What's new

Two Opposing Terms: Islamic and Republic

My dear all I am asking is that how a person who claims to be struggling for the establishment of an Islamic state can appoint a Qadiani as the first foreign minister of that state and then appoint a Hindu as its 1st law minister who will ensure the Islamic state's adherence to Quranic law? I think this is either too funny or true tragic to be true.

What the conservatives , while trying to portray Jinnah as a Islamist , forget is the simple fact that Jinnah was a Shia himself ... And that too a Ismaili Shia !!! If he was too much into the religion , then that was surely opposite to the "Sunni" type Islamic Pakistan of today ....

More than 50 percent of Pakistanis believe that Shia Muslims are "Kaafirs" infact ....

So by that standards , Jinnah himself was a "Kaafir"
He appointed another "Kaafir" as the first president of the constituent assembly of Pakistan
And a third "Kaafir" was appointed as the foreign Minister ....

Yet the conservatives "shamelessly" claim that Jinnah wanted a hardcore "Islamic" constitution and state ........ :disagree:
 
Last edited:
Islamic Republic of Khalifah

is same as

Communist Republic of Stalin

or

King's Republic of Uganda


In all these cases

People's fate is decided by divine or a monarch or some totalitarian guy with an iron fist.


Sadly some people want to continue living with such $tupid contradictory ideas that surely make a mockery of the very concept of "republic".


And those Mullahtics who want to trun Jinnah into yet another Khalifah tul Muslimoon

must get their heads examined by a competent shrink


I mean if Jinnah had announced just once that he will implement Sharia in Pakistan

all the Mullahs and Ayatullahs including Mullah mardoodi would have been dancing in the streets singing Jinnah zindabad songs.

But Jinnah never wanted to use Sharia

And

thus Mullah mardoodi types declared Pakistan as a non-country and Jinnah as Kafir.


So please do not give this Mullah-goolis now that Mardoodi is dead, and Jinnah has long left this earth.


Thank you.
 
What the conservatives , while trying to portray Jinnah as a Islamist , forget is the simple fact that Jinnah was a Shia himself ... And that too a Ismaili Shia !!! If he was too much into the religion , then that was surely opposite to the "Sunni" type Islamic Pakistan of today ....

More than 50 percent of Pakistanis believe that Shia Muslims are "Kaafirs" infact ....

So by that standards , Jinnah himself was a "Kaafir"
He appointed another "Kaafir" as the first president of the constituent assembly of Pakistan
And a third "Kaafir" was appointed as the foreign Minister ....

Yet the conservatives "shamelessly" claim that Jinnah wanted a hardcore "Islamic" constitution and state ........ :disagree:

Well I think you are mistaking me for a secular or liberal which I am alhamdulillah not rather I consider liberalism/secularism as kufr and disbelief ideology.

With respect to Jinnah my opposition's related to his liberal/modernist version of Islam which he wanted to establish in Pakistan. You might not know this but Jinnah himself established a govt dept named 'Dept of Islamic Reconstruction' and even appointed a revert Muslim Muhammad Asad former Leopold Weiss as its chairman and instructed him to prepare an 'Islamic' constitution for the newly founded state of Pakistan. Actually the main point here to see is that both Jinnah and Iqbal did believe in the ideology of the 'Islamic state' but their envisaged 'Islamic' state would not be exactly based on the Islam as interpreted and defined by the traditional orthodox 'Ulema' or 'Madrasas' but on rather their unique modernist and liberal interpretation of Islam that has been defined somewhat generally or broadly in Muhammad Asad's treatises that he wrote on the said subject specifically in context of Pakistan.

See:
Principles-of-State-and-Government-in-Islam-by-Muhammad Asad
Principles of State and Government in Islam by Muhammad Asad

This Law of Ours and Other Essays (1987)
Muhammad Asad_ 1987 This Law of Ours and Other Essays
 
Well I think you are mistaking me for a secular or liberal which I am alhamdulillah not rather I consider liberalism/secularism as kufr and disbelief ideology.

With respect to Jinnah my opposition's related to his liberal/modernist version of Islam which he wanted to establish in Pakistan. You might not know this but Jinnah himself established a govt dept named 'Dept of Islamic Reconstruction' and even appointed a revert Muslim Muhammad Asad former Leopold Weiss as its chairman and instructed him to prepare an 'Islamic' constitution for the newly founded state of Pakistan. Actually the main point here to see is that both Jinnah and Iqbal did believe in the ideology of the 'Islamic state' but their envisaged 'Islamic' state would not be exactly based on the Islam as interpreted and defined by the traditional orthodox 'Ulema' or 'Madrasas' but on rather their unique modernist and liberal interpretation of Islam that has been defined somewhat generally or broadly in Muhammad Asad's treatises that he wrote on the said subject specifically in context of Pakistan.

See:
Principles-of-State-and-Government-in-Islam-by-Muhammad Asad
Principles of State and Government in Islam by Muhammad Asad




This Law of Ours and Other Essays (1987)
Muhammad Asad_ 1987 This Law of Ours and Other Essays



Mullahs quoting Assad,

is like

Bible thumpers quoting charles darwin to explain how the world was made.


Assad a converted Jew was pretty quickly kicked out of Pakistan by the Islamists.

Assad was close to Jinnah and Jinnah respected him for his mainstream tolerant religious views.

But Mullahs like murdoodi hated his guts.

so before you quote Assad, please learn some history.

Assad won't touch Mullahs like Murdoodi with 10 foot pole and here you are quoting his views.



Thank you.
 
Last edited:
I don't see no contradiction in it. Republic means a state where a person is elected by people. And in Islamic law 'sharia law' a leader is also elected by the shura (which are people by the way).
However, in Pakistan as democracy is the system so it suits that too.
If you question the democratic system and its contradiction with islam... well, that is another story.
 
So the answer to all three questions is "NO" ....
It means Islam contradicts with UN Human Rights Declaration of 1948 and therefore Islam is incompatible with Democracy (in the sense the world understands and defines this "form of government")..... ????


Oh my GOD. Your argument does not make sense at ALL!

You don't seem to know what democracy is then.

How in the world Some foreign body's definition of human rights became an essential part of democracy?

It is not.

This is trolling now. Its not even an argument. It is trolling.
 
Oh my GOD. Your argument does not make sense at ALL!

You don't seem to know what democracy is then.

How in the world Some foreign body's definition of human rights became an essential part of democracy?

It is not.

This is trolling now. Its not even an argument. It is trolling.


FYI,

Every aspect of your life is being determined by a "foreign body".

The internet you use is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The electricity you use in your home is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The Iphone/android phone you use is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The medicine and medical techniques you use is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The universities you use are setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The food you eat is produced and processed using rules by a "foreign body".


I hope these are enough examples to show you that anyone living in 2013 civilized life (as opposed to living in a cave or forking monkeys in trees) is 110% dependent on foriegn bodies who setup every possible rule governing your life.

So in the same vain, bro!

Democratic ideals too are setup by foreign bodies.

And you ignore them only by risking your own and in some cases your nations life.


peace
 
FYI,

Every aspect of your life is being determined by a "foreign body".

The internet you use is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The electricity you use in your home is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The Iphone/android phone you use is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The medicine and medical techniques you use is setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The universities you use are setup using rules by a "foreign body".
The food you eat is produced and processed using rules by a "foreign body".


I hope these are enough examples to show you that anyone living in 2013 civilized life (as opposed to living in a cave or forking monkeys in trees) is 110% dependent on foriegn bodies who setup every possible rule governing your life.

So in the same vain, bro!

Democratic ideals too are setup by foreign bodies.

And you ignore them only by risking your own and in some cases your nations life.


peace


Oh my God. That is totally irrelevant troll post @_@....

First the whole argument is just bogus, and now you are coming up with irrelevant crap, to defend something irrational.

That says a lot about the "quality" of mind set and thought process that went into this "argument"



Foreign body's definition of this and that, is an essential part of democracy.

No it is not.

Well! Sun is a foreign body too!

I mean, do you see how absurd this whole argument is?

Seriously, you guys are trolling.


If you guys can come up with something academically sound and substantial Then it would be interesting, perhaps educational to listen to.

If coming up with absurd logic and chest thumping about mullahs is the best you guys can do, then you have nothing. except, trolling.
 
Well I think you are mistaking me for a secular or liberal which I am alhamdulillah not rather I consider liberalism/secularism as kufr and disbelief ideology

You may believe in what ever you want , but secularism is not "Kufr" or disbelief ...

If you guys can come up with something academically sound and substantial Then it would be interesting, perhaps educational to listen to.
If coming up with absurd logic and chest thumping about mullahs is the best you guys can do, then you have nothing. except, trolling.

So true ................ describes you very well ;)
 
I am not the one butchering the definition of democracy with absurd logic and building a castle over it....

Brother you are "exactly" the one who is "butchering the definition of democracy with absurd logic and building a castle over it" :rofl::rofl:

You want that I post for you , your "absurd" and childish understanding of democracy once again ????
 
Brother you are "exactly" the one who is "butchering the definition of democracy with absurd logic and building a castle over it" :rofl::rofl:

You want that I post for you , your "absurd" and childish understanding of democracy again ????

@_@

My God... The humanity...
 
1. Republic is a concept indigenous to the Western Christian Civilization (WCC). Plato and Aristotle, Locke and Hobbs,Machiavelli and Marx and Engels belongs to the WCC.

2.Islam has own political science and philosophy, own code of ethics,jurisprudence and the Shariah, and above all, The Holy Qu'oran.

3. "Islam" and"Republic" are mismatch if not contradictory. I believe Gaddafi and Mulla Omar had understood this.
 
Back
Top Bottom