The quest of the ultra religious right and liberal left to destroy Pakistan

[El Sidd]

Allah kareem hai...kabhi tu jaeygi.

ab wo to har cheez faani hai laken mardh kahan khatam hota hai.

 

[fitpOsitive]

ab wo to har cheez faani hai laken mardh kahan khatam hota hai.

Vaccine aany ka intazar hai.

 

[El Sidd]

Vaccine aany ka intazar hai.

i know many Germans who would refuse it.

 

[fitpOsitive]

i know many Germans who would refuse it.

I am talking about other germans.

 

[El Sidd]

I am talking about other germans.

I don't pick and choose between Germans

 

[fitpOsitive]

I don't pick and choose between Germans

They do actually. Next time se daikh samajh k peena, kahin jamal ghota na mila hoa ho.

 

[El Sidd]

They do actually. Next time se daikh samajh k peena, kahin jamal ghota na mila hoa ho.

ap jese nek niyyat log jab dua go rehte hon to fikar or sochna kam parta hai. shukar karte hain rab ka is naimat ka ke aap jese jholi me a giray

 

[fitpOsitive]

ap jese nek niyyat log jab dua go rehte hon to fikar or sochna kam parta hai. shukar karte hain rab ka is naimat ka ke aap jese jholi me a giray

Bta raha hon aapko. Dua nahi hai yeh meri.

 

[El Sidd]

Bta raha hon aapko. Dua nahi hai yeh meri.

nekniyyati dua hoti hai.

 

[niaz]

You are forgetting the role of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Jamaat Ali Shah, Pir of Manki Shareef and other like minded individuals. Claiming that all Mullahs were against partition is factually and logically absurd, to say the least.

Should I quote speeches of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and other Muslim league leaders who were acting like Mullahs and in some instances more right winged than Mullahs themselves. The whole narrative of Muhammad Ali Jinnah revolved around communal differences.



Our founding fathers adopted a narrative which was poles apart from western liberal thought. It is not that, Quaid only spoke on August 11, 1947, not before that and not after that. On countless occasions he presented the communal narrative of Muslim league.

Why should we follow a single speech and neglect the whole narrative of a personality?


Jihad against infidels and their followers.

Honorable Sir,

Yes, there were a few Muslim religious leaders who supported Mulsim League and the partition but these were few and far between. Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani joined Mulsim League in 1944, Pir Manki Sharif joined Muslim League in 1945. Pir Syed Jamaat Ali Shah was probably the earliest convert to the idea of Pakistan as he started supporting the Quaid in the early 1940s. All of the above notables were, however, late converts to the Pakistan movent and the two-nation theory,

Their contribution notwithstanding (and admittedly important), only an ignorant would deny that majority of the Jamiat Ulema-e- Hind, with Sheikhul Hind Maulana Hasan Madani in particular; strongly opposed the partition along with Jamaat Isami & Majlis Ahrar.

You need not trouble to quote me the great Quaid's speeches. Since my late father was an activist of the Muslim League during his student days and an ardent fan of Mohammaed Ali Jinnah Sahib, we had the Quaid's "Speeches & Writings" collected & edited by Jamiluddin Ahmad in the form of a book in our house. In case you are not aware nearly all of his speeches were in English. Alas, I am not sure which of my 6 brothers has that nook now or if it is at all in our family possession now. My point was only to say that in no way you are better acquainted with his idea about Pakistan.

You are of course welcome to your views, my only comment being that it is because of the section of the society who follow your way of thinking that the bigot Zia's legacy survives and extremism & Jihadism thrives in Pakistan.

 

[El Sidd]

Honorable Sir,

Yes, there were a few Muslim religious leaders who supported Mulsim League and the partition but these were few and far between. Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani joined Mulsim League in 1944, Pir Manki Sharif joined Muslim League in 1945. Pir Syed Jamaat Ali Shah was probably the earliest convert to the idea of Pakistan as he started supporting the Quaid in the early 1940s. All of the above notables were, however, late converts to the Pakistan movent and the two-nation theory,

Their contribution notwithstanding (and admittedly important), only an ignorant would deny that majority of the Jamiat Ulema-e- Hind, with Sheikhul Hind Maulana Hasan Madani in particular; strongly opposed the partition along with Jamaat Isami & Majlis Ahrar.

You need not trouble to quote me the great Quaid's speeches. Since my late father was an activist of the Muslim League during his student days and an ardent fan of Mohammaed Ali Jinnah Sahib, we had the Quaid's "Speeches & Writings" collected & edited by Jamiluddin Ahmad in the form of a book in our house. In case you are not aware nearly all of his speeches were in English. Alas, I am not sure which of my 6 brothers has that nook now or if it is at all in our family possession now. My point was only to say that in no way you are better acquainted with his idea about Pakistan.

You are of course welcome to your views, my only comment being that it is because of the section of the society who follow your way of thinking that the bigot Zia's legacy survives and extremism & Jihadism thrives in Pakistan.

Since when do Muslims keep the concept of Church?

It doesn't take a PhD in "Indian" history to do the Muslim thing.

However you can debate if doing the Muslim thing makes one a Mullah.

 

[Mutakalim]

Urdu is the national language whether some accept it or not. As a young country, all the group's you mention share in its short history and several wars together. They also share centuries of colonial rule, history of partition and struggle for independence (regardless of how much they were involved). There is more in common than you'd like to think.

In any case, multi cultural states are nothing new in the world. They work because of shared patriotism not religion.

I don't know about the Christian experience, but in Islam, rebellion started in the 7th century. And everyone claimed to be on the straight path. A religion based state cannot put limits on religion, which means any Imam has muscle to beat the state. Why I say statecraft and religion don't go together.

Sorry your visa argument is weak. It proves rule of law is more important than religion in practice.

Ps. Your point about Baloch nationalists etc works against Islam being a uniting force as it does against multi ethnicity.

You are ready to accept all similarities and common things, without much criticism. However, the only thing which is not acceptable to you is the capability of Deen to unite different factions into one nation. Communism can unite different countries, secularism can unite different factions, however, Islam doesn't posses that capability.

I dont know how a second language can unite two different groups but a common ideology cannot? How can shared history has more effect than shared beliefs?

All the shared things which you have listed are the direct result of shared deen. Urdu is the language of Muslims of subcontinent, their major religious, cultural and historical works are all written in this language. The antipathy of Hindus towards this language is not a hidden thing.

What was the effect of rebellion that started in 7th century? Did they kicked out religion from the statecraft? Did they adopted secularism? They dominated the world for 1000 years without ever hearing a thing about secularism.

The only thing which can curb these absurd ethno nationalistic sentiments, in case of Pakistan, is the religion.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Since the 1980s, Pakistan has suffered at the hands of the ultra religious mullahs and the ultra liberal lefties in trying to destroy Pakistan. Although both originate from the two polar opposites of the political spectrum, they both have formed a Hegelian Dialectic in trying to destroy Pakistan from within. Both have the same aims in that they want Pakistan to become a vassel state for foreigners where Pakistan can never pursue it's own interest. The religious loonies want Pakistan to be a slave nation to the Arabs and Gulfis wheras the loony left want Pakistan to become a slave nation to india and the west. Both courses of action are unacceptable and if successful, will result in Pakistan becoming the most poorest nation on earth. Another thing that the religious right and lefty liberals both have in common is they greatly fear Pakistani nationalism and self-determination. They both fear Pakistan becoming successful and powerful.

In order to make Pakistan powerful and succesful, I propose the following:

(1) Pakistani nationalism and patriotism becomes the driving force of our country. The blood of EVERY single Pakistani regardless of religion or belief is sacred.

(2) Pakistan INDEPENDENTLY pursues WHATEVER is in our best interest in order to make Pakistan ultra powerful and successsful free from the constraints of whatever non-Pakistanis think or say. Free from the constraints of low IQ mullah retards or treacherous lefty liberals.

(3) We will do WHATEVER is in our interests to liquidate and destroy our ONLY enemy who wishes for the death and destruction of the Pakistani nation and people.

(4) Every Pakistani regardless of religion or belief should be entitled to world-class health care, education, housing, a job and a pension.

(5) Pakistan will do WHATEVER it takes to make Pakistan INTO a fully developed nation regardless of how long it takes or how painful it may be.

(6) Every single Pakistani is equal in the eyes of the law. There will be 0 difference between a Pakistani Muslim, Christain, Hindu, Sikh, Jewish or even devil-worshipping Pakistani.

(7) Anyone found betraying the Pakistani cause should be immediately executed.

(8) We need to strive to make Pakistan corruption free no matter the cost.


What are the thoughts of you guys?

Both can be found partying in the underground nooks and crannies of Pakistan. Quite often. Sometimes together at the same spot.

 

[Mutakalim]

Wow! I did not know that Broken and Dead have the same meanings! Kindly quote my post saying 'Ummah is dead'!

I dont have any objection if you are saying that Ummah is broken not dead. My argument was against the notion that Ummah doesn't exist and we should get rid of Quranic concept of Ummah.

The statement I made is backed by Quran and Hadith. Those who start bidaat and/or wrongful acts and their followers in those bidaat and wrongful acts are committing sins. Those who start or introduce these acts will bear the sins of their followers too! On the judgement day, the followers will ask for increase of punishment for their leaders/ancestors who started those acts - references to this shouldn't be too difficult for you to find, I hope.

My objection is not on the verdict of Quran and Hadith (Naoz o Billah). My objection is on the conclusion which you are driving. Claiming that whole of Ummah is biddati and sinful is wrong and extrapolation of highest degree.

First, you made a definition of biddat in your mind, then you applied that definition to act of some individuals and a state, without regarding the difference of opinion that might exist. Then you are claiming that all of their followers are biddati and sinful. Moreover, not only their immediate followers, but all followers of 4 school are sinful because they belonged to a similar school.

Please enlighten me, what Muslims of central Asia had to do with decisions made by few individuals in Hijaz? How they were responsible for acts of few individuals?

Exaggeration of this magnitude was only the hallmark of Khwarij. ISIS and Pakistani Taliban did the same thing. They think that only they are true followers of Quran and everyone else is biddati and Zandeeq.

Quran and Hadith translation are within easy access to everyone. As long as one is not illiterate, they should learn directly from. There is no excuse of 'I did not know this was a bidaat' etc, and 'my elders did this and I will continue to do this as well' ... your statement above sounds like justification of a follower.

I agree with your above statement.

Kindly study history. Before the 4 mussalas were removed, it was claimed to be ijema as this wrong act was uninterrupted for hundreds of years, until the Saudis removed them. Given a choice today by Saudis, these 4 mussalas would be put back immediately (coming back to fissures)!

Who claimed that placing 4 Mussalas in Masjid e Haram was Ijma?

And a large number of sunni individuals/so-called ulema are NOT highlighting this, intentionally. Whichever sunni sect you belong to, please get a fatwa from your top so-called ulema that praying behind all sunni sects imams and all sunni sects mosque is totally acceptable and valid.

He won't do that (& if he does, he will be thrown out of that sect). It will damage his sect's chanda collection shop! But do try and see how you are treated (don't expect tea and sweets though)!

As far as my experience goes, majority of scholars from all sects accepted this in front of me. Nonetheless, my belief doesn't depend upon acceptance or rejection of few individuals.

 

[Mutakalim]

Honorable Sir,

Yes, there were a few Muslim religious leaders who supported Mulsim League and the partition but these were few and far between. Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani joined Mulsim League in 1944, Pir Manki Sharif joined Muslim League in 1945. Pir Syed Jamaat Ali Shah was probably the earliest convert to the idea of Pakistan as he started supporting the Quaid in the early 1940s. All of the above notables were, however, late converts to the Pakistan movent and the two-nation theory,

Their contribution notwithstanding (and admittedly important), only an ignorant would deny that majority of the Jamiat Ulema-e- Hind, with Sheikhul Hind Maulana Hasan Madani in particular; strongly opposed the partition along with Jamaat Isami & Majlis Ahrar.

Sir,

I am delighted that you have revised your previous view that "Mullahs were against the partition."

Significant portion of them were supporting Pakistan and two nation theory. These are just three names, other big names can also be found with little effort. A significant portion of Ulema always remained anti Hindu and specially anti congress. There were those Ulema who rejected the policies and views of Khilafat leaders. We can not deny contributions of that group.

You need not trouble to quote me the great Quaid's speeches. Since my late father was an activist of the Muslim League during his student days and an ardent fan of Mohammaed Ali Jinnah Sahib, we had the Quaid's "Speeches & Writings" collected & edited by Jamiluddin Ahmad in the form of a book in our house. In case you are not aware nearly all of his speeches were in English. Alas, I am not sure which of my 6 brothers has that nook now or if it is at all in our family possession now. My point was only to say that in no way you are better acquainted with his idea about Pakistan.

This nation will always remain in debt of contributions of your father and some Mullahs.

You are of course welcome to your views, my only comment being that it is because of the section of the society who follow your way of thinking that the bigot Zia's legacy survives and extremism & Jihadism thrives in Pakistan.

I dont follow Zia and his thinking. He was a dictator and contributed significantly towards the mess which we find ourselves in.