Why can’t a non-Muslim dream of becoming the prime minister or president of Pakistan?

[Musakhel]

So you're saying you'd rather have your country led by someone like Nawaz or Zardari as opposed to a Churchill or an Obama?

Yes.

 

[uberkoen]

Yes.

LOL. Okay, I rest my case then. You deserve what you get.

 

[imrankhannsu]

I think in most Asian countries it is difficult for some one from a minority back ground to get elected as the sovereign of a country.

 

[barah_admi]

The US was also built on slavery yet isn't anymore.

Historical attitudes don't need to continue just because it is historical.

The US no longer has slavery?

 

[Pakpak]

I think in most Asian countries it is difficult for some one from a minority back ground to get elected as the sovereign of a country.

That's not the point. The point is deliberately prohibiting a minority from doing so via laws.

 

[Patriot]

That's not the point. The point is deliberately prohibiting a minority from doing so via laws.

Agree with this. However, it would be different if Pakistan was actually an Islamic state. As I have said before, Pakistan isn’t truly an Islamic state and nor is it ready to be one.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

A country established in the name of Islam can not have a non Muslim leader. This would be like an Islamic army having a Christian commander. Most people do not understand the difference between a country formed in the name of Islam and a majority Muslim country. The only other country comparable to Pak in this regard is Israel not the USA or the UK. Lolz at those who wants Pak to have a non-Muslim PM or President.

Finally, a rational mind.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I think in most Asian countries it is difficult for some one from a minority back ground to get elected as the sovereign of a country.

That we can all agree upon. India having a non-dharmic PM is a long way away from reality, especially now with a heavy tilt in political balance towards the majoritarian right wing. But what do you think about symbolic heads? President of Pakistan is just a nominal figure with actual powers vested with PM. Like in India I think President of Pakistan is elected indirectly. Don't you think that is easier to achieve for a minority?

Even if that is not feasible I think [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] is correct in his assessment about the constitutional obstruction. If they were allowed to stand but still not elected that would be different. With time, change in mindset and maturity future Pakistani generations might have a different approach. But to nip the possibility in the bud is what makes the current system controversial. Pakistan isn't like Iran or Saudi Arabia, most of the laws are a continuation of the British legal system.

 

[Pakpak]

That we can all agree upon. India having a non-dharmic PM is a long way away from reality, especially now with a heavy tilt in political balance towards the majoritarian right wing. But what do you think about symbolic heads? President of Pakistan is just a nominal figure with actual powers vested with PM. Like in India I think President of Pakistan is elected indirectly. Don't you think that is easier to achieve for a minority?

Even if that is not feasible I think [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] is correct in his assessment about the constitutional obstruction. If they were allowed to stand but still not elected that would be different. With time, change in mindset and maturity future Pakistani generations might have a different approach. But to nip the possibility in the bud is what makes the current system controversial. Pakistan isn't like Iran or Saudi Arabia, most of the laws are a continuation of the British legal system.

I feel under Musharraf, as a disaster he was in the end, he tried to shift the society into that direction. But it was almost impossible. Its not that secular minded people don't exist, they do, I know plenty. Its that their voices are drowned out. An example is the blasphemy law, brought by the British. I doubt it bothers the average joe's life if its removed but the right-wing would never let that happen. Asia's case and the hate it got by certain sectors of our society was sad enough. It doesn't matter if a person is a Muslim, Molvi, Hijabi, Hindu, Sikh...if they're born a Pakistani they should have every right to have the chance to represent their nation. You don't want to elect them? Then don't. But don't block their rights via disgusting laws. Otherwise ban them from the army too or from the legal societies. You can't trust someone who is a Sikh and in our army and who would lay down his life for the nation to lead us...its completely wrong.

 

[PakLFC]

[MENTION=107753]uberkoen[/MENTION]

You need to read what Jinnah Sahib really said from authentic sources. I completely dismiss your copy and paste mail.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

I feel under Musharraf, as a disaster he was in the end, he tried to shift the society into that direction. But it was almost impossible. Its not that secular minded people don't exist, they do, I know plenty. Its that their voices are drowned out. An example is the blasphemy law, brought by the British. I doubt it bothers the average joe's life if its removed but the right-wing would never let that happen. Asia's case and the hate it got by certain sectors of our society was sad enough. It doesn't matter if a person is a Muslim, Molvi, Hijabi, Hindu, Sikh...if they're born a Pakistani they should have every right to have the chance to represent their nation. You don't want to elect them? Then don't. But don't block their rights via disgusting laws. Otherwise ban them from the army too or from the legal societies. You can't trust someone who is a Sikh and in our army and who would lay down his life for the nation to lead us...its completely wrong.

Wow

To think I was talking about Muslim values with a person of your mindset. What a joke.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

You support the law and punishment?

I fully support the law. Not its implementation by the mob.

Implementation has to be by the courts and according to my sect the punishment varies depending on the level of blasphemy; a case-by-case basis if you may.

 

[humzy]

Except slavery wasn't the foundation of the constitution, the Bill of Rights was - without it America would lose its character, likewise Pakistan's foundation was Islam which is what the constitution is based on.

and how far has that gotten it? If its not working then change it.

Nations built on religion do not work in the modern era.

 

[Pakpak]

Wow

To think I was talking about Muslim values with a person of your mindset. What a joke.

Because the law has been abused and not only minorities have been killed because of it but so have other Muslims. One day with the way things are when Shias are killed en masse due to others considering your non Muslims, which a lot of them do anyway maybe your little bigot mind would wake up. And yes. You're right. It's not use discussing things with bigots like you so we do have different mentalities. I thought you were done with me? Why are you replying to me? In fact I'll make it easier for you. Welcome to my ignroe list. You join a host of Indians along with it. Now go and do one.

 

[uberkoen]

[MENTION=107753]uberkoen[/MENTION]

You need to read what Jinnah Sahib really said from authentic sources. I completely dismiss your copy and paste mail.

You can dismiss it as much as you want but this is the fact. Unfortunately, due to Islamisation of the country our history has also been distorted and kids have been mind washed.

 

[Pakpak]

You can dismiss it as much as you want but this is the fact. Unfortunately, due to Islamisation of the country our history has also been distorted and kids have been mind washed.

Some sad examples of this above. Jinnah also drank, had these people above who support the blasphemy law been alive then they'd supported offing him I bet you.

 

[imrankhannsu]

That's not the point. The point is deliberately prohibiting a minority from doing so via laws.

I certainly is a point IMO

 

[Pakpak]

I certainly is a point IMO

It certainly is not. Otherwise you might as well ban every minority in every country from becoming a PM.

 

[PakLFC]

You can dismiss it as much as you want but this is the fact. Unfortunately, due to Islamisation of the country our history has also been distorted and kids have been mind washed.

You need to know what the facts are so stop talking rubbish. I can provide countless books and speeches by Pakistanis including scholars saying what Quaid Jinnah wanted. If you want secularism then go to India or elsewhere. Pakistan will always belong to Islam otherwise there was no point in creating the country in the first place.

 

[PakLFC]

Quaid Jinnah may have consumed liquor and even eaten pork in his early life but people change as they get older. Dr Iqbal also wrote "Sare jahan se acha" before becoming the instigator of separate Muslim nation. Quaid wanted an Islamic Pakistan no doubt about it, unfortunately after his death the country was hijacked by Congressi Mullah's who were against the idea of Pakistan in the first place.

 

[Mamoon]

Some of these responses in this thread clearly illustrate why Pakistan will always be a worse place for minorities than India.

 

[imrankhannsu]

It certainly is not. Otherwise you might as well ban every minority in every country from becoming a PM.

Your response validates my claim as I didnt say anything about banning minorities

 

[Pakpak]

Your response validates my claim as I didnt say anything about banning minorities

You said 'how can a minority become elected in these countries' which isn't the point of this thread.

You leave the elections to the people. Don't ban people from participating via laws.

 

[Tiger96]

Most of the supporters of this discrimination are apparently those who are living in West and enjoying equal rights as citizens.

 

[Pakpak]

Your response validates my claim as I didnt say anything about banning minorities

Just because a minority can't get elected in these countries we shouldn't change laws that ban them from participating?

Is that your point? If that's not your point what is the point of your post? As the thread isn't about their chances of becoming elected. It's about stopping them from participating in certain elective processes.

 

[MenInG]

Stop posting personal insults

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

You believe in death punishment by the court for blasphemy?

Case by case?WT is the case that you think is worthy of 14 yrs prison or death punishment?

Yes and why the hell do you want to get into this argument?
Its an Islamic law. If you have a problem then deal with it.

If you're so curious about what is worthy of what punishment in Islam then ask a certified aalim/maulana instead of asking random strangers on a forum.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

Because the law has been abused and not only minorities have been killed because of it but so have other Muslims. One day with the way things are when Shias are killed en masse due to others considering your non Muslims, which a lot of them do anyway maybe your little bigot mind would wake up. And yes. You're right. It's not use discussing things with bigots like you so we do have different mentalities. I thought you were done with me? Why are you replying to me? In fact I'll make it easier for you. Welcome to my ignroe list. You join a host of Indians along with it. Now go and do one.

One day?? ONE DAY!!!

This has been going on for 1300+ years (every Shia Imam was either killed or poisoned) and you're saying "maybe one day"??

And do you even know the meaning of bigot?
There's a difference between disagreeing and being intolerant.
Bigots are those ulema who think killing a specific sect is pathway to Paradise.

Tauheen-e-Risalat seems to be a petty issue for you.
I'm happy to be on such people's ignore lists.

 

[Warfare]

Because Pakistan is an Islamic state. Non-Muslims don't get the same privileges. Which was why it was always going to be a problem creating a country in the name of a religion, especially one as dogmatic as Islam. It will stay this way until religion begins to die in Pakistan (and the rest of the world).

 

[troodon]

Because Pakistan is an Islamic state. Non-Muslims don't get the same privileges. Which was why it was always going to be a problem creating a country in the name of a religion, especially one as dogmatic as Islam. It will stay this way until religion begins to die in Pakistan (and the rest of the world).

I hope many of the PP'ers who claim that Islam is all about equality will read this.

 

[PakLFC]

I hope many of the PP'ers who claim that Islam is all about equality will read this.

A comb and a pen are not equal when both are made for separate reasons. This is what people obsessed with "equality" do not understand that men can not do many things that ladies can and vice versa. Islam is perfect but Muslim's are not.

 

[PakLFC]

So, does Islam allow a kafir to be the leader of a Muslim nation? I can show you that it does not. Explain please.

Can a Pakistani be the captain of the Indian Cricket side? A non Muslim can be the PM of a Muslim country like Turkey but not one like Pakistan that was formed in the name of Islam. Islam gives plenty of rights to non Muslim's in Muslim countries. Pakistan being formed in the name of Islam can not have a non-Muslim leader but they may live peacefully in the country practising their religious belief. You need not show me anything.

 

[Farhan The Man]

Pakistan will always be an Islamic Republic. No one can change that.

Not true. At inception, it was just pakistan.

In '71, post bangladesh separation, it labelled as islamic repub of pakistan to mitigate future partitions by sindhis, pathans, balochies, saraikies from punjabis.

punjabi islam since then is shoved down our collective throats. The ill effects are obvious enough.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Wow, this thread is another eye opener on the mindset of the people!

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Most of the supporters of this discrimination are apparently those who are living in West and enjoying equal rights as citizens.

Not most but some yeah and it's a shame because those who have experienced western equality when it comes to political representation should want it in their countries back home.

It's clear discrimination and there should be no problem with a non Muslim being the head of a parliamentary system in a country like Pakistan. One person being in charge isn't going to overthrow the whole system.

Look at the UK for example, when an unelected HIndu came to power. Nothing changed. Instead Rishi Sunak a proud Hindu went to church and reciting Lords prayer in front of TV cameras. He didn't bring in caste system or ban beef burgers, because even if he had wanted to he wouldn't have been able to. He did a bit of candle lighting on Diwali and that was it.

In Scotland we had a proud Muslim try to push through gender reform acts because despite it being against his religious beliefs it wasn't politically expedient to fight against.

I don't see why a similar situation couldn't or shouldn't occur in Pakistan.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not most but some yeah and it's a shame because those who have experienced western equality when it comes to political representation should want it in their countries back home.

It's clear discrimination and there should be no problem with a non Muslim being the head of a parliamentary system in a country like Pakistan. One person being in charge isn't going to overthrow the whole system.

Look at the UK for example, when an unelected HIndu came to power. Nothing changed. Instead Rishi Sunak a proud Hindu went to church and reciting Lords prayer in front of TV cameras. He didn't bring in caste system or ban beef burgers, because even if he had wanted to he wouldn't have been able to. He did a bit of candle lighting on Diwali and that was it.

In Scotland we had a proud Muslim try to push through gender reform acts because despite it being against his religious beliefs it wasn't politically expedient to fight against.

I don't see why a similar situation couldn't or shouldn't occur in Pakistan.

Well explained. It doesn't matter what faith a person is by birth or name as long as he or she follows the ideology of the nation state. That is how it works across the globe.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Islam is by nature a non inclusive religion where outsiders are seen as enemies and Muslims are by their doctrine obliged to wage war against non muslims until they die or give up and accept Islam.

You are extremely lucky if you even survive in Pakistan as a non muslim citizen. Asking for rights and above all the PM job is way too much.

They had one Hindu cricketer and he’s already spoken about how tough it was for him surviving in a team where half the cricketers were part time moulvis themselves and were constantly asking him to convert. He is their best test spinner since Saqlain and the way he was taken out by the moulvi mafia within Pakistan team we all know. Shoaib Akhtar himself revealed how a Pakistani captain (most like Inzamam) said Danish won’t play because he was a Hindu to which Shoaib gave a phainty (to the captain, not Danish).

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Islam is by nature a non inclusive religion where outsiders are seen as enemies and Muslims are by their doctrine obliged to wage war against non muslims until they die or give up and accept Islam.

You are extremely lucky if you even survive in Pakistan as a non muslim citizen. Asking for rights and above all the PM job is way too much.

They had one Hindu cricketer and he’s already spoken about how tough it was for him surviving in a team where half the cricketers were part time moulvis themselves and were constantly asking him to convert. He is their best test spinner since Saqlain and the way he was taken out by the moulvi mafia within Pakistan team we all know. Shoaib Akhtar himself revealed how a Pakistani captain (most like Inzamam) said Danish won’t play because he was a Hindu to which Shoaib gave a phainty (to the captain, not Danish).

That first sentence is either insane or a wind up.

 

[sweep_shot]

Muslims are by their doctrine obliged to wage war against non muslims until they die or give up and accept Islam.

This is not true at all. Check the verse below:

"Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." (Al-Quran - chapter 60 verse 8)

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

This is not true at all. Check the verse below:

"Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." (Al-Quran - chapter 60 verse 8)

I guess history of all homes begin after Muslim occupation. Till then they were just houses.

 

[guard]

I feel under Musharraf, as a disaster he was in the end, he tried to shift the society into that direction. But it was almost impossible. Its not that secular minded people don't exist, they do, I know plenty. Its that their voices are drowned out. An example is the blasphemy law, brought by the British. I doubt it bothers the average joe's life if its removed but the right-wing would never let that happen. Asia's case and the hate it got by certain sectors of our society was sad enough. It doesn't matter if a person is a Muslim, Molvi, Hijabi, Hindu, Sikh...if they're born a Pakistani they should have every right to have the chance to represent their nation. You don't want to elect them? Then don't. But don't block their rights via disgusting laws. Otherwise ban them from the army too or from the legal societies. You can't trust someone who is a Sikh and in our army and who would lay down his life for the nation to lead us...its completely wrong.

 

[guard]

That first sentence is either insane or a wind up.

Why not both, everything thats being spouted is done by virtue of being controversial and divisive

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In this historical Muslim state Hindus keep lecturing us about a person could theoretically utter a few words and be accepted into a universal brotherhood, all previous sins expunged. A person can rise up the ranks very quickly.

In the historical Hindu kingdoms their co-religionists were subjected to cleaning sh!t because of where they were born, women would be set on fire when their husbands died etc etc, you have to suffer endlessly in this life and hope to rise up the ranks when you are dead and reincarnated. Now they have thrown their religion to the scrapheap they can boldly lecture us.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Pakistan is an Islamic republic. A Non-Muslim cannot lead a Muslim country.

If an Ahmadiya cannot become a PM, then there is no chance for idolators.

 

[Champ_Pal]

In this historical Muslim state Hindus keep lecturing us about a person could theoretically utter a few words and be accepted into a universal brotherhood, all previous sins expunged. A person can rise up the ranks very quickly.

In the historical Hindu kingdoms their co-religionists were subjected to cleaning sh!t because of where they were born, women would be set on fire when their husbands died etc etc, you have to suffer endlessly in this life and hope to rise up the ranks when you are dead and reincarnated. Now they have thrown their religion to the scrapheap they can boldly lecture us.

This is why Indian government banned all those practices. No Hindu objects to it. Manu Smriti is hence criticized and laughed at now.

Can Pakistani government also do the same for unpleasant stuff in Islam?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This is why Indian government banned all those practices. No Hindu objects to it. Manu Smriti is hence criticized and laughed at now.

Can Pakistani government also do the same for unpleasant stuff in Islam?

Which unpleasant stuff you want them to ban?

 

[Champ_Pal]

This is not true at all. Check the verse below:

"Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." (Al-Quran - chapter 60 verse 8)

This is why Islamic invaders from Central Asia constantly attacked Bharat for centuries until they finally succeeded. We all know what they did once they took over a kingdom and empire. No need to go in details.

I am sure you know the below when it comes to treating non-believers fairly.
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Which unpleasant stuff you want them to ban?

Slavery, Sex Slaves, Marriage age limit, death for Apostasy , marriage between close relatives etc.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Slavery, Sex Slaves, Marriage age limit, death for Apostasy , marriage between close relatives etc.

Slavery and sex slaves don't exist in Pakistan. Most Muslim countries have out lawed the practice.

Marriage age limit (16) is in line with most of the countries around the world.

Don't see the issue with marriage between cousins tbh. It seems to cause issues in British Pakistanis of Mirpuris decent who marry cousins who then marry cousins on and on but I don't think it's a major issue in Pakistan.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Slavery and sex slaves don't exist in Pakistan. Most Muslim countries have out lawed the practice.

Marriage age limit (16) is in line with most of the countries around the world.

Don't see the issue with marriage between cousins tbh. It seems to cause issues in British Pakistanis of Mirpuris decent who marry cousins who then marry cousins on and on but I don't think it's a major issue in Pakistan.

It may not exist in Pakistan. But it is part of Islam. If Pakistan is an Islamic country, it applies to them. Hence Pakistan constitution must ban them outright.

There are tons of examples of widows in Hindu epics and Mythology who were not burned on husband's funeral pyre. No one is practicing Sati or forcing Dalits to pick up poop either in India. But some did it as a practice more than a century ago. Some Dalits did demeaning jobs for livelihood. Its not like every Dalit was a poop picker. Most were farmers and laborers. But the practice itself was banned by Indian constitution.

All unpleasant things must be banned outright as we know better now.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It may not exist in Pakistan. But it is part of Islam. If Pakistan is an Islamic country, it applies to them. Hence Pakistan constitution must ban them outright.

There are tons of examples of widows in Hindu epics and Mythology who were not burned on husband's funeral pyre. No one is practicing Sati or forcing Dalits to pick up poop either in India. But some did it as a practice more than a century ago. Some Dalits did demeaning jobs for livelihood. Its not like every Dalit was a poop picker. Most were farmers and laborers. But the practice itself was banned by Indian constitution.

All unpleasant things must be banned outright as we know better now.

They are banned outright in Pakistan.

They "exist" in Islam just as they exist in Hinduism. I appreciate you will try your best to run around to find excuses or produce apologies for Hindu practices that are frankly barbaric, while not making the same allowances for Muslims, but we have the example of many Hindu civilizations that practised contrary to what you are saying.

Being a low-caste Hindu was frankly a miserable existence for anyone with the misfortune of being born one, and there was no way out except death. India may have banned it now, but we can't go back and rewrite thousands of years of Hindu history and its this proud civilisations modern day Hindu right want to rebuild.

 

[Champ_Pal]

They are banned outright in Pakistan.

They "exist" in Islam just as they exist in Hinduism. I appreciate you will try your best to run around to find excuses or produce apologies for Hindu practices that are frankly barbaric, while not making the same allowances for Muslims, but we have the example of many Hindu civilizations that practised contrary to what you are saying.

Being a low-caste Hindu was frankly a miserable existence for anyone with the misfortune of being born one, and there was no way out except death. India may have banned it now, but we can't go back and rewrite thousands of years of Hindu history and its this proud civilisations modern day Hindu right want to rebuild.

Hindutva AKA Hindu right is against Caste system. Savarkar criticized Caste system and vegeterian diet of Hindus.

Caste system is abhorrent and was detrimental for everyone involved in it. Low castes suffered the most. Dalits were excluded from it and considered impure. They were relegated to jobs that no one wants to do. They did it for survival. It is pathetic system and a black mark in Indian and Hindu history. It is rightfully banned and anyone who encourages it, there are laws that will put them behind bars.

I am not giving any leeway to Hindu caste system or Sati. It is pure evil. Exploited by some to maintain power over others.

If Pakistan banned Child marriages, then kudos to the constitution writers. How can Pakistan be Islamic republic when they go against the Sharia? Sex slaves may not exist in Islamic world now. But it is not banned in Islam. There are Hadiths that prove that. Do you consider that practice evil?

 

[KingKhanWC]

What a stupid thread question

Of course a NON-MUSLIM can DREAM OF being president of Pakistan. A BJP member can dream of burgers and steak?

Dreams are dreams.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Hindutva AKA Hindu right is against Caste system. Savarkar criticized Caste system and vegeterian diet of Hindus.

Caste system is abhorrent and was detrimental for everyone involved in it. Low castes suffered the most. Dalits were excluded from it and considered impure. They were relegated to jobs that no one wants to do. They did it for survival. It is pathetic system and a black mark in Indian and Hindu history. It is rightfully banned and anyone who encourages it, there are laws that will put them behind bars.

I am not giving any leeway to Hindu caste system or Sati. It is pure evil. Exploited by some to maintain power over others.

If Pakistan banned Child marriages, then kudos to the constitution writers. How can Pakistan be Islamic republic when they go against the Sharia? Sex slaves may not exist in Islamic world now. But it is not banned in Islam. There are Hadiths that prove that. Do you consider that practice evil?

Age of consent etc isn't going against Sharia.

For example in Sharia a Muslim who is able to MUST pay Zakaat.

But no Muslim MUST keep a slave or MUST get married young.

These things can be set according to the norms and practices of the society as long as nothing Haram ( i.e woman marrying another woman) is introduced.

It is similar for slavery. Muslims and non Muslims have collectively got together and said even if states are at war we all agree to abide by XYZ and not take slaves etc. freeing slave is encouraged and a meritorious act. Banning it is not against the Sharia.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is why Islamic invaders from Central Asia constantly attacked Bharat for centuries until they finally succeeded. We all know what they did once they took over a kingdom and empire. No need to go in details.

I am sure you know the below when it comes to treating non-believers fairly.
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

All you've done by quoting that verse out of context is proven it was quite prophetic. Jews and Christians are friends of each other today, they have joined in alliances to devastate Muslim lands in recent times. But that doesn't mean that Muslims have to force non-Muslims to become Muslims or be wiped out. That is quite a big leap.

 

[Farhan The Man]

But that doesn't mean that Muslims have to force non-Muslims to become Muslims or be wiped out.

So you say, umar says otherwise. You should at least read scriptures for the religion you follow so blindly.

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, `Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Nu`man bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160
In-book reference : Book 58, Hadith 3

Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160 - Jizyah and Mawaada'ah - كتاب الجزية والموادعة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

 

[sweep_shot]

So you say, umar says otherwise. You should at least read scriptures for the religion you follow so blindly.

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, `Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Nu`man bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160
In-book reference : Book 58, Hadith 3

Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160 - Jizyah and Mawaada'ah - كتاب الجزية والموادعة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

Looks like you cherry pick verses and post without understanding context.

For the record, this is from Quran:

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. (Al-Quran, chapter 60, verse 8)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah - 8 - Quran.com

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those...

quran.com

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So you say, umar says otherwise. You should at least read scriptures for the religion you follow so blindly.

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, `Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Nu`man bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160
In-book reference : Book 58, Hadith 3

Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160 - Jizyah and Mawaada'ah - كتاب الجزية والموادعة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

I don't follow any religion blindly, you probably know a lot more about Islam than I do if you are quoting hadiths so no point in trying to engage me in a religious debate. I'm just not that invested as you.

But that part you highlighted is basically second hand opinion of what the prophet (PBUH) said recorded by a historian later on. It might be true I'm sure, but not sure Pakistan's govt policy is going to be set by it. Does it specifically rule out appointing a non-Muslim as leader of Pakistan?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Looks like you cherry pick verses and post without understanding context.

For the record, this is from Quran:

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. (Al-Quran, chapter 60, verse 8)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah - 8 - Quran.com

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those...

quran.com

True people here quote Islamic hadiths but are totally unaware of the context.

 

[Kroll]

Stupid law, needs thrown in the bin.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Looks like you cherry pick verses and post without understanding context.

For the record, this is from Quran:

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. (Al-Quran, chapter 60, verse 8)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah - 8 - Quran.com

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those...

quran.com

So it is on the Muslim to decide whether he can be kind and gentle with the conquered people.

Clearly Quran is not forbidding people from doing atrocities on conquered people. The decision is up to Muslims. In this case Hazrat Umar clearly saying what he intends to do.

 

[Farhan The Man]

I'm just not that invested as you.

First word of quran is iqra.

I did. Suggest you do the same.

Rest assured this decree alone saves your smug ignorance from further ignominies.

 

[Hitman]

Doesn't Pakistan's constitution itself prevents non Muslims from becoming the PM or President of their country? And they are the chosen ones who preach secularism to India.

 

[Bhaijaan]

This is not a verse, but a narration. Surely you must know the difference.

quran vs sunnah is a contradiction for the ages. Pick one, you can't have both.

muslims are rudderless for a reason.

Mecca is built on a Shiva temple by the way and there was once or probably still exists a Shiva linga inside the black stone. This is by far the most guarded secret in Islam.

Millions of Muslims are still probably worshipping their ancient ancestoral God.

 

[Justcrazy]

A Non Muslim can become PM or President of Pakistan. It can happen. But a Non Muslim cannot become head of an Islamic State. The reason is the constitution of Islamic state is NOT legislature made , but Quran and Hadeeth. A Non Muslim does not accept that to be true and should not because of his faith , so there is no way he can rule on those lines.

 

[Justcrazy]

Because the law has been abused and not only minorities have been killed because of it but so have other Muslims. One day with the way things are when Shias are killed en masse due to others considering your non Muslims, which a lot of them do anyway maybe your little bigot mind would wake up. And yes. You're right. It's not use discussing things with bigots like you so we do have different mentalities. I thought you were done with me? Why are you replying to me? In fact I'll make it easier for you. Welcome to my ignroe list. You join a host of Indians along with it. Now go and do one.

It is lack of knowledge of some sunnis scholars who instigate Muslims against shias that is the cause of killing of shias. May Allah swt curse such scholars who play this dirty politics in the name of Islam and divide the ummah.

 

[Justcrazy]

One day?? ONE DAY!!!

This has been going on for 1300+ years (every Shia Imam was either killed or poisoned) and you're saying "maybe one day"??

And do you even know the meaning of bigot?
There's a difference between disagreeing and being intolerant.
Bigots are those ulema who think killing a specific sect is pathway to Paradise.

Tauheen-e-Risalat seems to be a petty issue for you.
I'm happy to be on such people's ignore lists.

Killing any innocent individual will lead to hell fire , NO Paradise.

 

[Justcrazy]

This is why Indian government banned all those practices. No Hindu objects to it. Manu Smriti is hence criticized and laughed at now.

Can Pakistani government also do the same for unpleasant stuff in Islam?

So if Indian Government knowledge and wisdom is superior to Hindu Gods , then why worship such Gods instead bow down to reformers who reformed Hinduism ?

As far as Islam is concerned , Shariah laws are made for welfare of society as a whole , so what exactly it needs to change?

 

[Justcrazy]

What a stupid thread question

Of course a NON-MUSLIM can DREAM OF being president of Pakistan. A BJP member can dream of burgers and steak?

Dreams are dreams.

There are BJP members who have beef.

 

[Justcrazy]

Mecca is built on a Shiva temple by the way and there was once or probably still exists a Shiva linga inside the black stone. This is by far the most guarded secret in Islam.

Millions of Muslims are still probably worshipping their ancient ancestoral God.

What is your source ?

Brother Hinduism and Islam are two completely different faiths. Muslims have codified fundamentals and way of life . They believe in a living God . If you ask them fundamental questions about there religion they will answer that , they have firm believe that Quran is the word of God.

Can you say the same thing about Hinduism?

 

[Bhaijaan]

What is your source ?

Brother Hinduism and Islam are two completely different faiths. Muslims have codified fundamentals and way of life . They believe in a living God . If you ask them fundamental questions about there religion they will answer that , they have firm believe that Quran is the word of God.

Can you say the same thing about Hinduism?

My dear it is Sanatan Dharma which came into being milleniums before Islam which seems to have copied many concepts from Sanatani vedas yet there are incredible inaccurate like Earth being flat. Sanatan Dharma is liberating by nature not binding.

 

[JaDed]

A Non Muslim can become PM or President of Pakistan. It can happen. But a Non Muslim cannot become head of an Islamic State. The reason is the constitution of Islamic state is NOT legislature made , but Quran and Hadeeth. A Non Muslim does not accept that to be true and should not because of his faith , so there is no way he can rule on those lines.

Many Muslims cannot accept the Oath of different countries to be true as well, so how can they be a citizen.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Many Muslims cannot accept the Oath of different countries to be true as well, so how can they be a citizen.

Fair point.
You have muslims who do not sign national anthem and do not respect constitution so why should they be given privileged rights of a citizen.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Canada's citizenship oath: I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance To His Majesty King Charles the Third...

England's citizenship oath: I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles Third, his Heirs and Successors, according to the law. I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom...

Apparently pakistanis with canadian/british passports bear loyalty to a human king. In addition to allah.

Of course theekedars of islam, their preaching/deeds are in contradiction. Munafiqs.

You are on a roll.
Laying down phainty after phainty and exposing the hypocrisy of people.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Canada's citizenship oath: I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance To His Majesty King Charles the Third...

England's citizenship oath: I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles Third, his Heirs and Successors, according to the law. I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom...

Apparently pakistanis with canadian/british passports bear loyalty to a human king. In addition to allah.

Of course theekedars of islam, their preaching/deeds are in contradiction. Munafiqs.

Suffice to say that British Muslims bear as much loyalty to the king as any other subjects. If anything they are probably less critical than the anti-monarchists who are mostly left wing white liberals. This allegiance to the king is akin to swearing oaths to the bible in court in a country which no longer believes in Christianity.

You are just resorting to name calling and semantics now. Don't you have any real points to raise?

 

[Kroll]

Doesn't Pakistan's constitution itself prevents non Muslims from becoming the PM or President of their country? And they are the chosen ones who preach secularism to India.

Difference is that Pak implements this law but India doesn't uphold its secularism.

 

[gani999]

My understanding is that an Islamic Republic is one which follows Shariat as law . Examples are Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc.
Feel free to correct me here, but as far as I know Pakistan's laws are largely based on the old British Laws, with some aspects of Shariat thrown in here and there. It is far from a total Shariat state. So how can it be called an Islamic Republic?

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Suffice to say that British Muslims bear as much loyalty to the king as any other subjects. If anything they are probably less critical than the anti-monarchists who are mostly left wing white liberals. This allegiance to the king is akin to swearing oaths to the bible in court in a country which no longer believes in Christianity.

You are just resorting to name calling and semantics now. Don't you have any real points to raise?

Oaths are only meant for men of courage and conviction. Rest just twist their implications and meaning out of cowardice or convenience. Take your pick.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Difference is that Pak implements this law but India doesn't uphold its secularism.

So you are chest thumping about implementing a blatantly discriminatory laws over deficient execution of a fair laws.
The moral Compass is really set in the true direction.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Oaths are only meant for men of courage and conviction. Rest just twist their implications and meaning out of cowardice or convenience. Take your pick.

Not sure how any of that addressed what I actually said. Do you really think that people who swear oaths on the bible in British courts believe in Christianity as per the good book?