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

[VCheng]

Indeed.

The universal opposition of virtually every significant religious group in Undivided India, indeed the entire Muslim religious establishment to Jinnah's Pakistan movement and the Muslim League cannot be reconciled with any idea of religious origins of Pakistan. This is just one of many paradoxes that anyone who thinks of that the true reason for the creation of Pakistan was to establish a religious 'Islamic state', must unravel.


Maulana Maududi, The Mullah in Chief and the most vociferous opponent of Mr. Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement had in fact himself admitted (before the creation of Pakistan) that Jinnah was not struggling for an Islamic Pakistan. From the Horse's mouth:


It was not clear either from any resolution of the Muslim League or from the speeches of any responsible League leaders, that the ultimate aim of Pakistan is the establishment of an Islamic government..... [Maududi, Muslims and Present Struggle, part three, p 131]

and

Not a single leader of the Muslim League, from Quad-i-Azam, downwards, has Islamic mentality and Islamic thinking or they see the things from Islamic point of view. [Ibid p 37]

This is exactly why the Objectives Resolution represents such a gross hijacking of Pakistan's founding ideals, as soon as Jinnah died. It must be repealed if Pakistan is to live up to its ideals.

 

[M. Sarmad]

This is exactly why the Objectives Resolution represents such a gross hijacking of Pakistan's founding ideals, as soon as Jinnah died. It must be repealed if Pakistan is to live up to its ideals.

Indeed

Maulana Maududi rejected the very idea of Indian Muslim Nationalism (TNT) that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan. He described the idea of Muslim Nationalism as unlikely as a ”chaste prostitute” ... (Abul Ala Maudoodi, Mussalman Aur Maujooda Syasi Kashmakash, quoted in K. K.Aziz, The Making of Pakistan, p. 148.). He strongly opposed Jinnah and his Pakistan Movement. But once Pakistan was created, Maududi (In February 1948, while addressing the Law College, Lahore) demanded that :

The sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.



Now read the Objectives Resolution (passed shortly after the death of Jinnah). The first clause reads as:

Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.



That's why Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya (a Hindu Member of the Constituent Assembly)said :

"What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land."


Jinnah's Pakistan unfortunately became Maududi's Pakistan in 1949 with the passing of the Objectives Resolution

 

[VCheng]

Jinnah's Pakistan unfortunately became Maududi's Pakistan in 1949 with the passing of the Objectives Resolution

And now look at it today, sad but predictably so.

Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone

And all other nations' sovereignty is neatly negated too? It only makes Pakistan look outlandish.

 

[Finer]

Answer: For power and personal gains!

No need to be a freethinker to figure out that one!

On bold; debatable.

You are free-thinker in a sense considering you offer your opinion that is thoroughly your own work. In closed-minded society, you don't have that luxury. Just ask minority who are charged under Blasphemy law.

Bear in mind that Jinnah did quit political party where religion was getting involved that could have unbalanced Muslims in politics and in general.

'To you your religion, and to me my religion!'

As for what will happen in Pakistan, wait and see. Whatever Allah has destined for us, it will happen and no religious extremists, liberals and seculars will be able to do anything about it.

Sadly, you haven't understood the context of the verse.

"To you is your religion and to me is my religion" means i cannot enforce my religion against your will nor you can enforce your religion against my will.

Right now, Liberals are just voicing their opinions while majority conservative are trying to enforce their laws against the wills of liberals and anyone who disagree.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

can

You believe there is a such thing as "Freedom of Speech", you chose to believe a lie. I know the truth, freedom is limited, always has and will be. Plus, I'm not anti-Semite, I'm anti-Zion.

 

[I.R.A]

Jinnah declared categorically that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state. Did he say that Pakistan would not be secular state ?

Denying or refusing a theocracy doesn't automatically translate into a secular state, when example of historic Islamic state exists. Did Jinnah categorically said that Pakistan would be a secular state?

Also please tell us how Jinnah's Muslim Pakistan is "opposite" of Secular when in Jinnah's own words the fundamental principle we started with was that everyone was equal citizen of the state, and (belonging to any) religion had nothing to do with the business of the state ?

This is where people take things out of context and try relating something to Jinnah that he never intended. When Jinnah made that speech train loads of dead Muslims of sub continent were sent to Pakistan. The situation was such that Hindus living in region of Pakistan feared a reprisal from Muslims and to console them and guarantee protection of their lives, property and wealth Jinnah made that speech.

What makes people believe that an Islamic state would discriminate between humans when Islam and Quran came to liberate these very humans from oppression and exploitation? So an Islamic Pakistan would have treated its citizens equally based on their strengths and intellect.

And Jinnah used to describe Pakistan as a "Muslim state", not as "Islamic State":

If he really used to do that then why would he worry about minorities of Pakistan? A Muslims' state is what we have today so all of you should be happy with it why complain?

"The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan."

Pakistan has no concrete system or direction buzzwords have little meaning in Pakistan here religious laws like blood money are abused by those who cant even say kalima(waderay kay betas)
When you say you want to get rid of them you get labels well i saw with my own eyes an accident by a careless driver brushed under the rug using the law for just Rs 25000 kiya ye hay insan ki qeemat?
Kiya is key khilaf na bolein?
How many countries have it?

If you want to fight against Muslims' Pakistan then fight it with Islamic Pakistan. Believe me answer to your every concern is there in that and they won't be able to counter it.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Denying or refusing a theocracy doesn't automatically translate into a secular state, when example of historic Islamic state exists. Did Jinnah categorically said that Pakistan would be a secular state?

So you admit that Jinnah categorically declared that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state, but he did not declare that Pakistan would not be a secular state !!.

As for the historic Islamic state you are talking about, please quote Jinnah's exact words in which he referred to that Islamic state. And if he didn't make any direct reference to it, please explain it to us that why didn't he ever quote the example of that historic Islamic state before or after the creation of Pakistan, if Pakistan (as you claim) was meant to be a recreation/reenactment of that Islamic state.

This is where people take things out of context and try relating something to Jinnah that he never intended. When Jinnah made that speech train loads of dead Muslims of sub continent were sent to Pakistan. The situation was such that Hindus living in region of Pakistan feared a reprisal from Muslims and to console them and guarantee protection of their lives, property and wealth Jinnah made that speech.

What makes people believe that an Islamic state would discriminate between humans when Islam and Quran came to liberate these very humans from oppression and exploitation? So an Islamic Pakistan would have treated its citizens equally based on their strengths and intellect.

I don't know what you mean by taking things out of context. In words of Hector Bolitho, Jinnah's official biographer, that was the greatest speech of Jinnah's life. And It is important to remember that this speech was not made by the Quaid-i-Azam at a press conference nor in any reception given in his honour; but was the official proclamation of the policy of the new State, made in its Constituent Assembly, in the presence of the members who were expected to draw the constitution for the State of Pakistan and to define the fundamental rights of her people.

As for your other point, I do agree with you. Jinnah's Muslim Pakistan does not discriminate between its citizens on the basis of religion. Maududi's Islamic Pakistan (that we are today, unfortunately), however, does so.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Go to hell PTI, in next election, imran khan will also lose his alone seat from Rawalpindi. This is not PTI which we expected. PTI has no future. It is becoming past

 

[I.R.A]

So you admit that Jinnah categorically declared that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state, but he did not declare that Pakistan would not be a secular state !!.

I said

Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan and not a secular or a theocratic Pakistan. People need to understand Islamic Pakistan is nor theocratic neither it is secular, but it is opposite of both.

And

Denying or refusing a theocracy doesn't automatically translate into a secular state

As for the historic Islamic state you are talking about, please quote Jinnah's exact words in which he referred to that Islamic state. And if he didn't make any direct reference to it, please explain it to us that why didn't he ever quote the example of that historic Islamic state before or after the creation of Pakistan, if Pakistan (as you claim) was meant to be a recreation/reenactment of that Islamic state.

I quoted Quaid's words

I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody.

I agree its not a direct reference but referring to something like "taught us democracy, equality, justice and fairplay", cannot be out of thin air there must have existed something that had all this in practice? What was it? The 24:55 in reality spreading over million of square miles and people of different region, class and color.

 

[MIRZA TAUQEER BAIG]

PTI patcheer party

 

[M. Sarmad]

I agree its not a direct reference but referring to something like "taught us democracy, equality, justice and fairplay", cannot be out of thin air there must have existed something that had all this in practice? What was it? The 24:55 in reality spreading over million of square miles and people of different region, class and color.

Ever wondered why Jinnah made no such reference ? State of Medina was not a "state" in the modern sense of the word. And Khilafat (Pan-Islamism) was something Jinnah was strongly opposed to. Nation State itself is a modern western concept. The whole idea of Indian Muslim Nationalism developed by Sir Syed and Aligarians that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan was inspired by the political theories of John Locke, Milton and Thomas Paine. Orthodox Muslims had rejected this idea outright.

Democracy and Absolute Equality of mankind are not Islamic ideals in the eyes of Orthodox Muslims. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a modern democratic welfare state and he believed that Islam taught us democracy and absolute equality. Jinnah's Muslim Pakistan was supposed to be secular in the sense that Religion was not to be the business of the state but an individual choice. Jinnah, just like Iqbal, didn't find the idea of separation of state and church to be in contradiction with the true spirit of Islam.

 

[Zibago]

Denying or refusing a theocracy doesn't automatically translate into a secular state, when example of historic Islamic state exists. Did Jinnah categorically said that Pakistan would be a secular state?



This is where people take things out of context and try relating something to Jinnah that he never intended. When Jinnah made that speech train loads of dead Muslims of sub continent were sent to Pakistan. The situation was such that Hindus living in region of Pakistan feared a reprisal from Muslims and to console them and guarantee protection of their lives, property and wealth Jinnah made that speech.

What makes people believe that an Islamic state would discriminate between humans when Islam and Quran came to liberate these very humans from oppression and exploitation? So an Islamic Pakistan would have treated its citizens equally based on their strengths and intellect.




If he really used to do that then why would he worry about minorities of Pakistan? A Muslims' state is what we have today so all of you should be happy with it why complain?

"The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fairplay to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan."



If you want to fight against Muslims' Pakistan then fight it with Islamic Pakistan. Believe me answer to your every concern is there in that and they won't be able to counter it.

who is fighting with Islam?Most Muslims countries dont have that law and they have a fair system

PTI patcheer party

Pmln=bjp,p Pakistan wing

 

[I.R.A]

who is fighting with Islam?Most Muslims countries dont have that law and they have a fair system

If you are asking my personal opinion regarding Pakistan, its government, its laws and Pakistanis............. most people won't like it. Its useless to talk about people who focus more on Khanzeer is haram but forget corruption etc. is as much haram as khanzeer ........... and we know where we Pakistanis stand on both these things. Expecting to understand Quranic concept of blood money from such people is well ...........

 

[I.R.A]

Ever wondered why Jinnah made no such reference ?

Nobody can answer that with absolute authority.

State of Medina was not a "state" in the modern sense of the word.

Obviously times have changed human mind has evolved, needs are different .......... but still whatever you may wish to call it, it was a system addressing needs of people.

And Khilafat (Pan-Islamism) was something Jinnah was strongly opposed to.

Which one Sadar e Awal or the ones like last Abbasid one?

Nation State itself is a modern western concept.

Governing of populace is as old as humans can get. So call that governing of people a state, a nation or a khilafat what difference does it make as long as its deriving its laws from immutable principles laid down in Quran?

The whole idea of Indian Muslim Nationalism developed by Sir Syed and Aligarians that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan was inspired by the political theories of John Locke, Milton and Thomas Paine.

I can't comment on this.

Orthodox Muslims had rejected this idea outright.

Orthodox Muslims were mislead by Mullah.

Democracy and Absolute Equality of mankind are not Islamic ideals in the eyes of Orthodox Muslims.

I am no advocate of orthodox Muslims yar. Their acts and disagreeing to anything doesn't make something Islamic or non Islamic. We got the book and we should see what that book has to tell us.

Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a modern democratic welfare state and he believed that Islam taught us democracy and absolute equality.

So he was a person who was following Quran in its true spirit.

Jinnah's Muslim Pakistan was supposed to be secular in the sense that Religion was not to be the business of the state but an individual choice.

I think state doesn't hold congregations to make non Muslims recite Shahdah? If that is the only concern? However I will disagree as far as if anyone wants governors of Pakistan to not to derive laws from immutable laws of Quran.

Jinnah, just like Iqbal, didn't find the idea of separation of state and church to be in contradiction with the true spirit of Islam.

I believe this was Iqbal

"Jalal-E-Padshahi Ho K Jamhoori Tamasha Ho
Juda Ho Deen Siasat Se To Reh Jati Hai Changaizi "

I will leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what Iqbal may have thought.

 

[Verve]

@I.R.A Let them dream of their secular Pakistan. They are just frustrated as the majority doesn't give a damn about their shrieking.