What comes first?Nation or religion?

[Pride]

its clear buddy agar PAKISTAN main koi hindu sik ya cristian se yeh

sawal poocha jaye tu woh b Nation he kahe ga coz

May b un ka religion un ko yeh ijazat de ga.liken Pakistan keh

muslims yahi kaheinge keh Religion 1st !! and it will be always !!

ab tum logon keh liye na ho tu wat can i say ?






For u people Nationalism would be a biggest agenda than religion.

But for us Religion is more then Nation More then family More then

any thing u can imagen !!

Got it ? if not then go and take a Bath

Yes for us nationalism is bigger than religion and we all accept that and hence we are still integrated even with 14 languages and 28 states.. you need to check your back..

You are coming from the same ideology of Gen Zia-ul-Haq hence nothing can be made you understood. Anyways, you are not mature enough to discuss all this hence no further discussion on this issue from my end.

 

[Pukhtoon]

ok...let me ask a question. if indian muslims kill pakistanis hindu then u will be on which side??? will u fight against them or will u join them?? lets be frank

i will see the reason there !!

 

[nightcrawler]

Had religion been too much a dominant force we would not have a WW1&WW2

 

[Musalman]

Religion. We are nation coz of our religion !!!

 

[ChannaVey]

^^^

Bang! We have a veto power on your progress.

 

[s90]

religion is more important

pakistanis became one nation due to the bond of religion,

pakistanis who say nation first, dont know about their countrry pakistan in the first place and its history

Don't forget 1971.

 

[T-Faz]

So, from "Official Islamic Stance", now you have changed it into "Official Stance of Islamic Parties"

Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand.

Islamic parties of India did use that stance and they were correct that an Islamic state cannot be created in this manner. But they were assuming it all wrong, Pakistan was not going to be an Islamic state but rather a country for the Muslim of India based on a democratic system.

So what I said is true for both of those.

 

[G W A D A R I]

If somebody say religion comes 1st than some so-called secular minds come up with imposing their thoughts on peoples which is an unsecular type of stuff. (my observation by reading previous posts)

Everybody stating their point of view which does not means that every Pakistani have same understading.

logically who come first:
Let me guess the smell of the question :-
Compare Religious Hero and National Hero
a comparison between Prophet (pbuh) and Hazrat Quaid-e-Azam. religion v/s nation.
Is it good thing?

Religion and Nation both are important and both are essential - are totally different things so please take a good care of your words while replying to this thread.
Long live Islam
Long live Pakistan

 

[Comet]

Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand.

Islamic parties of India did use that stance and they were correct that an Islamic state cannot be created in this manner. But they were assuming it all wrong, Pakistan was not going to be an Islamic state but rather a country for the Muslim of India based on a democratic system.

So what I said is true for both of those.

Yes, I am the stupid one. I don't understand things. duh!

The stance taken by "Islamic Parties" at that time was purely political and had nothing to do with Islam.

"Islamic parties of India did use that stance and they were correct that an Islamic state cannot be created in this manner."

Please elaborate this. Why were they correct? why an Islamic country cannot be created in this sense?

 

[Comet]

ok...let me ask a question. if indian muslims kill pakistanis hindu then u will be on which side??? will u fight against them or will u join them?? lets be frank

Silly Question

If a Muslims kills an innocent he is at fault and shall be prosecuted. Do you really think that being a Muslim one would be let go of his / her misdeeds? Are you saying that we Muslims take sides without considering Morals?

 

[mohan goyal]

Silly Question

If a Muslims kills an innocent he is at fault and shall be prosecuted. Do you really think that being a Muslim one would be let go of his / her misdeeds? Are you saying that we Muslims take sides without considering Morals?

let me simplify for you...let in case of indo-pakistan war. what u will do??

 

[kugga]

let me simplify for you...let in case of indo-pakistan war. what u will do??

Khoon ki batlain jama karwaaein gay Lolz...

In India Pakistan War we will support our Army ..

 

[Comet]

let me simplify for you...let in case of indo-pakistan war. what u will do??

We would do any thing and every thing to protect ourselves and our homes from any aggression. If, in doing so, some Muslims are killed because they are part of the aggression party, then its their fault. They shouldn't have joined the Aggressors in the first place.

 

[mohan goyal]

We would do any thing and every thing to protect ourselves and our homes from any aggression. If, in doing so, some Muslims are killed because they are part of the aggression party, then its their fault. They shouldn't have joined the Aggressors in the first place.

thank you..i got my answers

 

[T-Faz]

Yes, I am the stupid one. I don't understand things. duh!

The stance taken by "Islamic Parties" at that time was purely political and had nothing to do with Islam.

"Islamic parties of India did use that stance and they were correct that an Islamic state cannot be created in this manner."

Please elaborate this. Why were they correct? why an Islamic country cannot be created in this sense?

How can something an Islamic political party say or does could not have anything to do with Islam. They are Islamic parties and they used the pretext of Islam to suit their political needs. So when they used this reason against the creation of Pakistan, it had everything to do with Islam. Its like some people representing a company, what they do or say is seen by others as actions of the company itself. Now you might say that religion is not a business, but the Pakistani High Court itself compared Islam to Coca Cola in the early 90's.

As for your questions, they (Islamic Parties) were correct because an Islamic state is a theocracy encompassing the Ummah under Khilafat. Pakistan wasn't certainly going to encompass the whole Ummah and its leadership certainly wasn't the Khilafat. Thus a Nation-State such as Pakistan cannot be an Islamic state, an Islamic republic perhaps not an Islamic state and it was not going to be one either. Shariah law does not have a political parties or voting and such other things. In the Pakistan being envisioned at that time, all of that was to occur and so it was disliked by the hardline religious elements.

This is what Maududi wrote in those day.

1) An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.

2) Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state "should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.

3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."

As you know Jinnah was all for equality between different minorities and this was another point that irked these people. We had many non Muslims in higher positions chosen by Jinnah himself. Everyone interprets religious text and examples differently, the Islamic political parties opposed the idea of Pakistan as their views clashed with what Pakistan was being built up to be.