Why is Imran Khan Endorsing Purana Pakistan?

[Zarvan]

At some point the free minded thinking that Imran Khan brings to the table he will have to move Pakistan towards this. But Pakistani mentality is that of an immature child when it comes to this issue.

He does NOT have to declare Ahmadis muslims... He just needs to say that the constitution does not recognize anyone to be Muslim or not, or of any other religion or not. The constitution accepts whatever religion you claim yourself to be.

Of course if he does that now, its akin to just committing political suicide. May be possible in the next 100 years. Not in present day Pakistan.

Sorry Sir if a person comes and claims to be Muslim he has to be asked about basic pillars of Iman and if he doesn't believe that HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW is the last prophet than he is lying and he is not a Muslim and naya Pakistan will be made by better economy better job opportunities better education and better health facilities and end of corruption and production of electricity Sir not by attack Islam Sir that will create chaos not solve any problem

 

[Myth_buster_1]

1947 was a 65 years ago. People's thinking will have to change.

Thats like saying, quran was introduced 1400 years ago and now is obsolete compared to man made laws created in 21st century.
So basically Islam was used to gain independence so Muslims could practice secularism? hypocrisy at its best. What is the difference between Pakistan and India again? And dont even try to distinguish the two with cultural language religion nonsense because it is pretty much the same for the moment since Pakistan loves to purse India at almost everything..

 

[Awesome]

IK is in trouble from liberals not because he would not amend constitution an repeal 2nd amendment. But because he had to come out and publicly announce that he wants to 'clarify' that Ahmedis are non-Muslims and that he will not change constitution. This is not just bigotry that he shares with other Pakistani parties, but utter stupidity and inexperience in full display.

He also made it difficult, if not impossible, for himself to change the constitution even after say a hundred years like you say.

Nobody can change it in present day Pak. Hence he picked his battles.

 

[RayKalm]

Imran Khan has always claimed freedom for minorities.

 

[fatman17]

i see purana everywhere - no new around.....

 

[Donatello]

Sorry Sir if a person comes and claims to be Muslim he has to be asked about basic pillars of Iman and if he doesn't believe that HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW is the last prophet than he is lying and he is not a Muslim and naya Pakistan will be made by better economy better job opportunities better education and better health facilities and end of corruption and production of electricity Sir not by attack Islam Sir that will create chaos not solve any problem

,

Actually, the muslim must first accept Allah as his/her god and creator, and then that Muhammad (May PBUH) is Allah's last and final messenger.

 

[sur]

Threads on this topic keep showing & I cannot resist to post my point of view based on Quran & Ahadees, NOT on perversions of anparh-jahil-Maulvis.
.
.
.
Quran says:-

Don't lie, but if one lies we don't declare him a non-Muslim.
Don't take "سود", but if someone charges interest we don't declare him a non-Muslim.
Don't rape, but if someone rapes we don't call them non-Muslims.
Don't kill, but we don't declare murders as non-Muslims.
Dead & those (Shaheed) in graves cannot listen, but we haven't declared grave-interceding ppl as non-Muslims

All these ppl we try to correct them. They are at fault by denying Quranic instructions BUT such disobedience does NOT make them non-Muslim.

Similarly Quran says Muhammad is last Prophet BUT there is NO statement in Quran that says if someone don't believe in him as last Prophet he's a non-Muslim...

Quran says Prophet Ibraheim was a Muslim... He never talked of Prophet Muhammed still was a Muslim.
Quran Jesus & his (12) disciples were Muslim.


Definition of a Muslim id defined by Prophet Muhammad himself WHO ARE WE to alter that definition given by Prophet himself ... ???
(Definition given in links below)
.
.
.

1>http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...imran-khan-s-naya-pakistan-8.html#post4238100
2>http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...imran-khan-s-naya-pakistan-3.html#post4237129
3>http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...imran-khan-s-naya-pakistan-6.html#post4237954

 

[Developereo]

The OP fundamentally misunderstands what the PTI revolution and manifesto is all about: Imran Khan has NEVER claimed to be on a mission to undermine the will of the people and to redefine the constitution. What he has promised the voters is to implement accountability, reduce corruption and to uphold principles of law.

The Ahmedi question is not one for politicians; it is for the people of Pakistan and there are four basic questions:

A- Should the constitution and laws of Pakistan make distinctions based on religion; i.e. question of secularism?
B- Should the government decide who is Muslim?
C- Should Ahmedis be free to practice their beliefs?
D- Should Ahmedis be allowed to call themselves Muslim?

If (A) is in place, then (B) becomes necessary; conversely, if (A) is repealed then (B) becomes moot.

Most people would agree that (C) should be true. However, if (A) and (B) are eliminated, then (D) drops in significance from a national issue to a local decision -- possibly decided per locality.

In conclusion, the people of Pakistan need to be convinced to repeal (A) and the Ahmedi "problem" will lose national significance. Imran Khan has no role in this.

 

[fatman17]

will IK get the 'sympathy' vote on May-11-2013?

 

[Jango]

will IK get the 'sympathy' vote on May-11-2013?

On the day of the incident, I said no. Now, I think yes...but it is important to mention what kind of votes.

The sympathy votes will not come from people who are anti-PTI or anti-PPP etc. They will come from those people who are inclined towards PTI but were undecided whether to vote or not. All in all, I don't think it will be a prominent increase.

 

[RazorMC]

.....
The Ahmedi question is not one for politicians; it is for the people of Pakistan and there are four basic questions:

A- Should the constitution and laws of Pakistan make distinctions based on religion; i.e. question of secularism?
B- Should the government decide who is Muslim?
C- Should Ahmedis be free to practice their beliefs?
D- Should Ahmedis be allowed to call themselves Muslim?

If (A) is in place, then (B) becomes necessary; conversely, if (A) is repealed then (B) becomes moot.

Most people would agree that (C) should be true. However, if (A) and (B) are eliminated, then (D) drops in significance from a national issue to a local decision -- possibly decided per locality.

In conclusion, the people of Pakistan need to be convinced to repeal (A) and the Ahmedi "problem" will lose national significance. Imran Khan has no role in this.

The first point (A) is considered necessary since this is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The idea is so entrenched in our minds that any change in this status will draw massive opposition from the people of this country esp the religious groups.

In fact, the way I see it, the regulations have helped in toning down the animosity towards Ahmadis. This has been accomplished by convincing the people the federal govt. will ensure the continuity of exclusion of Ahmadis from Islam.

Point (B) is not as significant since the majority of the people will not accept an inclusion anyways. No amount of laws will change people's mindset. They may help in reducing acts of law-breaking, but this may cause resentment in a society that is used to doing as it pleases.

Point (C) should be legally enabled for private gatherings where the State should not interfere. Point (D) goes back to (A) imo.

 

[Developereo]

The first point (A) is considered necessary since this is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Islamic part only means that the rights of Muslims should be protected. It says nothing about restricting others' rights to achieve that.

There is a ridiculous presupposition that an Islamic leader will be more honest. Supposedly, there is a clause about a test of Islamic virtuosity (or whatever) and we all now how well that's worked out over the decades.

I would much rather have an honest non-Muslim leader than a corrupt Muslim leader.

 

[fatman17]

•A Pakistani poll shows that 95 percent of respondents are registered to vote and that the top three parties are competing very closely. According to the results, 25.68 percent of respondents intend to vote for the Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz (PML-N), 24.98 percent for the PTI, and 17.74 percent for the PPP. However, another survey of experts on Pakistan's electoral politics predicts that the PML-N will come in first place, followed by the PPP and then PTI.[4]

•The results of a poll by the Pew Research Center in March were released on Wednesday, showing that 91percent of Pakistanis are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. Fourteen percent saw President Asif Ali Zardari favorably, whereas 66 percent said the same for Nawaz Sharif and 60 percent for Imran Khan. Concern over the Taliban is high, with 49 percent of the 1,201 people surveyed saying the TTP is a “very serious threat.” Only 11 percent view the U.S. in a positive light.[5]

neck and neck.....sunday is the day we pakistanis will know our fate.....

 

[RazorMC]

The Islamic part only means that the rights of Muslims should be protected. It says nothing about restricting others' rights to achieve that.

There is a ridiculous presupposition that an Islamic leader will be more honest. Supposedly, there is a clause about a test of Islamic virtuosity (or whatever) and we all now how well that's worked out over the decades.

I would much rather have an honest non-Muslim leader than a corrupt Muslim leader.

Yes and partially no.

Yes, because tolerance is a central part of Islam and without tolerance there is no Deen-e-Islam. But in a democracy, the voice of the majority matters. And that voice is pro-exclusion.

Partially no, because I believe in maintaining the Islamic Republic part with only the position of Head of State (President) reserved for Muslims. The PM, on the other hand, is the highest ranking servant of the public and should be open to all Pakistanis with a single nationality and after a thorough test of moral character and his/her abilities.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

What is the point point of the article regarding Imran Khan and his statement?

ShoUld he have said that Ahmadis are Muslims? Is that what the writer wants?

Is that what the Author is saying? Rather he seems to be saying that while Imran Khan is trumpeting the mantra of "Naya Pakistan", Imran is hesitant to turn his back on "Purana Pakistan" and that which bedevils it. The article is questioning how Imran Khan seems to feel little discomfort with what characterizes "Purana Pakistan" and all the retrograde ideas contained within. Or is it that Imran Khan has turned into an archtypical Politician? Which BTW, is also a hallmark of "Purana Pakistan".