Why is Pakistan even called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

[Supporter of Pak legends]

I know many of you, especially the more patriotic and nationalistic, will take offence to my comments in this thread but please note that my statements aren't there to offend any of you because this doesn't apply to the majority of Pakistani posters.

A few times I have wondered why is Pakistan even named the 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan'? With the constant murders, kidnappings, thefts, other brutal crimes etc, does Pakistan even deserve to have the 'Islamic Republic' tag in its name? Islam is a religion of peace and compassion, so why is the situation of the country the complete opposite to the fundamentals of Islam?

P.S I know the answer why, I am just frustrated...

 

[Reverselap]

To placate the Ulema

 

[saeedhk]

Humaray kaam to non believers say bee battar hai.

A few examples,wheat hoarding,diluting milk with water,milawat in almost everything,taking bribes,producing sub standard
medicine which kill many people,slaughtering dead animals or donkeys and passing it off as beef,killing each other like animals,torturing each other and many more.When there was earthquake in Pakistan,people looted off gold ornaments of the dead bodies while shop keeper raised the price of kaffin.

Yeh hai to Islamic republic lekin islami kaam aik bhi nahin hai.

 

[TM Riddle]

Humaray kaam to non believers say bee battar hai.

A few examples,wheat hoarding,diluting milk with water,milawat in almost everything,taking bribes,producing sub standard
medicine which kill many people,slaughtering dead animals or donkeys and passing it off as beef,killing each other like animals,torturing each other and many more.When there was earthquake in Pakistan,people looted off gold ornaments of the dead bodies while shop keeper raised the price of kaffin.

Yeh hai to Islamic republic lekin islami kaam aik bhi nahin hai.

what do you mean by non believers se bhi badtar hai ? can't non believers be good humans too ?

 

[speed]

Islamic republic only by name unfortunately.

 

[Saqs]

Because that is the vision upon which the Nation was created.

 

[LooneyReturns]

It was not one until Iskander Mirza's time i believe

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Because the people who live there want to call it that I guess.

 

[DW44]

It was not one until Iskander Mirza's time i believe

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Yep. 1956 is when the country got this ridiculous name.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

To placate the Ulema

Appease the people all you want but at least the Ulama themselves should act as pious Muslims. No, this is something which people like Maulana Diesel are unable to do; instead, they are too busy criticising the infidels of the West and their deficiencies and are too blind and ignorant to see the bad situation their own country is.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Islamic republic only by name unfortunately.

Truly is just a namesake.

Because that is the vision upon which the Nation was created.

I know that; this thread is essentially having a rant at how Pakistan doesn't deserve to be attributed with the title.

Because the people who live there want to call it that I guess.

They can all they want but i don't think they deserve this title with the atrocities that are committed.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They can all they want but i don't think they deserve this title with the atrocities that are committed.

Well maybe if enough UK based Pakistanis object they'll change it to something else.

 

[akheR]

Let's put it the other way : who deserves it ? Saudi Arabia or some Scandinavians country ?

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Well maybe if enough UK based Pakistanis object they'll change it to something else.

I know you think that I don't even have a say about this matter and should leave them to it but it is just an observation - they don't deserve the title.

By the way, even if a petition was created, nothing would happen. Remember the petition regarding Altaf Hussain - he got out of trouble by citing illness...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I know you think that I don't even have a say about this matter and should leave them to it but it is just an observation - they don't deserve the title.

By the way, even if a petition was created, nothing would happen. Remember the petition regarding Altaf Hussain - he got out of trouble by citing illness...

What difference does it make if you or me sitting in the UK think Pakistan doesn't deserve to call itself Islamic Republic? If they decide tomorrow to call themselves the Less Islamic State of Punkistan then really it's their business.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

What difference does it make if you or me sitting in the UK think Pakistan doesn't deserve to call itself Islamic Republic? If they decide tomorrow to call themselves the Less Islamic State of Punkistan then really it's their business.

What difference do other topics make which we debate upon PP? None; we just discuss them for the purpose of debating.

 

[Fallen King]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=172412

In the name of Allaah, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent!

How Pakistan became a nation from Republic of Pakistan to Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Alhamdulillah!, with all the efforts from the man known as Qudratullah Shahab (R.A). This is very interesting, and perhaps, only a few people know this truth. So, this is must read for every Pakistani.

Qudratullah Shahab (R.A):

The complete life of Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) has been passed while serving Pakistan, Just after creation, Pakistan needed some patriots, who can work day and night for Pakistan and make it prospering nation, and Pakistan was blessed with people like Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) who made this dream come true and worked for making Pakistan a practical Islamic country, The seed sown by Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) is the real driving force for the patriots of this country to strive for an Islamic law and government in the country.

Here I am presenting an excerpt from Shahabnama that will explain it in a better way:

“After the passing of 1962 constitution, I noticed something peculiar that in all the documents of the government, the word ‘Islam’ was not written with the name of Pakistan. First, I thought that it might be an error in the drafting, but after some days I came to know that the error was repeated several times and it seemed more intentional than unintentional. I wrote a note to President Ayub Khan to allow me to write a letter to all the ministries about this frequent error. One evening, He came to me and told me that it is not an error but we have taken this decision with a general consensus.

President Ayub Khan told me that the name of Pakistan will be “Republic of Pakistan” instead of “Islamic Republic of Pakistan“. If I had the courage, I would have asked him : “Who are you to eliminate the word ‘Islam’ from the name of Pakistan?” However I came back home and wrote a two pages note, the summary of which is as following:



In addition to this note, I also wrote a resignation letter to resign if this note is not accepted. Next Day President Ayub came to me to tell me something, He sat infront of me and took that note from my hand and started reading it. After reading few sentences, his facial expressions changed suddenly and he started reading from the beginning again.Then he said slowly: “Yes, Right You Are” and repeated this sentence again, and hence the word ‘Islam’ was added to the name of Pakistan.”

(Excerpt from Shahabnama)

This clearly shows that Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) was assigned the task spiritually to make Pakistan an Islamic country.

Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) writes in Shahabnama that while he was an ambassador in Holand, he went to the central library, where he found some very old transcripts of Hazrat Bari Imam (R.A). Hazrat Bari Imam (R.A) wrote about three hundred years ago that a new city will be built near the village of NoorPur and it will become the centre of Islamic world, today that city is known as Islamabad, which is few miles away from Noorpur, the resting place of Hazrat Bari Imam (R.A).

It is interesting to mention here that there are only two cities in the world with the word ‘Islam’ in its name. Islamabad while the other is Istanbul, which was originally named “Islambol” by Sultan Fateh after he captured it back in 1453.

^ Source:- http://spiritualpakistan.wordpress.com/

 

[Fallen King]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=130673

Assalamu Alaikom Warahmatu Allahi Wa Barakatuhu.!


Holy Prophet (PBUH) in dream asked Jinnah to lead Muslims
Quaid related his dream to Allama Usmani, Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque quotes Usmani

Interview Ashraf Ansari


Islamabad—As against general impression that the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had returned to India from London in end 1934 on persuasion by prominent Muslim leaders, the new evidence proves that the Quaid decided to end his self exile after he dreamt of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) who asked him to go to India and lead the Muslims in their struggle for a separate homeland for the Muslims of South Asia.

During an exclusive interview with Pakistan Observer, former Interior Secretary, Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque, talked about some episodes relating to his meetings with Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani who were kind to him for his devotion to the cause of Pakistan.

Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque, now in 90s, who had frequent chances to meet with Quaid-i-Azam and Quaid’s very close associate and confidant, Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, said that Mr Jinnah had told Allama about his dream, in New Delhi when the Pakistan movement had been launched by the Quaid. The Quaid-i-Azam asked Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani not to mention the dream to anyone during his (Quaid’s) life time.

Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque as a great devotee of Quaid-i-Azam would visit him in New Delhi during 1940s when he was also there. The Quaid though living in Bombay visited the Indian Capital during assembly sessions, meetings with viceroy, party conferences and exchanges of views with Congress leaders. The Quaid was kind to him and met him briefly after his breakfast. It was there that he developed his relationship with Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani who also frequently visited the Quaid in the morning before Mr. Jinnah took up his day,s work.

After the emergence of Pakistan, Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani migrated to Karachi where he had the unique honour of unfurling national flag at the ceremony marking the Independence Day in the presence of the Founder of the State. After the demise of Quaid-i-Azam, Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque who was serving the police department in Karachi, had frequent meetings with Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani. During those meetings the main topic was naturally the personality of the Founder of Pakistan. As both the Allama and Chaudry were highly devoted to Quaid-i-Azam, they would fondly recall moments they had the privilege to have spent with him. During one such meeting between the two, the topic was Return of the Quaid to India in 1934 and his assumption of All India Muslim League’s leadership. When Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque talked about people who as common belief had been, motivated Mr. Jinnah to return to India and assume their leadership, Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani spontaneously reacted saying the reality was something else. And then he narrated an episode, that had never been mentioned by anyone. The Allama said that a couple of years before the emergence of Pakistan, he was discussing something with Mr. Jinnah and there was a reference to his return to India in 1934. When Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani mentioned names of the people who he believed had motivated the Quaid to end his exile, Mr. Jinnah said it was not the correct impression. He told Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani about his dream of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and said he had returned to India in 1934 on order by the Prophet (PBUH) he loved most.

Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani quoted the Quaid-i-Azam as saying:

“One evening, I was strolling in the lawn of my house in London when I smelt a unique fragrance. First I thought it was temporary phenomenon but the fragrance continued to prevail in the air. I could not understand as to what was the source of that fragrance. I decided to go to sleep. I could not sleep for quite some time. During sleep I saw a holy personality in my dream. The holy personality addressed me: ‘I am Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I order you to go to India and lead the Muslims to their destiny. After the dream I awoke and started preparation for my return journey to India’.

Though Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah outwardly looked to be a Westernized man in terms of life-style, he had deep love for the Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims of South Asia. That was the reason why he had devoted his life and all to the cause of the Muslims and fought relentlessly to attain rights they had been deprived of.

People who have studied various phases of the Pakistan Movement and political career of Mr. Jinnah or those who have had access to Quaid’s associates, are convinced that the Founder of Pakistan took guidance from the Holy Quran and life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). This scribe has been meeting with such people including the President, Nazriya Pakistan Council (NPC) Trust to have a better understanding of the Pakistan Movement and personality of the man who had emerged as the Sole Spokesman of the Muslims of the sub-Continent. They all agree that the Quaid’s commitment to the cause of the Muslims had no bounds. This scribe came to know that a former senior bureaucrat Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque, during his youth had chances of meeting the Quaid-i-Azam in New Delhi and also Quaid’s close associate Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani.

The testimony given by Chaudry Fazl-e-Haque clearly shows two facts: One that Quaid-i-Azam took up his mission after he was asked to return to India by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in dream. This also shows his devotion to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Two: That Pakistan came into being with the blessing of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).


^ Credit goes to 'sanasarwar' from WUP - WakeUpProject

 

[PakPrince]

it wasnt meant to be called that..

It was when our dear leaders caved into the mullahs

It was meant to be a state where Muslims could live freely from Hindu oppression. Not be an Islamic state

 

[hafeezrocks]

Dont worry. Sooner than later people would realize that the only way forward for Pakistan is Secularism , that is if it has to survive and thus the Islamic non sense tag will be done and dusted with forever.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Because that is what it was meant to be. Have a look around, everyone that exists has a name, some were given randomly while others were given with a lot of expectations that the kids would turn out to be how their parents desired but not all of them turn true to their namesake. Some go horribly wrong, such is the case with Pakistan and even with India to some extent. They got it all right in the names and in constitutions. All the freakin rights are there yet so many people are living in state of misery. Just goes to show that actions are far more important than words. For actions you need sincere people, the big mouths can say anything as its far more convenient. Hum yeh kr dengey, hum wo kar dengey! We have always heard plenty of that nonsense. Lekin hota kuchh nyi. Why so? There are other reasons for that. People are just too selfish, regarding themselves, their religion, their community and region etc. Never think of basic necessities which make all the difference.

 

[Saqs]

Truly is just a namesake.



I know that; this thread is essentially having a rant at how Pakistan doesn't deserve to be attributed with the title.



They can all they want but i don't think they deserve this title with the atrocities that are committed.

Not the point though.

The vision was for it to be an Islamic state. Why completely wipe any remnants of that vision off with a name change?

Who knows there may be a kid in Pak who reads that and it inspires him to make the country the best it can be.

It's just a name tbh

 

[Saqs]

Because that is what it was meant to be. Have a look around, everyone that exists has a name, some were given randomly while others were given with a lot of expectations that the kids would turn out to be how their parents desired but not all of them turn true to their namesake. Some go horribly wrong, such is the case with Pakistan and even with India to some extent. They got it all right in the names and in constitutions. All the freakin rights are there yet so many people are living in state of misery. Just goes to show that actions are far more important than words. For actions you need sincere people, the big mouths can say anything as its far more convenient. Hum yeh kr dengey, hum wo kar dengey! We have always heard plenty of that nonsense. Lekin hota kuchh nyi. Why so? There are other reasons for that. People are just too selfish, regarding themselves, their religion, their community and region etc. Never think of basic necessities which make all the difference.

Top post

 

[FusedBulb]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=172412

In the name of Allaah, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent!

How Pakistan became a nation from Republic of Pakistan to Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Alhamdulillah!, with all the efforts from the man known as Qudratullah Shahab (R.A). This is very interesting, and perhaps, only a few people know this truth. So, this is must read for every Pakistani.

Qudratullah Shahab (R.A):

The complete life of Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) has been passed while serving Pakistan, Just after creation, Pakistan needed some patriots, who can work day and night for Pakistan and make it prospering nation, and Pakistan was blessed with people like Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) who made this dream come true and worked for making Pakistan a practical Islamic country, The seed sown by Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) is the real driving force for the patriots of this country to strive for an Islamic law and government in the country.

Here I am presenting an excerpt from Shahabnama that will explain it in a better way:

“After the passing of 1962 constitution, I noticed something peculiar that in all the documents of the government, the word ‘Islam’ was not written with the name of Pakistan. First, I thought that it might be an error in the drafting, but after some days I came to know that the error was repeated several times and it seemed more intentional than unintentional. I wrote a note to President Ayub Khan to allow me to write a letter to all the ministries about this frequent error. One evening, He came to me and told me that it is not an error but we have taken this decision with a general consensus.

President Ayub Khan told me that the name of Pakistan will be “Republic of Pakistan” instead of “Islamic Republic of Pakistan“. If I had the courage, I would have asked him : “Who are you to eliminate the word ‘Islam’ from the name of Pakistan?” However I came back home and wrote a two pages note, the summary of which is as following:



In addition to this note, I also wrote a resignation letter to resign if this note is not accepted. Next Day President Ayub came to me to tell me something, He sat infront of me and took that note from my hand and started reading it. After reading few sentences, his facial expressions changed suddenly and he started reading from the beginning again.Then he said slowly: “Yes, Right You Are” and repeated this sentence again, and hence the word ‘Islam’ was added to the name of Pakistan.”

(Excerpt from Shahabnama)

This clearly shows that Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) was assigned the task spiritually to make Pakistan an Islamic country.

Qudratullah Shahab (R.A) writes in Shahabnama that while he was an ambassador in Holand, he went to the central library, where he found some very old transcripts of Hazrat Bari Imam (R.A). Hazrat Bari Imam (R.A) wrote about three hundred years ago that a new city will be built near the village of NoorPur and it will become the centre of Islamic world, today that city is known as Islamabad, which is few miles away from Noorpur, the resting place of Hazrat Bari Imam (R.A).

It is interesting to mention here that there are only two cities in the world with the word ‘Islam’ in its name. Islamabad while the other is Istanbul, which was originally named “Islambol” by Sultan Fateh after he captured it back in 1453.

^ Source:- http://spiritualpakistan.wordpress.com/

If you have Shahab Nama's English Copy, can you also post a few excerpts of his findings on how Urdu was planned to be choked in India? There was a secret document that was circulated among Indian politicians, and each copy of was numbered when Q Shahab got his hands on one copy and hand it over to Quad-e-Azam?

 

[Momin Baig]

Not the point though.

The vision was for it to be an Islamic state. Why completely wipe any remnants of that vision off with a name change?

Who knows there may be a kid in Pak who reads that and it inspires him to make the country the best it can be.

It's just a name tbh

You propose two different viewpoints in your comment. At first you claim that it inspires people. But at the end you say that it is just a name.

In Pakistan there is this tendency to associate something with Islam, just because it is the norm and because I guess it makes people feel good. I am not saying that people should not associate their lives with Islam (This is a totally different argument).

What I am saying is that whoever decided to call it the IRP probably did it so he could leave a legacy and feel better about himself.

i doubt that it invokes anything in a Pakistani kid growing up. To be fair I think that Jinnah rather would have like it to be anything other than IRP.

 

[Saqs]

You propose two different viewpoints in your comment. At first you claim that it inspires people. But at the end you say that it is just a name.

In Pakistan there is this tendency to associate something with Islam, just because it is the norm and because I guess it makes people feel good. I am not saying that people should not associate their lives with Islam (This is a totally different argument).

What I am saying is that whoever decided to call it the IRP probably did it so he could leave a legacy and feel better about himself.

i doubt that it invokes anything in a Pakistani kid growing up. To be fair I think that Jinnah rather would have like it to be anything other than IRP.

True. But not conflicting views. I thought about it and thought at the end of the day it is just a name. So leave it be. It's not doing any harm. Just might inspire someone so what's the point in getting it cha fed.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Dont worry. Sooner than later people would realize that the only way forward for Pakistan is Secularism , that is if it has to survive and thus the Islamic non sense tag will be done and dusted with forever.

Do you have time frame? 20 years or 100 years? _old

The name is correct because the constitution has Islamic principles.

 

[HamzaSaeen]

Dont worry. Sooner than later people would realize that the only way forward for Pakistan is Secularism , that is if it has to survive and thus the Islamic non sense tag will be done and dusted with forever.

okay, so then our forefather's lives fighting for an islamic state go to waste? would have better stayed with India if it was meant to be secular in the first place, why bother with all the hassle of partition? not strange coming from a username like yourselves

 

[coca-cola]

Because that is the vision upon which the Nation was created.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

[coca-cola]

okay, so then our forefather's lives fighting for an islamic state go to waste? would have better stayed with India if it was meant to be secular in the first place, why bother with all the hassle of partition? not strange coming from a username like yourselves

wait, their efforts haven't been wasted already? Are you from Pakistan in a parallel universe?

I live in a Pakistan where Kenya and Bangladesh have eclipsed us in terms of growth, people die daily on the streets from political and religious violence, violence against women is common place, the economy is in shambles and so on and so forth. But yeah, why let something so GREAT go to waste ....

 

[Down2Earth]

You forgot to add our wonderful Google searches

 

[Markhor]

Pakistan's founding principles have always been ambiguous. Jinnah spoke liberally to the liberals and conservatively to the conservatives. Jinnah's desire for Pakistan had nothing to do with his devotion to Islam or ever establishing an Islamic society, he rather, wanted to protect the rights of his people. That's why he supported a united but highly decentralised Indian state as set out in the Cabinet Mission Plan, that would protect the rights of the Muslim minorities, right up until 1946 when that vision was no longer a reality after Congress's rejection of the Plan, that was when Pakistan came to pass. Islam was used as a unifying symbol, to bring together the disparate groups that were behind the creation of Pakistan, from the rural villagers, to the urban masses and the aristocratic landlords of the Muslim League.

The idea of the Islamic state of Pakistan were the pipedreams of Rehmat Ali and Allama Iqbal. Jinnah did not support the Khalifat movement, calling it a religious frenzy, and disagreed with Gandhi who supported the movement to gain Muslim support.

 

[Momin Baig]

Pakistan's founding principles have always been ambiguous. Jinnah spoke liberally to the liberals and conservatively to the conservatives. Jinnah's desire for Pakistan had nothing to do with his devotion to Islam or ever establishing an Islamic society, he rather, wanted to protect the rights of his people. Islam was used as a unifying symbol, to bring together the disparate groups that were behind the creation of Pakistan, from the rural villagers, to the urban masses and the aristocratic landlords of the Muslim League.

The idea of the Islamic state of Pakistan were the pipedreams of Rehmat Ali and Allama Iqbal. Jinnah did not support the Khalifat movement, calling it a religious frenzy, and disagreed with Gandhi who supported the movement to gain Muslim support.

I agree with this viewpoint. So do you think that Jinnah achieved his goals looking at Pakistan today?

 

[Markhor]

I agree with this viewpoint. So do you think that Jinnah achieved his goals looking at Pakistan today?

What were Jinnah's goals ? He did create Pakistan but in terms of a political vision he never set them out clearly - with Pakistan's diverse array of classes, ethnicities and interest groups he perhaps understandably remained reticent for fear of division in the newly formed state, plus his death soon after partition meant Jinnah could never shape his vision of what Pakistan was to be.

However he certainly did not want Pakistan to be as religiously conservative as it is today. I don't where the heck MalikMohsin copied and pasted that article from but to suggest Jinnah himself had a dream from the Prophet (PBUH) in 1934 to create Pakistan is exactly the kind of speculative crap from these theocratic commentators who keep dreaming of a utopian Khalifate.

And then he narrated an episode, that had never been mentioned by anyone.

I wonder why. Probably because it is not true ? If Jinnah wanted to create a Pakistani state as far back as 1934 via such a 'dream' then why did he call for Pakistan as late as 1946 only when the Cabinet Mission Plan broke down, which set out a united, decentralised Indian state which he initially agreed to ?

These so-called scholars really insult the intelligence of the masses when they come out with such ludicrous comments and is one of the reasons why Pakistan is in the mess it is in today, the masses hanging on to the every word of these phoney mullahs who bash the west at the pulpit and then send their kids to American universities. Jinnah would certainly not recognise this country today, firmly in the palms of the theocrats.

 

[KingKhanWC]

However he certainly did not want Pakistan to be as religiously conservative as it is today

I don't think it is.

Can you please give some examples of this religiously conservative society. Remember Pakistan is a huge country with nearly 200 million people.

 

[Markhor]

I don't think it is.

Can you please give some examples of this religiously conservative society. Remember Pakistan is a huge country with nearly 200 million people.

Saudi Arabia's increasing influence, the rewriting of school textbooks, emphasis on jihad and not Haqooq-e-Ibad, the political organisations that operate under religious guises - yes they have a low number of votes but they are well organised and have high membership. Look at South Punjab where groups such as the SSP whose political wing the ASWJ have a strong base. Look at the Supreme Court allowing that thug Malik Ishaq, who has the blood of hundreds of Shias and minorities on his hands, free to walk away. The intimidation of judges and policemen who try to investigate these militant groups. The support for Mumtaz Qadri from even the damn lawyers.

I can't list every single parliamentary act since the days of Ayub Khan, through to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq and Nawaz Sharif but you will see medieval legislation drawn up, e.g. the Hudood Ordiance, an increasing use of religiously loaded language to try and gain votes, even allying with fundamentalist groups to do so - look at PPP's alliance with Sunni Tehreek at the last election. The arming of Sunni militant groups in the 1980s that the army high command thought would do our dirty work for us in places like Afghanistan, only then to realise the same thugs they armed would turn their guns on innocent Pakistani civilians.

There are many examples, and this is not the state Jinnah wanted. Pakistan may have been created for the Muslims of the subcontinent, but it was never meant to be a poor man's Saudi Arabia, but a country that would allow the faiths of all to be respected, and for the rights of all minorities to be upheld.

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

 

[Saqs]

Markhor you really need to post here more often.

Some amazing insightful posts.

 

[rahulrulezz]

Saudi Arabia's increasing influence, the rewriting of school textbooks, emphasis on jihad and not Haqooq-e-Ibad, the political organisations that operate under religious guises - yes they have a low number of votes but they are well organised and have high membership. Look at South Punjab where groups such as the SSP whose political wing the ASWJ have a strong base. Look at the Supreme Court allowing that thug Malik Ishaq, who has the blood of hundreds of Shias and minorities on his hands, free to walk away. The intimidation of judges and policemen who try to investigate these militant groups. The support for Mumtaz Qadri from even the damn lawyers.

I can't list every single parliamentary act since the days of Ayub Khan, through to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq and Nawaz Sharif but you will see medieval legislation drawn up, e.g. the Hudood Ordiance, an increasing use of religiously loaded language to try and gain votes, even allying with fundamentalist groups to do so - look at PPP's alliance with Sunni Tehreek at the last election. The arming of Sunni militant groups in the 1980s that the army high command thought would do our dirty work for us in places like Afghanistan, only then to realise the same thugs they armed would turn their guns on innocent Pakistani civilians.

There are many examples, and this is not the state Jinnah wanted. Pakistan may have been created for the Muslims of the subcontinent, but it was never meant to be a poor man's Saudi Arabia, but a country that would allow the faiths of all to be respected, and for the rights of all minorities to be upheld.

Amazing post!!!

Sad part is all these Pakistan posters against secularism are residing in secular countries and enjoying their faith yet are against secularism in Pakistan

 

[DoosraTeesra]

Democratic People's Republic of Pakistan should be the name. Secular Pakistan is the only way forward

DPRP Zindabad!!!

 

[akheR]

okay, so then our forefather's lives fighting for an islamic state go to waste? would have better stayed with India if it was meant to be secular in the first place, why bother with all the hassle of partition? not strange coming from a username like yourselves

There's a gulf of difference between an "Islamic state" and "a state for Muslims" ; the later, which MA Jinnah wanted, can be secular (in the sense that religion doesn't have a say in its legislation) and is simply a state configuration for Muslims to practice their religion (and being an erstwhile minority, to give the same freedoms to other religious factions), whereas the first is discriminatory by nature, like the Jewish state Israel (which, like Pakistan, was meant to be an Hebrew - not Jewish - state, considering its founders were secular Zionists, not orthodox Jews).

Also, but that's peripheral, "our forefathers" (mine didn't move, but talking in general terms) simply fled the violences. If Eastern Punjabis and Biharis remained where they were, they would have been butchered, a simple as that, so they moved out to save their lives, not because of an "ideology", as even if it looks good in Bollywood movies, no one abandons his ancestral land, neighbours, ... for an ideology, unless you belonged to the zamindar Mughal élite of Uttar Pradesh who would have lost its lands anyway and would have had to work to earn because of Pandit Nehru's policies.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Saudi Arabia's increasing influence, the rewriting of school textbooks, emphasis on jihad and not Haqooq-e-Ibad, the political organisations that operate under religious guises - yes they have a low number of votes but they are well organised and have high membership. Look at South Punjab where groups such as the SSP whose political wing the ASWJ have a strong base. Look at the Supreme Court allowing that thug Malik Ishaq, who has the blood of hundreds of Shias and minorities on his hands, free to walk away. The intimidation of judges and policemen who try to investigate these militant groups. The support for Mumtaz Qadri from even the damn lawyers.

Very true. Recently it appears as if people are being held hostage by religious conservatives. Politicians can't dare to speak out against religious extremists as they fear the effects of their violence and mob justice. Mobs are encouraged and provoked by nutter Mullahs to declare the laws into their own hands which ultimately will manifest itself in extreme violence ( laal Masjid, Blasphemy murders etc)

Interestingly Mumtaz Qadris violence can't even be attributed to Saudi sponsored teachings as he was a devout brelvi.

Could you however go into more detail when you say emphasis on JIhad and not Haqooqul Ibab. Emphasis by who?

 

[Imran_Sir]

Sometimes I wish I belonged to a conservative Muslim country.

These Indians and Pakistanis have ruined Islam with their innovation. For example, Milad un Nabi

Shameless people

 

[Markhor]

Very true. Recently it appears as if people are being held hostage by religious conservatives. Politicians can't dare to speak out against religious extremists as they fear the effects of their violence and mob justice. Mobs are encouraged and provoked by nutter Mullahs to declare the laws into their own hands which ultimately will manifest itself in extreme violence ( laal Masjid, Blasphemy murders etc)

Interestingly Mumtaz Qadris violence can't even be attributed to Saudi sponsored teachings as he was a devout brelvi.

Could you however go into more detail when you say emphasis on JIhad and not Haqooqul Ibab. Emphasis by who?

This started in the 1980s under Zia during the Afghan War. I've heard and read stories of how textbooks in schools were rewritten to focus more on rituals and especially on jihad, obviously politically convenient for the government of the day as they indoctrinated a generation of young people into this Saudi-imported religious culture. They joined Sunni militant organisations such as the SSP and these groups were armed by our military and intelligence services in the hope that they would do the state's dirty work in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Mosques were turned into recruiting grounds for young brainwashed Pakistanis to go and fight in Afghanistan.

All these new madrassas that were opened during the 1980s have one common theme, they came about owing to free flow of Saudi money.

The relationship of the mullahs and the military was a marriage of convenience on the behest of western powers, the latter wanted to fight the Russians - the military wanted to check the movement of Russians as they felt threatened, hence they used Islamic fervour, especially in education, to attain their objectives, hence the mullahs support of Zia. This use of religion as a political tool goes as far back as ZAB too.

Its not just Sunni organisations too, Iran, a country which many posters on here seem to think can do no wrong, also has funded militant Shia outfits such as the TNFJ in places like Jhang and Balochistan.

It was then that this religious extremism started, and the state funded it, but then when the Russians withdrew, these groups would then turn their guns on Shias, minorities and anyone who dares speak up against them - and to this day they cannot be contained.

 

[Momin Baig]

This started in the 1980s under Zia during the Afghan War. I've heard and read stories of how textbooks in schools were rewritten to focus more on rituals and especially on jihad, obviously politically convenient for the government of the day as they indoctrinated a generation of young people into this Saudi-imported religious culture. They joined Sunni militant organisations such as the SSP and these groups were armed by our military and intelligence services in the hope that they would do the state's dirty work in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Mosques were turned into recruiting grounds for young brainwashed Pakistanis to go and fight in Afghanistan.

All these new madrassas that were opened during the 1980s have one common theme, they came about owing to free flow of Saudi money.

The relationship of the mullahs and the military was a marriage of convenience on the behest of western powers, the latter wanted to fight the Russians - the military wanted to check the movement of Russians as they felt threatened, hence they used Islamic fervour, especially in education, to attain their objectives, hence the mullahs support of Zia. This use of religion as a political tool goes as far back as ZAB too.

Its not just Sunni organisations too, Iran, a country which many posters on here seem to think can do no wrong, also has funded militant Shia outfits such as the TNFJ in places like Jhang and Balochistan.

It was then that this religious extremism started, and the state funded it, but then when the Russians withdrew, these groups would then turn their guns on Shias, minorities and anyone who dares speak up against them - and to this day they cannot be contained.

Fantastic post.

 

[KB-24]

There is no concept of Republic in Islam therefore it has no basis from Deen. As for the upheaval in the country it is due to absence of Islamic political system aka Khilafat. The existing politics is that of Jahiliyah therefore the nation and pretty much entire Muslim Ummah is in turmoil. And those who deny the strong presence of agents of Taghut in our lands are living in la la land because these are the people who work day and night to dictate terms to the treacherous rulers & decision makers of Muslim countries to suppress the reestablishment of Khilafat which seeks to implement Islam as a complete Deen.

This leads to the poverty & hopelessness we see today in Pakistan and else where in the Muslim world. Until you work to change the political system, situation will continue to decline no matter how sincere some leader may be. Change cannot come from change of faces but from establishment of Khilafat.

 

[KB-24]

Pakistan's founding principles have always been ambiguous. Jinnah spoke liberally to the liberals and conservatively to the conservatives. Jinnah's desire for Pakistan had nothing to do with his devotion to Islam or ever establishing an Islamic society, he rather, wanted to protect the rights of his people. That's why he supported a united but highly decentralised Indian state as set out in the Cabinet Mission Plan, that would protect the rights of the Muslim minorities, right up until 1946 when that vision was no longer a reality after Congress's rejection of the Plan, that was when Pakistan came to pass. Islam was used as a unifying symbol, to bring together the disparate groups that were behind the creation of Pakistan, from the rural villagers, to the urban masses and the aristocratic landlords of the Muslim League.

The idea of the Islamic state of Pakistan were the pipedreams of Rehmat Ali and Allama Iqbal. Jinnah did not support the Khalifat movement, calling it a religious frenzy, and disagreed with Gandhi who supported the movement to gain Muslim support.

I tend to agree with you. About time a clear picture is presented. Islam was simply used as a tool to gather the Muslims but there was no real intention of forming an Islamic State.

 

[KB-24]

And yes the bitter truth is that our elders gave their lives for Pakistan in the name of Islam but there was never really a real intention behind the movement to establish Islam as an authority over the Muslims.

But that also doesn't mean that we embrace Secularism because it has been destroying Pakistan since 1947. Only Islam can honor the rights of Muslims and Non-Muslims and it cannot happen with Secular politics where legislation rests in the hands of Congress or Parliament. In order to establish an Islamic state, you need a political system which Islam prescribes only then you can seek to establish the complete Deen. That political system then seeks to address social, economic, judicial, municipal, environmental, educational, healtcare and other areas of public affairs as well as foreign policy from Islam.

And it holds true for all Muslim nations, not just Pakistan. Only under Khilafat the real potential of Pakistan will be unleashed and it has the capability due to blessings of Allah SWT to lead the Ummah.

 

[KB-24]

Because that is what it was meant to be. Have a look around, everyone that exists has a name, some were given randomly while others were given with a lot of expectations that the kids would turn out to be how their parents desired but not all of them turn true to their namesake. Some go horribly wrong, such is the case with Pakistan and even with India to some extent. They got it all right in the names and in constitutions. All the freakin rights are there yet so many people are living in state of misery. Just goes to show that actions are far more important than words. For actions you need sincere people, the big mouths can say anything as its far more convenient. Hum yeh kr dengey, hum wo kar dengey! We have always heard plenty of that nonsense. Lekin hota kuchh nyi. Why so? There are other reasons for that. People are just too selfish, regarding themselves, their religion, their community and region etc. Never think of basic necessities which make all the difference.

It is the system which allows the criminals we call politicians to get away with their crimes. They can bend it as they will. They have complete immunity against their oppression. Misery is due to the interest based economic system and privatization of natural resources which address the basic needs of all human beings. The system dictates this policy because it is written in the constitution. Poverty breeds desperation and desperation can lead to immorality. A sincere leader will end up compromising while operating within this system so the real issue is that of political system from which emanates public policy. Fix the system and you fix the root problem.

 

[KB-24]

There's a gulf of difference between an "Islamic state" and "a state for Muslims" ; the later, which MA Jinnah wanted, can be secular (in the sense that religion doesn't have a say in its legislation) and is simply a state configuration for Muslims to practice their religion (and being an erstwhile minority, to give the same freedoms to other religious factions), whereas the first is discriminatory by nature, like the Jewish state Israel (which, like Pakistan, was meant to be an Hebrew - not Jewish - state, considering its founders were secular Zionists, not orthodox Jews).

Also, but that's peripheral, "our forefathers" (mine didn't move, but talking in general terms) simply fled the violences. If Eastern Punjabis and Biharis remained where they were, they would have been butchered, a simple as that, so they moved out to save their lives, not because of an "ideology", as even if it looks good in Bollywood movies, no one abandons his ancestral land, neighbours, ... for an ideology, unless you belonged to the zamindar Mughal élite of Uttar Pradesh who would have lost its lands anyway and would have had to work to earn because of Pandit Nehru's policies.

SubhanAllah so now you are equating the Racist Zionist State of Israel to that of Khilafat e Rashida state !!

What a naive perspective.

 

[Momin Baig]

SubhanAllah so now you are equating the Racist Zionist State of Israel to that of Khilafat e Rashida state !!

What a naive perspective.

I don't think that is what he was saying. He was saying the concept and when they were created the ideology behind the notion of it all were similar.

 

[KB]

There's a gulf of difference between an "Islamic state" and "a state for Muslims" ; the later, which MA Jinnah wanted, can be secular (in the sense that religion doesn't have a say in its legislation) and is simply a state configuration for Muslims to practice their religion (and being an erstwhile minority, to give the same freedoms to other religious factions), whereas the first is discriminatory by nature, like the Jewish state Israel (which, like Pakistan, was meant to be an Hebrew - not Jewish - state, considering its founders were secular Zionists, not orthodox Jews).

The reality is that Pakistan movement was not a monolithic one. People supported it for a variety of reasons. To take the extremes, within its ranks there was a communist Sajjad Zaheer, left wing activists such as Danial Latifi and Mian Iftikharuddin but also ulema such as Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. Amongst the ‘subaltern’ classes the Pakistan movement had also become a multi-class movement. People adopted a Muslim League platform and were drawn to a Pakistani ideal for a variety of reasons. These could be religious, political, social, economic or cultural or combination of these.

There is, as we know, a debate as to whether Pakistan was to be merely a homeland for Muslims or a state where Islamic principles would apply.

The debate is often framed in a way that appears to make the choice a mutually exclusive one. Yet, the reality is that the Pakistan movement contained arguments for both.

This is refected in statements such as those of Liaquat Ali Khan after Pakistan was created:

“The only reason why we and the Quaid-i-Azam demanded Pakistan was to secure, in the subcontinent, a homeland where Muslims could live in their own way. We wished Pakistan to be a laboratory where we could practice the Islamic principles – the best in the world – and thus demonstrate that what Islam had taught thirteen centuries ago was needed as much now as it was then...We, that is to say, the Muslim League, are pledged to make Pakistan a Muslim State and run it one Islamic principles.”

There was not however much consensus as to what a state run on ‘Islamic principles’ actually meant in practice.

It is interesting to note how Pakistan was depicted in the 1946 election campaign. David Gilmartin – one of the very best historians of South Asia - using a number of posters that were used by the Muslim League in the Punjab, has shown how the League projected the idea of Pakistan as an embodiment of Muslim unity in contradistinction to fitna (disorder) and, actual existing disunity amongst Muslims. One election flyer in Punjab called for Muslims to “Unite on Islam. Become One” and to transcend local allegiances of “biraderi and qaum” which threaten to bring fitna.

The Muslim League was drawing on the normative ideal of the Muslim community in opposition to the ground reality of division amongst Muslims which was often based on ‘tribal’ affiliations, rather than a detailed picture of the relationship between the state and religion. To be sure, in their literature, they did also call for an Islamic state, but did not spell out what this actually meant. It was the importance of Muslim solidarity drawing on Islamic paradigms that took priority.

Lastly on Jinnah, there has been much argument as to the state he personally envisaged and how as a consequence he should be labelled. In an interview with Geo TV, David Gilmartin, asked about the debate replied with great merit in my view that:

“He certainly took much of his vision of what Pakistan ought to be from British constitutional law. And even his belief in democracy and elections was derived from a study of law and of the role of elections as a part of the rule of law in the British tradition... So in that sense he had derived ideas from sources that came from European tradition, from the European enlightenment.

But at the same time it was equally clear that he saw Islam as playing an important role in Pakistani life. And In that sense, you know, there are so many speeches he talks about this, that it is quite clear that he saw Islam as providing an important moral component in defining what it meant to be a Pakistani.”

The issues are therefore less clear cut then many people assume, whichever side they sit on.

 

[KB]

There's a gulf of difference between an "Islamic state" and "a state for Muslims" ; the later, which MA Jinnah wanted, can be secular (in the sense that religion doesn't have a say in its legislation) and is simply a state configuration for Muslims to practice their religion (and being an erstwhile minority, to give the same freedoms to other religious factions), whereas the first is discriminatory by nature, like the Jewish state Israel (which, like Pakistan, was meant to be an Hebrew - not Jewish - state, considering its founders were secular Zionists, not orthodox Jews).

The reality is that Pakistan movement was not a monolithic one. People supported it for a variety of reasons. To take the extremes, within its ranks there was a communist Sajjad Zaheer, left wing activists such as Danial Latifi and Mian Iftikharuddin but also ulema such as Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. Amongst the ‘subaltern’ classes the Pakistan movement had also become a multi-class movement. People adopted a Muslim League platform and were drawn to a Pakistani ideal for a variety of reasons. These could be religious, political, social, economic or cultural or combination of these.

There is, as we know, a debate as to whether Pakistan was to be merely a homeland for Muslims or a state where Islamic principles would apply.

The debate is often framed in a way that appears to make the choice a mutually exclusive one. Yet, the reality is that the Pakistan movement contained arguments for both.

This is refected in statements such as those of Liaquat Ali Khan after Pakistan was created:

“The only reason why we and the Quaid-i-Azam demanded Pakistan was to secure, in the subcontinent, a homeland where Muslims could live in their own way. We wished Pakistan to be a laboratory where we could practice the Islamic principles – the best in the world – and thus demonstrate that what Islam had taught thirteen centuries ago was needed as much now as it was then...We, that is to say, the Muslim League, are pledged to make Pakistan a Muslim State and run it one Islamic principles.”

There was not however much consensus as to what a state run on ‘Islamic principles’ actually meant in practice.

It is interesting to note how Pakistan was depicted in the 1946 election campaign. David Gilmartin – one of the very best historians of South Asia - using a number of posters that were used by the Muslim League in the Punjab, has shown how the League projected the idea of Pakistan as an embodiment of Muslim unity in contradistinction to fitna (disorder) and, actual existing disunity amongst Muslims. One election flyer in Punjab called for Muslims to “Unite on Islam. Become One” and to transcend local allegiances of “biraderi and qaum” which threaten to bring fitna.

The Muslim League was drawing on the normative ideal of the Muslim community in opposition to the ground reality of division amongst Muslims which was often based on ‘tribal’ affiliations, rather than a detailed picture of the relationship between the state and religion. To be sure, in their literature, they did also call for an Islamic state, but did not spell out what this actually meant. It was the importance of Muslim solidarity drawing on Islamic paradigms that took priority.

Lastly on Jinnah, there has been much argument as to the state he personally envisaged and how as a consequence he should be labelled. In an interview with Geo TV, David Gilmartin, asked about the debate replied with great merit in my view that:

“He certainly took much of his vision of what Pakistan ought to be from British constitutional law. And even his belief in democracy and elections was derived from a study of law and of the role of elections as a part of the rule of law in the British tradition... So in that sense he had derived ideas from sources that came from European tradition, from the European enlightenment.

But at the same time it was equally clear that he saw Islam as playing an important role in Pakistani life. And In that sense, you know, there are so many speeches he talks about this, that it is quite clear that he saw Islam as providing an important moral component in defining what it meant to be a Pakistani.”

The issues are therefore less clear cut then many people assume, whichever side they sit on.

 

[Safar55]

i would be interested to know, how many people today in Pakistan would rather be part of a greater India than a seperate Pakistan Nation?

 

[KB-24]

I don't think that is what he was saying. He was saying the concept and when they were created the ideology behind the notion of it all were similar.

There is no similarity. 1st Islamic State in the world in Madinah had more Non-Muslims then Muslims. Also, only Islam possesses a governance system which secures the rights of Muslims and Non-Muslims alike, it is the complete opposite of Jewish state.

 

[KB-24]

The reality is that Pakistan movement was not a monolithic one. People supported it for a variety of reasons. To take the extremes, within its ranks there was a communist Sajjad Zaheer, left wing activists such as Danial Latifi and Mian Iftikharuddin but also ulema such as Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. Amongst the ‘subaltern’ classes the Pakistan movement had also become a multi-class movement. People adopted a Muslim League platform and were drawn to a Pakistani ideal for a variety of reasons. These could be religious, political, social, economic or cultural or combination of these.

There is, as we know, a debate as to whether Pakistan was to be merely a homeland for Muslims or a state where Islamic principles would apply.

The debate is often framed in a way that appears to make the choice a mutually exclusive one. Yet, the reality is that the Pakistan movement contained arguments for both.

This is refected in statements such as those of Liaquat Ali Khan after Pakistan was created:

“The only reason why we and the Quaid-i-Azam demanded Pakistan was to secure, in the subcontinent, a homeland where Muslims could live in their own way. We wished Pakistan to be a laboratory where we could practice the Islamic principles – the best in the world – and thus demonstrate that what Islam had taught thirteen centuries ago was needed as much now as it was then...We, that is to say, the Muslim League, are pledged to make Pakistan a Muslim State and run it one Islamic principles.”

There was not however much consensus as to what a state run on ‘Islamic principles’ actually meant in practice.

It is interesting to note how Pakistan was depicted in the 1946 election campaign. David Gilmartin – one of the very best historians of South Asia - using a number of posters that were used by the Muslim League in the Punjab, has shown how the League projected the idea of Pakistan as an embodiment of Muslim unity in contradistinction to fitna (disorder) and, actual existing disunity amongst Muslims. One election flyer in Punjab called for Muslims to “Unite on Islam. Become One” and to transcend local allegiances of “biraderi and qaum” which threaten to bring fitna.

The Muslim League was drawing on the normative ideal of the Muslim community in opposition to the ground reality of division amongst Muslims which was often based on ‘tribal’ affiliations, rather than a detailed picture of the relationship between the state and religion. To be sure, in their literature, they did also call for an Islamic state, but did not spell out what this actually meant. It was the importance of Muslim solidarity drawing on Islamic paradigms that took priority.

Lastly on Jinnah, there has been much argument as to the state he personally envisaged and how as a consequence he should be labelled. In an interview with Geo TV, David Gilmartin, asked about the debate replied with great merit in my view that:

“He certainly took much of his vision of what Pakistan ought to be from British constitutional law. And even his belief in democracy and elections was derived from a study of law and of the role of elections as a part of the rule of law in the British tradition... So in that sense he had derived ideas from sources that came from European tradition, from the European enlightenment.

But at the same time it was equally clear that he saw Islam as playing an important role in Pakistani life. And In that sense, you know, there are so many speeches he talks about this, that it is quite clear that he saw Islam as providing an important moral component in defining what it meant to be a Pakistani.”

The issues are therefore less clear cut then many people assume, whichever side they sit on.

You can't have an Islamic State based on Anglo-Saxson law and the bolded part essentially sums up the issue. What Quaid proposed was Islam as a Madhab only, not Deen.

 

[James]

Markhor on fire in this thread. Very educational.

 

[insaaniyat]

I know many of you, especially the more patriotic and nationalistic, will take offence to my comments in this thread but please note that my statements aren't there to offend any of you because this doesn't apply to the majority of Pakistani posters.

A few times I have wondered why is Pakistan even named the 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan'? With the constant murders, kidnappings, thefts, other brutal crimes etc, does Pakistan even deserve to have the 'Islamic Republic' tag in its name? Islam is a religion of peace and compassion, so why is the situation of the country the complete opposite to the fundamentals of Islam?

P.S I know the answer why, I am just frustrated...

It's an insult to Islam. From bottom to the top everyone is corrupt. Islam is used to fulfil their own greed. There is nothing which reflect Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. It should be named corrupt republic of Pakistan. Killing, loot maar, corruption everything is there. Islam does not deserve that insult. Change the name.

 

[bin_pendi_ka_lota]

Regarding some of the issues mentioned in OP like "constant murders, kidnappings, thefts, other brutal crimes etc" they are down to basic animistic instinct of individuals ie. survival, greed, hunger, power and nothing to do with Islamic Republic of Pakistan

However Broadly their will be always people disagreeing to other people claiming only their version and interpretation of Islam and other are following the wrong one.

 

[Bhaijaan]

It is the system which allows the criminals we call politicians to get away with their crimes. They can bend it as they will. They have complete immunity against their oppression. Misery is due to the interest based economic system and privatization of natural resources which address the basic needs of all human beings. The system dictates this policy because it is written in the constitution. Poverty breeds desperation and desperation can lead to immorality. A sincere leader will end up compromising while operating within this system so the real issue is that of political system from which emanates public policy. Fix the system and you fix the root problem.

I wouldn't make a big deal of the system, the responsibility for efficient performance lies with the people only. Except little flaws here and there, the system is usually good enough for even the worse of nations. Firmly believe modern nations' prosperity is directly proportional to the net conscience, awareness and sincerity of its population and we subcontinental people fail miserably in that regard. Our political participation is limited to flocking behind individuals to the point they start taking us for granted. We are irresponsible and unrealistic, people who cant even get along with their neighbours talk of uniting Ummat and debate on whether Teresa, Gandhi should go to hell or not. Big talks are stuff of delusional people with no real objectives and its about time the countrymen realize how delusional they have been before things get worse and how they now need to focus on primary human requirements.

 

[KB-24]

I wouldn't make a big deal of the system, the responsibility for efficient performance lies with the people only. Except little flaws here and there, the system is usually good enough for even the worse of nations. Firmly believe modern nations' prosperity is directly proportional to the net conscience, awareness and sincerity of its population and we subcontinental people fail miserably in that regard. Our political participation is limited to flocking behind individuals to the point they start taking us for granted. We are irresponsible and unrealistic, people who cant even get along with their neighbours talk of uniting Ummat and debate on whether Teresa, Gandhi should go to hell or not. Big talks are stuff of delusional people with no real objectives and its about time the countrymen realize how delusional they have been before things get worse and how they now need to focus on primary human requirements.

Oh toa yaar I addressed how to fulfill primary human requirements. Abolition of interest, end of fiat currency, restoration of sound money (Gold & Silver), deprivatization of natural resources which provide the basic needs as such resources are considered public property in Islam to be managed by the state and providing opportunity for all citizens of the state to earn a living, this is incumbent upon the State. Now you cannot have this policy implemented in current status quo because it puts an end to concentration of wealth in hands of the few and the existing system seeks to protect the few to maintain its control over the masses.

The only thing delusional is believing that sincere people can bring about this change within existing political set up, it will NEVER happen because the vehicle at work is full of massive flaws.

 

[wasim-fan]

There's a gulf of difference between an "Islamic state" and "a state for Muslims" ; the later, which MA Jinnah wanted, can be secular (in the sense that religion doesn't have a say in its legislation) and is simply a state configuration for Muslims to practice their religion (and being an erstwhile minority, to give the same freedoms to other religious factions), whereas the first is discriminatory by nature, like the Jewish state Israel (which, like Pakistan, was meant to be an Hebrew - not Jewish - state, considering its founders were secular Zionists, not orthodox Jews).

Also, but that's peripheral, "our forefathers" (mine didn't move, but talking in general terms) simply fled the violences. If Eastern Punjabis and Biharis remained where they were, they would have been butchered, a simple as that, so they moved out to save their lives, not because of an "ideology", as even if it looks good in Bollywood movies, no one abandons his ancestral land, neighbours, ... for an ideology, unless you belonged to the zamindar Mughal élite of Uttar Pradesh who would have lost its lands anyway and would have had to work to earn because of Pandit Nehru's policies.

Largely agree with this.

 

[wasim-fan]

This started in the 1980s under Zia during the Afghan War. I've heard and read stories of how textbooks in schools were rewritten to focus more on rituals and especially on jihad, obviously politically convenient for the government of the day as they indoctrinated a generation of young people into this Saudi-imported religious culture. They joined Sunni militant organisations such as the SSP and these groups were armed by our military and intelligence services in the hope that they would do the state's dirty work in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Mosques were turned into recruiting grounds for young brainwashed Pakistanis to go and fight in Afghanistan.

All these new madrassas that were opened during the 1980s have one common theme, they came about owing to free flow of Saudi money.

The relationship of the mullahs and the military was a marriage of convenience on the behest of western powers, the latter wanted to fight the Russians - the military wanted to check the movement of Russians as they felt threatened, hence they used Islamic fervour, especially in education, to attain their objectives, hence the mullahs support of Zia. This use of religion as a political tool goes as far back as ZAB too.

Its not just Sunni organisations too, Iran, a country which many posters on here seem to think can do no wrong, also has funded militant Shia outfits such as the TNFJ in places like Jhang and Balochistan.

It was then that this religious extremism started, and the state funded it, but then when the Russians withdrew, these groups would then turn their guns on Shias, minorities and anyone who dares speak up against them - and to this day they cannot be contained.

Top Post

 

[ftbno1]

It is ironic to use words Islam(which means submission ) and republic (which means free) together.

 

[Shah]

Why is Pakistan an Islamic Republic? Should India be a Hindu Republic?

Using the same logic, should India be a Hindu Republic as the majority of the citizens are Hindus? Should the USA be a Christian Republic as the majority of the citizens are Christians?

Do minorities have any rights even though they might be the most patriotic citizens?

Do the country's Muslim citizens really adhere to the tenets of Islam to justify it being called an Islamic Republic?