mohammad Latif ur Rahman

· Abdul Rehman Siddiqui

· Malik Barkat Ali

· Sadullah Khan Umarzai


Whereas that non-Muslims could also live happily on Quaid’s Pakistan; PTI would like to rid of ‘Secularist’ as well !
This reminds me a song by Munni Begum where one of the verses was:

“Jab bhi Gulistan ko Lahoo ki zaroorat pari, subse pehle to gardan hamari kati. Ab ye kahtey hein hum se ahle chaman, ye chaman hai hamaraa tumhara nahien” meaning whenever the garden needed, our blood was used as fertiliser. Now the residents are claiming that the garden is not ours but theirs alone.

P.S.
Finally, I would like to say that I am a liberal, not a secularist. I would discriminate against non-Muslims but to the extent that positions of President, Prime Minister, Head of the Armed forces, Governors & Chief Ministers of the provinces and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be restricted to Muslims only.


I mostly agree with your post, up until the last paragraph. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of religion in Pakistan. If non-Muslims have acquired the necessary amount of votes to be the leader of the country or their province, they should become the leader of the country or their province. If they come up through the ranks of the Armed forces or through the legal system and prove themselves to worthy of the highest positions, they should be allowed that too.

Pakistan is more than 95% Muslim. If minorities are able to reach the highest positions in the country, with either the implicit or explicit consent of the country (which is overwhelmingly Muslim), then there should be no impediments to them assuming the highest positions in the country. Pakistan has already had a non-Muslim Chief Justice.

Remember that Pakistan was essentially created to ensure that the Muslims of the subcontinent (who wished to live in that country) would not be drowned out by the will of the Hindu majority in India. If we choose to have non-Muslims lead us, then so be it.
 
Indeed, both extremist elements are risk to the country as well as to the humanity. The Irony is, so-called liberals got many ways to vocal their evil through different means and mostly are supported by specific worldly powers as well in the name of so-called freedom of speech hence, easily walks away with it yet on other hand, religious extremists are easy to be recognized and unveil them. IMO, both are damaging us badly either the extremist under umbrella of Freedom or Speech or fake scholar that uses religion to mislead people.

People who gets chance to speak about openly, are mostly so-called liberals and extremist of liberalism that prefers media warfare and other means like candle mafia etc to vent frustration and damage the peace yet by provoking religious extremists that causes more unrest in society. However, religious extremists/fake scholars mostly uses loud speakers and sometimes newspapers to avenge the mocking so all in all, the cleansing needs to start from end and as so-called liberals claims themselves the educated lot, should be taught first to behave and on the same time we can deal with fake scholars too that fool us Muslims in the name of Islam. You will note that there are very credible Islamic Scholars that does not get into this illiterate scuffle of society and mostly mind own business so people must understand that how to counter these aunties and fake scholars. TBH, the so-called liberals actually damaged the society since the day they got their freedom of speech which was a deliberate infection being injected based upon well designed program. Just look at NGOs, the candle Mafia and all of them.

I do beg to differ because while you may have point, but the damage the liberal unleashes is at best challenging in the intellectual areas, and only people with lack of intellectual background are prone to the disinformation. While extremists on the other hand, they use violence to send the message and resort to terrorism to terrorize the world. They try to impose their views aggressively by using the hands.

I don't mind liberal way since liberal way is safer and yes, they try to impose their views but using their words instead of hands. At the end, you have the option to say No. But to extremists, that would be death which Blasphemy Law is the prime example founded by the extremists in majority that now personally target minority as point-scoring.

Liberal is the least of the threat to Pakistan while extremists that posses greater threat to Pakistan in terms of politically, economically, and socially, not to mention demonize liberal on the front while resort to terrorism to harm innocent people on the back fueling in the name of religion to damage the image of the religion.

Since freedom of speech and expression is sacred, liberal way can be countered with logical and rational analysis but how do you deal with the extremists that only know the language of violence, hatred, coercion which is basically sum of anti-religion aka anti-Islam.

Most importantly, there is the reason why Jinnah (R.A) with secular background flourished and able to make Pakistan dream true while extremists with conservative mindset that saw foreign education as threat to their lifestyle failed miserably and joined Pakistan which they opposed to begin with.
 
Last edited:
It is obvious that Quaid’s concept of Pakistan was very close to what a secular state should be. Primarily because the real motivation behind the creation of Pakistan was that Muslims being only about 25% of the British India, there was a genuine fear that an overwhelming Hindu majority would / could ramrod Hindu cultural values such as a ban slaughtering the cows or a ban on Azaan sometime in the future. Pakistan was never meant to be a “Theocratic” Islamic State such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

“Jab bhi Gulistan ko Lahoo ki zaroorat pari, subse pehle to gardan hamari kati. Ab ye kahtey hein hum se ahle chaman, ye chaman hai hamaraa tumhara nahien” meaning whenever the garden needed, our blood was used as fertiliser. Now the residents are claiming that the garden is not ours but theirs alone.
listen from 4:00
@Arsalan @django @Hell hound @Azlan Haider @LA se Karachi @Zibago
 
It is obvious that Quaid’s concept of Pakistan was very close to what a secular state should be. Primarily because the real motivation behind the creation of Pakistan was that Muslims being only about 25% of the British India, there was a genuine fear that an overwhelming Hindu majority would / could ramrod Hindu cultural values such as a ban slaughtering the cows or a ban on Azaan sometime in the future. Pakistan was never meant to be a “Theocratic” Islamic State such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

But then, the Objectives Resolution was passed, laying the foundation for the radicalism we see today, with fatal intermixing of matters of religion with matters of State.
 
Everyone is free to practice their own faith within their domain and not impose on anyone else, that Islam teaches anyways. But state laws should not be against the commands in Quran and Sunnah also.

We will soon see a time when these Ulema Su will be brushed aside and discarded by the moderates in the society.

Secular and Liberal toads have issues with these ulemas. Silent majority does too. People are not as stupid as you lot think. A poor but strong faith man is wiser than you to stir a rebellion against these ulemas as it causes unrest in the society.

Attacking Pakistan ideology in your fight against these ulemas is a wrong approach just as their approach of using it to sell the religion. Both are on the wrong track.

When Islam came, it was perceived as liberal to the conservative dominated regions. Why? Islam challenged against inequality which was perceived as norm during the conservative dominated regions. For example, black people were treated as inferior and so did women. Honor killing was common back then, and still is thank to conservative mindsets that revived some of outdated practice.

Then Islam eradicated outdated practice by endorsing equality, pro-woman and pro-life. Not only that, it made inroads for the progressive society that requires open-mind, and multiculturalism.

That is what liberals mean; liberalize people from the dark age. That is what secular means; equality and quality of life. And Islam is pretty much liberal and secularism in mindset that can promote the progressive society like 1400 years ago.

Extremists aka khawarij were the one who killed the family of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in civil wars. They were the one who opposed most of companions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). They tried to divide the community apart spreading misinformation. Hence the decree in advance by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and warning for the future generation to beware of khawarij aka extremists that leads to become terrorists eventually.

Specifically in those words; kill khawarij whenever you find one for they are worst-scum from the dog-hell fire. The very same khawarij derived from extremists even questioned the intention of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). And now, the extremists are back in the market thanks to conservative dominated group of people that supported Imran Khan calling for his pro-stances on TTP repeatedly until the military operation against TTP has been launched officially after TTP has killed more than 50,000 innocent people including children and women and destroyed infrastructures everywhere.

There is liberals where Jinnah (R.A) and Allama Iqbal (R.A) left legacy behind and there is extremists that becomes terrorists aka khawarij that opposed Pakistan and killed the family of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The choice is clear as sky.

It is like light vs dark. Liberal/Secular are the light [pro-life, progress, equality, knowledge] and conservative/extremists/terrorist/khawarij are the dark that prefers darkness literally.
 


Nice video. He's unfortunately right when he says that when the Pakistan movement was trying to garner support, some radical elements were given leeway to say and do what they wanted in order to gain more support. After Pakistan was created, the Objectives Resolution was passed, and it opened the floodgates for religion becoming a part of the state.
 
Unfortunately this is also going to be another one of a very long post and likely to test the reader’s patience, but there is a misconception about the creation of Pakistan that the matter cannot be dealt satisfactorily in any other way.

The problem is that majority of the younger generation of Pakistan do not know the “raison d’etre” or reason of existence of Pakistan. Mr Ali Mohammed Khan is obviously one such person. Since I was born before the partition and grew up reading ‘Zamindar’ newspaper of Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, who was one of the speakers on the 23rd March session, perhaps I am in a better position to know why Pakistan came into being in the first place.

First lest us agree as to what is implied when we refer to a secular state? As I understand, it means that a "Secular State is officially neutral in the matter of religion". In other words the state does not give preference / precedence nor discriminates her citizens on the basis of religion.

Neutrality does not mean that people are silent people about the religious basis of their convictions. What it requires is that articles of faith, or other substantive conceptions of the good life, do not carry any weight simply because they are matters of faith.

It also needs to be acknowledged that secularism is not and should not pretend to be "neutral" in various important respects. Most obviously, it clearly asserts the values that are widely shared among the otherwise diverse population, such as tolerance, freedom of expression, rule of law and so on. It can also treat different faiths and sects differently depending on how benign or malign they are. Nor does this kind of neutrality mean, in effect, always imposing one set of values on everyone.

Therefore despite whatever her constitution says, in its true sense of the word; India under the BJP and the Hiduvta government is no longer a secular state.

Now let us read the Lahore Resolution. It must be clear that the name “Pakistan” was never mentioned or referred to in the resolution or by any of the speakers.

The Resolution

On March 23, A.K. Fazul Haq, the Chief Minister of Bengal, moved the historical Lahore Resolution. The Resolution consisted of five paragraphs and each paragraph was only one sentence long. Although clumsily worded, it delivered a clear message. The resolution declared:


“While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd of February 1940, on the constitutional issue, this session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of Federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935 is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939, made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935 is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguard shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

This session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary”.

Besides many others, the Resolution was seconded by Chaudhary Khaliquzzam from UP, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan from Punjab, Sardar Aurangzeb from the N. W. F. P, Sir Abdullah Haroon from Sindh, and Qazi Muhammad Esa from Baluchistan. Those who seconded the resolution, in their speeches declared the occasion as a historic one. The Resolution was eventually passed on the last day of the moot, i.e. March 24.

Now let us re-visit the address of the Quaid E Azam MA Jinnah of 11Th august, 1947

“I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. 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.”

It is obvious that Quaid’s concept of Pakistan was very close to what a secular state should be. Primarily because the real motivation behind the creation of Pakistan was that Muslims being only about 25% of the British India, there was a genuine fear that an overwhelming Hindu majority would / could ramrod Hindu cultural values such as a ban slaughtering the cows or a ban on Azaan sometime in the future. Pakistan was never meant to be a “Theocratic” Islamic State such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Religious parties on the other hand were against the partition. No mullah or member of the religious parties was involved in drafting or preparation of the Lahore Resolution.

The following is the full list of the 25 original, formally designated members of the Special Working Committee of the All India Muslim League, 1940, which met between 21 and 24 March 1940, and which largely drafted the Lahore Resolution.

· Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah

· Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan

· Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan

· Sir Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot

· Amir Ahmed Khan Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad

· Maulvi A.K. Fazlul Huq

· Sir Abdullah Haroon

· Al-Hajj Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin

· Amjadi Bano Begum ( Wife of Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauahr)

· Molana Muhammad Akram Khan

· Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman

· Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan

· Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim

· Ali Muhammad Khan Dehlvi

· Qazi Muhammad Isa

· Sardar Aurangzeb Khan

· Abdul Mateen Chauhdry

· Ashiq Mohamed Warsi

· Haji Abdus Sattar Essak Saith

· S.M. Sharif

· Syed Abdul Rauf Shah

· Mohammad Latif ur Rahman

· Abdul Rehman Siddiqui

· Malik Barkat Ali

· Sadullah Khan Umarzai


Whereas that non-Muslims could also live happily on Quaid’s Pakistan; PTI would like to rid of ‘Secularist’ as well !
This reminds me a song by Munni Begum where one of the verses was:

“Jab bhi Gulistan ko Lahoo ki zaroorat pari, subse pehle to gardan hamari kati. Ab ye kahtey hein hum se ahle chaman, ye chaman hai hamaraa tumhara nahien” meaning whenever the garden needed, our blood was used as fertiliser. Now the residents are claiming that the garden is not ours but theirs alone.

P.S.
Finally, I would like to say that I am a liberal, not a secularist. I would discriminate against non-Muslims but to the extent that positions of President, Prime Minister, Head of the Armed forces, Governors & Chief Ministers of the provinces and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be restricted to Muslims only.

In my opinion, nothing that Jinnah said in the speech you've quoted is against what is taught in Islam. Your thoughts on Jinnah's speech where he said that 'Pakistan should be based on Islamic Socialism'?

May I ask why you may prefer a secular or liberal or liberal secular system over a system based on Shariah/Quranic laws? Does Islam, as per your personal understanding (& not what someone tells you), teaches persecution of minorities and takes away their rights?

Blasphemy laws aside, for this question, what kind of relaxations in the Islamic laws would you like to see in Pakistan, as a liberal? Please be specific and provide reference to countries where such relaxations are in place.
None of the liberals here give very specific and detailed answers when asked this.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom