Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Become a Member

 

Note: The Insaf Blog is a space for to share their personal ideas and opinions on any issue they consider important. Opinions expressed in the blog may not necessarily reflect PTI's official stance as an organization. If you are a PTI office-bearer or if you wish you present your views on a certain subject you can request a blog on this website by emailing [email protected] with your username.

 

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan: August 1947
By Imran Ghazali    |    9325 Views    |    129 Comments    |    Article Rating
 
Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan: August 1947

I just wanted to bring into everyone's attention the address by the founder of this nation. I don't need to say anything, just read it and you will realize that it is even more relevent today. Unfortunately, the government and we as the citizens of Pakistan did not address any of the the problems highlighted by the father of this nation.

                                                    ======================

Mr. Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

August 11, 1947



Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen!

I cordially thank you, with the utmost sincerity, for the honour you have conferred upon me - the greatest honour that is possible to confer - by electing me as your first President. I also thank those leaders who have spoken in appreciation of my services and their personal references to me. I sincerely hope that with your support and your co-operation we shall make this Constituent Assembly an example to the world. The Constituent Assembly has got two main functions to perform. The first is the very onerous and responsible task of framing the future constitution of Pakistan and the second of functioning as a full and complete sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. We have to do the best we can in adopting a provisional constitution for the Federal Legislature of Pakistan. You know really that not only we ourselves are wondering but, I think, the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this sub-continent. As it is, it has been unprecedented; there is no parallel in the history of the world. This mighty sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled. And what is very important with regards to it is that we have achieved it peacefully and by means of an evolution of the greatest possible character.

Dealing with our first function in this Assembly, I cannot make any well-considered pronouncement at this moment, but I shall say a few things as they occur to me. The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasize is this: remember that you are now a sovereign legislative body and you have got all the powers. It, therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions. The first observation that I would like to make is this: You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State.

The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering - I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse - is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down with an iron hand and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.

Black-marketing is another curse. Well, I know that blackmarketeers are frequently caught and punished. Judicial sentences are passed or sometimes fines only are imposed. Now you have to tackle this monster, which today is a colossal crime against society, in our distressed conditions, when we constantly face shortage of food and other essential commodities of life. A citizen who does black-marketing commits, I think, a greater crime than the biggest and most grievous of crimes. These blackmarketeers are really knowing, intelligent and ordinarily responsible people, and when they indulge in black-marketing, I think they ought to be very severely punished, because the entire system of control and regulation of foodstuffs and essential commodities, and cause wholesale starvation and want and even death.

The next thing that strikes me is this: Here again it is a legacy which has been passed on to us. Along with many other things, good and bad, has arrived this great evil, the evil of nepotism and jobbery. I want to make it quite clear that I shall never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any any influence directly of indirectly brought to bear upon me. Whenever I will find that such a practice is in vogue or is continuing anywhere, low or high, I shall certainly not countenance it.

I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India's constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

Rating
Comments
By amajid.malik @ Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:40 PM  |   (amajid.malik)
He was reading the pulse of the nation when he highlighted following problems to tackle...

... Law and order

... Nepotism

... corruption

... Black marketing

By frazbama @ Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:21 PM  |   (frazbama)
This speech has shattered much but instigated much confusion as well. Despite the clarity of vision, many - including us - have negated its spirit.

For example Jinnah says:

"You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

What does this mean? Maududian Islam refutes Qaid-e-Azam in this regard - as does the "Objective Resolution" enshrined in the Pakistan Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment and ancillary resolutions in the 1980's declares that an entire community cannot call itself 'Muslim' nor can any member say 'Aslamualaikum' - if a member of that community says 'Asalamualaikum' they can be thrown in jail for up to three years.

Although Qaid-e-Azam declared that 'religion has nothing to do with the state', our state has declared that many of its citizens cannot call themselves 'Muslim' nor can they say the words 'Aslamualaikum'.

The question then becomes, should get rid of Qaid-e-Azam's speech throwing it into the dustbin and persist with the currently enshrined idea that declares religion to have everything to do with the state, or retrace our steps and take inspiration from Jinnah's speech by struggling for a state where no one religion is supreme and all religions and citizens are treated with dignity, humanity and justice?

By Ali @ Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:29 AM  |   (masyed)

Absolute defination of "humanity" will come from a devined religion- else everything will become relative


By Ali @ Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:37 AM  |   (masyed)
It is not a question of Either ..OR ...

If working model of Islam could be retraced in true sense , it will naturaly accomodate other religions & respect their values also - Moreover it does provide the fundamental framework for taking care of Justice and self steem of individuals

IMHO - There is no conflict as such ...

By frazbama @ Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:50 PM  |   (frazbama)
S Muhammad Ali:

"You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

The question is not weather 'true implementation of Islam' or any religion is an answer. The question is, irrespective of how good or bad any religion is (potentially or in reality), can religion have any business of the state?

Secondly, do we desire to continue with the inherent forms of discriminatory practices enshrined in the constitution under the name of religion: namely, the 2nd Amendment or the ancillary resolution subjecting Pakistani citizens with certain beliefs to humiliation by the state laws? Or constitutional laws that discriminate and ostracize minorities from becoming heads of state?

Do we see the rampant legislations degrading select Pakistani citizens and excused on religious grounds, just?

We all have religious prejudices. But should our prejudices and discriminatory practices be used to subjugate and persecute others who do not hold our beliefs?

Are we members of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf just for the kicks? Or is it merely because we wish to see our prejudices and biases replace those of the current elite?

Justice for all or justice for only a select few (us)?

By Hassan Niazi @ Friday, December 19, 2008 12:34 AM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Fraz

By Hassan Niazi @ Friday, December 19, 2008 1:51 AM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Fraz

Mate if you think Secularism is the answer to the state level religious discrimination, than I should tell you that no secular country in the world has ever been able to address any of those concerns. And it never will. All they have been able to achieve is dangerous freedom destroying societies to the extreme.

All concepts and theories look good on paper until they come into the practical world. And the best example is secularism. One needs to come out of books and "live" in these theories to be able to support or critize them.

Is religion anything to do with the state business? Yes ... it has everything to do with the State's business. If not then tomorrow you and I will be debating if gays and lesbians in Pakistan should have adoption rights or not. Should the Stem cell research be allowed in the country or not? Does the women have a right to abortion or not? Should sex be allowed on streets?.... bla bla bla.

The only thing secularism achieves is to define a new religion. After all what is religion? Set of rules of worship (Huqook-ullah)and set of rules of societies (Hukook-ul-ibad). Secularism tackles the latter part. After all the problems for which religions find the answers to will still exist even if you take the religion out of the state's affairs. Then what? You still need the solutions. Ok. What do you then in a secular country? Define laws to address those problems. What are these laws? Another religion. If not then tell me what else? It is a religion which looks at Hukook-ul-ibad since that is where society comes into picture. Does it achieve the purpose? No it will never do that. Why?? Because again there will be "non-believers" to this "new" religion. The indiscriminate one! They would not like to abide by it but will be forced to abide by it since now it’s a state law. Then is this not discrimination? It's a viscous circle my friend with no tale in sight. We end up at the same place where we began.

Discrimination will always be there as long as there is human alive. With or without religion's involvement in State's business. With or without religion. Secularism is a popular slogan since it starts from a decent base of religions non-discrimination at state level. But has it achieved anything in the practical world? None. I get discriminated of being a Muslim everyday in the most secular country in the world. What is the constitution doing to avoid it? Nothing.

Pakistan is a Islamic Republic. We should all read the purpose of the green colour in our flag and than read the meaning of white colour in our flag. What is more secular than this? People try to act as intellectuals by using poplar words and fail to observe substance over form. I don't know why people think Islam is all about Muslims? It only cater to their needs and ignores others. If this is what you think of it, than consider being an atheist since you are failing to understand the whole concept of any religion not just Islam.

@ Muhammad Ali ……very well said brother. If someone can understand Islam in it's true spirit there is nothing more secular than Islam.

I beg all intellectuals to come out of these 18th century debates of secularism. If religious non-discrimination is your objective at a society level, then study religions. All major religions. Not just Islam. You will come to the same point where our founders ended demanding for a separate homeland for Muslims separate from Hindus. Read the letter sent by Quaid-e-Azam to Winston Churchill in 1946. You will get your answers. There is justice for all. Not for a few.

Jazakullah
Love to all my Pakistani brothers and sisters.

By jazba-e-dil @ Friday, December 19, 2008 2:06 PM  |   (jazba-e-dil)
What an irony that we are still where Jinnah left us ... infact a lot worse.

Secondly, whenever someone from the 'Secular Pakistan' school of thought talks, the only reference he can produce is this speech from Quaid-e-Azam.


@Fraz

Now Pakistan has a history behind its creation and there wasn't one but hundreds of speeches uttered by Muslim leaders during the movement for independance, including a lot of other speeches by Quaid-e-Azam where he clearly advocates the Two Nation Theory and the vision of Pakistan as a Muslim State.

Aren't we throwing all other speeches of Quaid-e-Azam in the dustbin and only framing these few lines which are giving the false impression that maybe he was implying a Secular Pakistan.

It hurts to realize that after all these years we are still debating the reason for our existence.

Coming to the point about that "particular community" ... we won't allow a Hindu to call himself a Muslim unless he believes in the teachings of Islam, nor will a Christian allow a Buddhist to call himself a Buddhist unless he believes in Jesus Christ as the way Christians believe ... So why should we allow anyone to call himself a Muslm when he doesn't believe in Hazrat Muhammad SAW as the last messenger of Allah SWT.

Why does this community insist on stealing our religious identity? Why do they want to call their places of worship a 'Masjid' when they can use any other word in the dictionary?

@Hassan

Well said that secularism in nothing but a religion of its own that clearly discriminates against those who do not believe in it. Anyone who doesn't agree to this should provide one example of a Secular nation where there is no discrimination among people of different religions.

Thank you and I'll end here with the prayer "Rabbi Zidni Ilma".


By Imran Ghazali @ Friday, December 19, 2008 11:36 PM  |   (Emron G)
Its interesting to read what the experienced and learned people have to say.

I think I am right now in the learning state and would like to absorb...I am thinking....and the discussions are motivating me to gain more knowledge....

I would like to say few things, that being Muslims it is our duty to respect all other religions and human beings.

Huquuq Ullah: Is a personal matter between us and God. State should not be responsible to "enforce" it.

Huquuq Ul Ibad: This is a matter which involves our treatment with others human beings. And I think the state should be responsible to ensure that each citizen enjoys equal rights regardless of his/her religion nad each citizens rights are protected by state. And I think the "real concept" of Islamic state would ensure that.


By AB07869 @ Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:41 PM  |   (AliBukhari2012)
Brothers Imran Ghazali, Muhammad Ali, Hassan Niazi, and Sabir Rizvi you put your thoughts/believes very well.

For @Fraz

Partial truth is a very dangerous thing so please refrain from choosing certain parts of Mr. Jinnah's presidential address or any other matter and present them out of context. Also avoid watching too much of Hannity, O'reilly, Limbaugh etc

The part of speech you selected for your point scoring was as follows;

"You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

Next you asked

"The question is not weather 'true implementation of Islam' or any religion is an answer. The question is, irrespective of how good or bad any religion is (potentially or in reality), can religion have any business of the state?


My question to you is first, where in the above presidential address of Mr. Jinnah where it is suggested that religion has nothing to do with state?

Secondly, please note that your cherry picked statement from presidential address above is actually addressing minorities and assuring them that they can belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

This statement does allow minorities to have religion, cast or creed different than religion, cast or creed relating to business of the state. The same statement does not negate but infact asserts the fact that majority's religion, cast or creed does have a lot/everything to do with business of the state.

Next you went on to state,

"We all have religious prejudices. But should our prejudices and discriminatory practices be used to subjugate and persecute others who do not hold our beliefs?"

My question to you is, are religious prejudices only form of prejudice? Aren't there other prejudices?

What you are trying to imply in this blog (I have also noticed the same about you in other blogs) is that we (humans) should abandon things in particular religious beliefs based on which we humans can indulge in prejudice activities, if it is so, then my friend the list is endless. You will never abandon use of knife despite the fact that it is used to kill, abandon use of cars/airplanes as they involve accidents etc and so on. If you don't know how to use equipment or if you are using equipment with incomplete parts (current state of laws being twisted hybrid of Islamic and fascist British rules) please don't blame equipment in other words religion (Islam).

Finally, as long as we (humans) exist, we will always find ways to do prejudice. If you understand the above simple point, then question boils down to fact what exactly you have been attacking so far from different angles.

Your love of secularism, fondness of superiority of economic drivers over morals, preaching of Kemal Ataturk** being role model are enough for me to understand what you represent.


Conclusion:
Avoid point scoring and watching too much of Hannity, O'reilly, Limbaugh etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
**For my other brothers I am copying below certain facts about Mr. Ataturk which can be independently searched on internet.

Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal - An Intimate Study of a Dictator H.C. Armstrong, 1934:

He was drinking heavily. The drink stimulated him, gave him energy, but increased his irritability. Both in private and public he was sarcastic, brutal and abrupt. He flared up at the least criticism. He cut short all attempts to reason with him. He flew into a passion at the least opposition. He would neither confide in nor co-operate with anyone. When one politician gave him some harmless advice, he roughly told him to get out. When a venerable member of the Cabinet suggested that it was unseemly for Turkish ladies to dance in public, he threw a Koran at him and chased him out of his office with a stick.

p.241:
"For five hundred years these rules and theories of an Arab sheik," he said, "and the interpretations of generations of lazy, good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and the criminal law of Turkey."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

By frazbama @ Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:03 PM  |   (frazbama)
Hassan:

I am surprised about the word 'secularism' being thrown into this argument - out of no where. But nevertheless, like many modern Muslim states - like Indonesia, Senegal and Turkey, where the state is inherently secular, this seems like a better model to follow than say the Maududian nonsense Pakistan has been cursed with.

In secular states, ALL religions are treated equally.

No one religion is given supremacy. It would not make every person tolerant, but ask any minority, what they most desire is that at least the state and constitution should be tolerant and UNBIASED.


Sabir Rizvi:

My family is from both the majority religious sect and ethnic majority. By virtue of this fortunate birth, I never had to face discrimination for these things.

The 2nd Amendment has given the right to people like the (former) Lal Masjid 'scholars' (Ghazi brothers and their father) to demand that Shias be declared non-Muslims as well. Until a couple of years ago, the primary raison d'etre of Lal Masjid scholars was to declare Shias as non-Muslims/Kafir.

This is just one example.

Question is, should we 'legalize' our prejudices? Should we legalize discrimination?


Bukhari:

You are right. Cherry picking is a bad thing to do. Qaid-e-Azam's life should be studied to gather what he believed in. One way to understand his beliefs is look at his actions. By that I do not mean how much Qaid-e-Azam enjoyed wine or cigars.

Qaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah made a Kafir Pakistani his law minister after independence.
Can a kafir draft laws for a Muslim majority people? Not an Islamic scholar, or (Allah SWT forbid) Maulana Maududi who cursed both Pakistan and Jinnah. But a Kafir/Hindu Pakistani given the task to draft laws for all the people of Pakistan.

If Islamic laws can be drafted by Kafirs in your book, then we have no argument.

By frazbama @ Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:11 PM  |   (frazbama)
However, my message to all would be that rather than merely focusing on the past, or voicing our opinions, let us understand the victims of our discriminatory laws.

When we become silent spectators to laws that discriminate our Pakistani citizens, we become a party to discrimination.

When citizens of Pakistan cannot say 'Aslamualaikum' lest face a 3 year jail sentence, or when they can be accused of blasphemy and sentenced without trial or courts, when their places of worship are bulldozed to the ground - all these are actions, if not inspired, at least backed and buttressed by the constitutional laws of the Pakistani constitution.

Our personal opinions about the role(s) of religions aside, I am sure that being members of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, we wish to see justice done for all the citizens of Pakistan.

Equality and justice for all is a fine ideal. It is an ideal pure enough to stand on its own feet, and does not require religious sanctioning.

Cheers!

By Ali @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:18 AM  |   (masyed)
That’s true we all need to stand together for Justice and rule of Law.
However, I don’t think anybody here is supporting the atrocities against minorities and sentences without trials ( actions which are already against the fundamental teachings of Islam). Such bad practises are result of lawlessness rather than discrimination , something which PTI struggling hard against .
Unfortunately the word ‘discrimination’ has been misused a lot at times in our world.
There is a ‘Merit’ requirement in every system which ‘differentiates’ between individuals or entities . When millions of people scarified their lives for an ideology in making of a country
then Merit for legislation of such a country should guard that very ideology. Those NOT
believing in it off course should still have rights to enjoy life in a state , but how can they demand the right to rule this country ?

By frazbama @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:21 AM  |   (frazbama)
" When millions of people scarified their lives for an ideology in making of a country
then Merit for legislation of such a country should guard that very ideology."

What ideology was this exactly? Based on Jinnah's vision - rather, actions - a Pakistani Kafir (Jogindar Nath Mandal) was given the task to make the laws for all Pakistanis. What ideology had Jinnah fought for? Because if our code was to be the shariah, then a Kafir Pakistani would never have been chosen to draft the laws.

Secondly, I would agree with you that those who fought most deserve most - "merit" as you say.

Jamat-e-Islami and other Maududian types despised the Pakistan movement and ridiculed it. Almost all other religious parties and ulema-e-Islam rejected the Pakistan movement.

The only Islamic groups that whole-heartedly supported the Pakistan movement were: Jamat-e-Ahmediya (Qaid-e-Azam believed they had the right to call themselves Muslims) and I suppose the Ismailis (as Muslim League was put together by Imam Agha Khan and Jinnah was from this sect as well).

I know discrimination is a word that does a lot of rounds. But isn't it strange that those who fought most for Pakistan are the most...discriminated? While those who opposed Pakistan tooth and nail, like Jamat-e-Islami and its leadership are claiming the rights to moderate the raison d'etre of this country?

By frazbama @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:32 AM  |   (frazbama)
I would like to add though that Pakistanis have the right to change their country in the direction they like. It can be more religion, or none of it. That is a democratic choice.

However, my last post was to highlight the point that those who want to claim more religion today based on the Pakistan movement lead by Mahomed Ali Jinnah, stand on flimsy grounds.

Similarly, those who wish to see citizens of all religions and beliefs be treated as equals, do not need the past to justify this noble ideal.

Again, justice and equality for all is an ideal that can stand by itself, without history, without need of divine inspiration.

By Ali @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:24 PM  |   (masyed)
I think we will have to look at the Big Picture of Pakistan movement rather then the 1-2 incidents
A movement which was based on "La illaha illaAllah Muhammad ur Rasool Allah" ( there are thousands of incidents proving that ) and this was the slogan for which millions of people lost everything rather than for yet another land where merely better governing practises are observed than the those in india.
There is no point debating that - rather than we have to look forward how can we take this forward. and if a large majority of its residents want to take inspiration from a Model given by a Prophet Muhammad (Salleh allaho alaihe waalaihe wasalam ) there is nothing wrong in respecting and accepting it as well- Justice and humanity will be just one part of it & will be taken care by it naturally

By Liaqat Ali @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:48 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
Secularism in Pakistan would mean , that , equal rights and equal oppurtunities to all its citizens , and no discrimination towards its citizens based on ,religon,firqa , class ,colour, region,language etc.
While this debate is quite interesting , its been done many times in Pakistan. It's always been a waste of time, specially for political workers .
A good example is the attempt in federal court of Pakistan to define a muslim.'' Munir report''.
In this court of inquiry , headed by Justices Munir and Kiyani, leaders of all firqas declared all other firqas , kafirs , and provided fatwas to prove their case.
Jinnah sb, a shia would be considered a kafir by :- 1. Wahhabis , ahl hadis , jamaat al dawa ,LET, and other groups belonging to Saudi/ wahhabi/ salafi firqa.
2. Deobandi firqa , and its offshoots like JUI ,SSP etc .Incl Jamaat Islami.
In other words all the groups fighting allonside US in Afghanistan in 80s ,who are now victims of US aggression.
I call them "troublemakers united".
I would also call upon all you good people to discuss actual reforms needed for national development.
I suggest a 100% tax on all incomes above Rs 6000 to fund education / training for all Pakistanis yr1 - yr 12 .
All teachers be trained to the level of B.Ed.
ALL mullas to have same level of education/ training. And should be bound to teach from written text. No verbals please.
healthcare be free and of one standard.
None food agricultre be banned/ controled.
Overseas funding of Mosques / be banned.
......And we will happy ever after...

By frazbama @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:31 PM  |   (frazbama)
"I think we will have to look at the Big Picture of Pakistan movement rather then the 1-2 incidents"

What was the big picture? When nearly all the Ulema-e-Islam were opposed to Pakistan tooth and nail (other than a few smaller sects), then who would make the shariah laws (as I am assuming this is what the Prophet's (PBUH) model boils down for many)? Does it not seem reasonable that if Jinnah wanted shariah law, he would at least have practiced it himself? Or if he chose instead to practice the British law his entire life, he would at least have gotten the leading Islamic scholars and parties on board for his new country? The big picture shows that instead of supporting the Pakistan movement, the Ulema-e-Islam, lead by Maulana Maududi were flogging and cursing anyone who wished to support 'Na-Pakistan' (in Maududi's words).

Can Jinnah's action (not the sloganeering or speeches touted in any political movement/campaign) of giving the powers to a Pakistani Infidel (Joginder Nath Mandal) to make the laws of the new state show Jinnah's vision for Pakistan? Or that as long as he lived, Pakistan's national anthem was a four-line poem written by a Hindu from Lahore? (Hafeez Jallundri, the 'darbari pimp' as termed by Habib Jalib in his 'Mainay us say yeh kaha', was rejected by Jinnah and only managed to secure his rather nonsensical anthem by securing favors of the post-Jinnah elite - Jinnah, it is to be noted, rejected this 'Hafeez Jallundri').

You term it as '1-2' incidents. Another action - not mere speeches which detractors of Jinnah rely on - was taken in 1946. Mahomed Ali Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. On the eve of what became 'partition', Jinnah in 1946 agreed to a United Indian Union. Even the Congress initially agreed but later Nehru in short-sightedness went back on this agreement. The plan envisaged a loose confederation of India provincial groupings - as this was Jinnah's second best choice after constitutional guarantees (Lucknow Pact and thereafter - more ACTIONS of Jinnah) to Muslims was rejected. Pakistan was the last choice.

What does this tell you about Jinnah and the bigger picture?


However, I would once again like to say that, we are a democratic state and can choose the direction the country should take - i.e. a) give even more relevance to one religion's believers over all others, or b) treat all beliefs with equality and no one religion is supreme. We do not need to twist Jinnah or the Pakistan movement to suit our contemporary desires. We have democracy and democratic institutions that are a sufficient basis to chart the course of this country.

By frazbama @ Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:36 PM  |   (frazbama)
"I suggest a 100% tax on all incomes above Rs 6000 to fund education"

You must have meant '60,000' - when work is good, even construction laborers can make over 6,000 rupees - shouldn't tax them 100% :)

By Hassan Niazi @ Monday, December 22, 2008 12:52 AM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Fraz

Well well well. Looks like we Pakistanis have found our savior in your person.

Your vast "knowledge" has touched many areas. Kindly "educate" us further on each of these one by one. If you allow, let me pick the topics.

Firstly, the Ahmediyas.

You stated.

"Jamat-e-Ahmediya (Qaid-e-Azam believed they had the right to call themselves Muslims)"

and you also stated;

"We do not need to twist Jinnah or the Pakistan movement to suit our contemporary desires".

Keeping with the spirit of your 2nd statement to not twist Quaid-e-Azam to suit our own desires, kindly enlighten us what are you trying to point out here. Please be short and to the point in answering the question.

Cheers!

PS: Make sure to correctly spell Quaid-e-Azam. It's not Qaid-e-Azam.


By RythemDivine @ Monday, December 22, 2008 6:55 AM  |   (RythemDivine)
Appreciate this effort, increased my knowledge regarding Quaid.
secondly what else is being discussed here is (with my apologies) not the subject of this speach, @faraz the first line of the constitution go and read it :) and please keep it in mind that is written by a democratic govt elected by majority of people of pakistan, secondly your pointing on an issue which is decided by majority & if you read back Qaid's speech what he said about partition :) it was unjust but asked his fellow men that its decided and follow it :), so follow what has been decided by people of pakistan the question of blasphemy & Muslim is a religious one, so pointing fingers is not the solution to problem, problem with the people you have mentioned is that they want themselves to be muslims , which is not given to them, as non muslims they have equal rights as hindus and christens have, and mid you DO Qomi Nazrya is the key of creation of Pakistan which Clearly draws the line

By frazbama @ Monday, December 22, 2008 6:59 AM  |   (frazbama)
Glad to enlighten to you Hassan :)

For Quaid/Qaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, the religious/sectarian beliefs of an individual did not play any role as far as Pakistan was concerned. Thus the ease with which he made Jogindar Nath Mandal the Law Minister of Pakistan or Chaudhary Zafarullah Khan (an Ahmedi) the Foreign Minister - despite the valid criticism that Zafarullah was not a member of the constituent assembly.

In case you missed the point, this blog as well as my arguments are highlighting that Mahomed Ali Jinnah, especially since he was from the Ismaili Muslim community, realized what can happen if the religious beliefs of a majority supercede those of everyone else.

Not only did he realize the 'tyranny of the majority', throughout his life, since leaving the Congress Party, he tirelessly worked to give EQUAL rights to the minorities (Lucknow Pact being a scintillating example) and after being shunned, ended up creating a separate nation based on this motive.

So it is rather illogical to see that the nation he created start to actively discriminate its own minority sects/religions via the 2nd Amendment or through legislation that denies democratic rights to Pakistani Christians and Hindus.

However, we should follow the footsteps of the Qaid as he is our founding father. Equality and justice for all is as relevant today as it was when Jinnah was fighting for the rights of minorities in his day and age. Just as Jinnah fought for the rights of minorities in his day and age, we should follow suit today.

Finally, how do you spell the name of the Prophet (PBUH)? Is it 'Mehmet' as the Turks spell it, Muhammad, Mohammad, or 'Mahomed' as Jinnah spelt it? :)

Cheers!

By jazba-e-dil @ Monday, December 22, 2008 7:53 AM  |   (jazba-e-dil)
@Fraz

And the first commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army was a British. Now what does that imply?

I don't understand why you are ignoring the whole strategy and pointing towards a few tactics only.

As for the legalizing prejudices issue, it's one thing to be able to demand something and another to be able to decide. That's why all of us are asking for an independant judiciary so there's a check and balance in the society.

By Liaqat Ali @ Monday, December 22, 2008 9:44 AM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
A Cuban doctor earns $ 30 a month.
I am trying to draw your attention towards an alternative to the prevaling capitalist system , capitalism has failed to provide solutions to the sufering of 90% of human race.
If the state provides for healthcare ,education, and, i add a few more ie, clean water , clean air , free electricity , one acre of land to grow food/vegetables,a small block of land to build a house / a mud brick home . What would you need the money for .
Rs 6000 is enough.


By Liaqat Ali @ Monday, December 22, 2008 10:03 AM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
As a result of the sucess of cabinet mission plan , India would not be divided .But the new system would allow for atonomy for the states . Thus affecting the control over economy. It is said the Tata, Birla influenced Pandit Nehru's decision to reject cabinet mission plan.

By Ali @ Monday, December 22, 2008 11:53 AM  |   (masyed)
@Liaqat Ali - I have a humble request
Please for heaven sake differentiate between “Islam” and the looters & plunders parties ( all of them which you named correctly above) using name of Islam there are always corrupt people in every domain. If there are corrupt players in a domain we cannot abandon the whole domain itself.
As PTI cannot stop its ‘just’ political struggle / and start cursing the “domain of politics” because of the fact that other opportunist political parties ( PPP, MQM, PML) have gone corrupt.
why to hold politics responsible for it – Rather hold "Politicians" for it
I thought that atleast the difference between behaviours & ideology in every domain was always obvious :(



By AB07869 @ Monday, December 22, 2008 2:36 PM  |   (AliBukhari2012)
@ Fraz

Interestingly, in majority of 17 blogs/articles you have posted so far the common theme is to exclusion/removal of religion (No need to guess which religion?)

Like Hassan please also enlighten me with your beliefs through answering following basic question.

Do you believe that Islam as a religion suppresses the rights of minorities (Islam here does not mean namesake Muslims/so called ulemas)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Brothers, I am reproducing below some of Fraz's comments (limited only to current article/blog) exhibiting a consistent/common theme and my brief comments on same.

-- The question is not weather 'true implementation of Islam' or any religion is an answer. The question is, irrespective of how good or bad any religion is (potentially or in reality), can religion have any business of the state? .

Comment: Yes, it does as already discussed in my previous response.

-- Do we see the rampant legislations degrading select Pakistani citizens and excused on religious grounds, just?

Comment: If you mean Shariah Compliant legislations than I think it should have been more rampant.

-- We all have religious prejudices. But should our prejudices and discriminatory practices be used to subjugate and persecute others who do not hold our beliefs?

Comment: I agree, there are other better ways to do prejudice than religion and together we will find some.

-- Jamat-e-Islami and other Maududian types despised the Pakistan movement and ridiculed it. Almost all other religious parties and ulema-e-Islam rejected the Pakistan movement.

Comment: Doesn't that mean people also rejected your most loving (Jamat-e-Islami and other Maududian ) , please, don't go on asserting that rejection of above means rejection of religion.

-- While those who opposed Pakistan tooth and nail, like Jamat-e-Islami and its leadership are claiming the rights to moderate the raison d'etre of this country?

Comment: Refer my previous response.

-- However, my last post was to highlight the point that those who want to claim more religion today based on the Pakistan movement lead by Mahomed Ali Jinnah, stand on flimsy grounds.

Comment: You are funny. What is more religion?

-- I would like to add though that Pakistanis have the right to change their country in the direction they like. It can be more religion, or none of it.

Comment: Better if none, right?

-- The big picture shows that instead of supporting the Pakistan movement, the Ulema-e-Islam, lead by Maulana Maududi were flogging and cursing anyone who wished to support 'Na-Pakistan' (in Maududi's words).

Comment: Discussed above.

-- For Quaid/Qaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, the religious/sectarian beliefs of an individual did not play any role as far as Pakistan was concerned.

Comment: Who were the two nations in the "Two Nation Theory"? One I can tell you were Hindus… other perhaps you are trying to forget…..

-- The only Islamic groups that whole-heartedly supported the Pakistan movement were: Jamat-e-Ahmediya (Qaid-e-Azam believed they had the right to call themselves Muslims) and I suppose the Ismailis (as Muslim League was put together by Imam Agha Khan and Jinnah was from this sect as well).

Comment: You are trying to imply that above minority group created Pakistan i.e. millions other Muslims don't count. Or that majority followed this minority.

-- Maududian Islam refutes Qaid-e-Azam in this regard - as does the "Objective Resolution" enshrined in the Pakistan Constitution.

Comment: Get your facts corrected as there is no such thing as "Maududian Islam".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Liaqat Ali @ Monday, December 22, 2008 5:51 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
Maulana Hasrat Mohani was a communist and a Muslim . Had he migrated to Pakistan would have been considered a Kafir by many..
There are many different understandings of Islam. Followers of one firqa consider the others as kafir .
Secularism in Pakistan would mean , firqawarana neutrality. This should not be confused with Wahhabism (established 1744 ), who reject all other schools of understandings /imams of fiqa .Wahhabis also give prominence to Saud family kings as part of their Madhab.
I belive most Pakistanis are social muslims , they would rather have a peacefull , non violent ,egalitarian , democratic society.
The three examples of Islamic regimes in recent times defy all this .
The Taliban in Afghanistan was a Deobandi Mullayat , a cruel and inhumane govt , it lacked any understanding of history . This firqa was used by US to fight the soviets. They are now victims of US agression.
The Saudi govt is based on ( its own invention) the Wahhabi doctrine , it is an absolute monarchy , doesnot respect equality of humans. It has elevated the saudi royal family to status of competators to prophet Muhammad PBUM.
The Iranian govt though fiersly Independant and self reliant ,has mullas as supreme authority , who can overule the will of the people.
In my humble opinion ,Pakistan need not follow any of these footsteps .
Pakistan has to be Socially Just and progressive society, with all its citizens equal stake holders. This can only be achieved if religous beliefs are declared a private affair and the state respects all but has no religon of its own.
Thank you all .
Let us do some thing for the poor and the dispossed people of Pakistan.

By Hassan Niazi @ Monday, December 22, 2008 7:49 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)

@Sabir Rizvi

You wrote "@Fraz -And the first commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army was a British. Now what does that imply?"

Let's pray bro that your question gets answered. The one I asked to Fraz wasn't.
Also Sabir don't take these statements of Fraz lightly. These are visions. The more you read them, the more you learn about them. The more you get "enlightened".

@Shahzad Zafar
Bro you wrote.
"@faraz the first line of the constitution go and read it :) and please keep it in mind that is written by a democratic govt. elected by majority of people of Pakistan, secondly your pointing on an issue which is decided by majority & if you read back Quaid's speech what he said about partition :) it was unjust but asked his fellow men that its decided and follow it :), so follow what has been decided by people of Pakistan the question of blasphemy & Muslim is a religious one, so pointing fingers is not the solution to problem, problem with ,the people you have mentioned is that they want themselves to be Muslims which is not given to them, as non Muslims they have equal rights as Hindus and christens have, and mid you DO Qomi Nazrya is the key of creation of Pakistan which Clearly draws the line"


Excellent analysis and conclusion! You clearly distinguished two separate points for @Fraz who seems to be combining the two and struggling with Two Nation theory, Objectives resolution, and Islam itself. It's not new and a lot of pseudo westerners often have this issue.

@Fraz

Mate you again dodged a simple question by answering with the all time favorite slogan "Non-discrimination".
The two distinct points are state level religious discrimination and the other is a religious issue itself. Fraz's example of a state sponsored religious discrimination against minority is the declaration of Ahmadiya's sect as non-muslims. Such non-sense and naïve connection to the word discrimination!

This is a pure religious issue as highlighted by @Shahzad Zafar above, which the right authority decided. Just like the State/Supreme Court of Pakistan declaring usury/interest haram in the Pakistan as an example. Who is being discriminated here? This is an Islamic Republic. Following your logic will cause all Non-Muslims to be allowed doing business involving interest based transactions? Is this where you are heading? (Whether this prohibition of interest is being adhered to or not is a different topic). Let's try an easier example. If you profess to be a PHD and you are not, then the respective authority has a right to strip you off that title. Same is the case with Ahmadiya's. There is religious freedom for all minorities. But no place for Munafiqs.

You can say there is State discrimination in Pakistan if Christians, Parsis, Hindus and all other minorities (including Ahmadiya's) are not allowed to work, are not allowed to vote, are not allowed to buy property, are not allowed to do business, etc just because of their religious identity. Just like Israel is doing with Gaza. Do you find Pakistan comparable with Israel at State level?

Further Fraz stated.

"Qaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah made a Kafir Pakistani his law minister after independence.
Can a kafir draft laws for a Muslim majority people".

You seem to be completely ignorant of how a democracy functions in any country! Since when did a Law minister become a sole narrator of a country's law? The Law minister heads the Ministry of Law whose role is to advice Government on legal and constitutional queries. The ministry ensures adoption of "existing" laws to bring them in conformity with the "existing" Constitution. It also drafts "Bills". These Bills goes to the Parliament (NA or Senate) where it is approved after consideration by the elected members. If Parliament assess it to be against country's or public's interest, it can reject it. There is no "one-man show". Quaid-e-Azam selected an "infidel" on merit to lead the ministry. Not to "dictate" laws for a country. Just like Justice Bhgwan Das is a Supreme country Judge. He does not need to be a Muslim to enforce Law of Pakistan or interpret or even devise Laws for an Islamic Republic. You seem to be achieving some other objective here.

@Ali Bukhari

Brother your replies to Fraz very articulate and decisive. Really excellent stuff. Both of us are proud "enlightened" people by now after gaining so much from our savior.


@Fraz again!.
Brother no one person knows much more about writing than another. I expect that when people think they know anything about it, then their case is hopeless.
Respect the views of your Chairman Imran Khan who said he was most inspired by Allama Iqbal. In another blog you called Allama Iqbal "trite". What else can we say about your views. Read the Taran-e-Milli not Taran-e-Hindi :-)

Replying with a same message a 100 times would not make it right.

A genius has limits, but stupidity has none. Set your limits or keep on replying.

Love to all my Pakistani brothers and sisters.

By frazbama @ Monday, December 22, 2008 9:34 PM  |   (frazbama)
Liaqat: Good points. We should learn from the examples of Indonesia, Senegal and Turkey and see how their secular environment has created a relatively progressive society. Turkey is lead by a right-wing Islamist party that is the most pro-European party in Turkey's history.

To conclude repetition, let us remember to honor the struggle of the man, Jinnah, who dedicated his life to fighting for minority rights by standing up for equality and justice for all.

If we wish to learn from our forefather, we should ensure that we never degenerate to the level that we support legislation that is inherently made to discriminate against citizens of Pakistan.

Let us work to ensure equality and justice for all beliefs - just like Jinnah did.

Cheers!

By jazba-e-dil @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:35 AM  |   (jazba-e-dil)
@Hassan

You are very true, these "against the true spirit of Pakistan movement" thoughts should be taken seriously.

They say that "God cannot alter the past, but historians can" ... I see one of them trying to accomplish this task at these blogs.

I hope Fraz has decided that he's a genius, so let me take this chance and add these words summarizing "Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity".

"Islam gave the Muslims of India a sense of identity; dynasties like the Mughals gave them territory; poets like Allama Iqbal gave them a sense of destiny. Jinnah's towering stature derives from the fact that, by leading the Pakistan movement and creating the state of Pakistan, he gave them all three."

By AKBAR S. AHMED
Author of Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity

I hope no historian is successful in altering the true history of Pakistan Movement.

By Liaqat Ali @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:01 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
''You may belong to any religon or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of state". M A Jinnah.
Now , what part of this statement is too difficult to understand !
I believe it needs no explanation, it is straight and simple unless the reader wants to paint his own brush.

By Liaqat Ali @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:32 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
Please comment :-
Muslim League leadership ie Jinnah sb ,Liaqat Ali and others had withdrawn their demand for Pakistan during negotiations on '' cabinet mission plan''.
The urdu speaking leadership of muslim league could not get elected in their home constituencies . They hailed from muslim minority states like UP.
Had the '' cabinet mission plan '' been sucessfull ,Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan , Khaleeq uz zamaan , Mir Laiq Ali and others would have been allowed to win seats from muslim majority areas like Bengal and Punjab .This Nawabish Elite would have been happy with that .
Quiad e Azam wanted constitutional guarantees for rights of minorities ie religous , civil and political rights of muslims guaranteed by the new constitution of India , which was to be written by the constituent assembly elected at the time of Independence.
The contents of the new constitution were the real cause of contention / dispute . Nehru sb did not give any importance to the feeling of fear and insecurity among muslims .
Allama Mashriqqi had made an attempt to write the new constitution on his own , the'' Khaksar constitution'' made by huge consultation process failed to win any aknowledgement among mainstream polititions of undivided India.
Jinnah sb was previosly known as an ambassador of hindu muslim unity , he would have been happy to acheive guarantees in the new constitution, and the'' do quomi nazarea'' movement would have been abonded.
Please remember . Jinnah was in contant with Nehru , he wanted to keep his house in bombay. Jinnah's daughter still has a claim on the house.
Jinnah never wanted a theological shariah state . He was a secular muslim .Mr Shareefuddin peerzada and Mr Advani of BJP have aknowledged this.
Muslim of India were mainly poor peasants who wanted live with Justice , Humanity and Self Esteem . This was not possible with economy controled by the Bania trading class. Hence the popularity of ML .
I hope some day we start discussing real politics .
The big majority is suffering with hopelessness and fear . Surely this can not continue for ever .
I beleive the majority of muslims of Pakistan have suffered more in Pakistan by Pakistani Elite than any where else. The non muslim minority has fared even worse.

By Hassan Niazi @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:57 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@All new generation secularists and pseudo Westerners.

Ilaj Aatish-e-Roomkay soz may hay tera
Teri nazar pay hay ghalib farangioun ka fasoo'n
Gasta-e-tar hay teri khudi ka saz ab tak
kay tu hay naghma-e-Roomi say bayniyaz ab tak

And

Falsafi ko behas kay andar khuda milta nahi
Dor ko suljha raha hay aur sira milta nahi
khurd kay pass khabar kay siwa kuch nahi
tera ilaj nazar kay siwa aur kuch nahi……..


@Shahzad Zafar
@S. Muhammad Ali
@Sabir Rizvi
@Ali Bukhari
@Imran Ghazali

Great Contribution! Jazakullah kher.


By AB07869 @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:59 PM  |   (AliBukhari2012)
@ Liaqat Ali

You are all over the place and indeed a hot mess :)

All I can say is GOD Bless You.

By Hassan Niazi @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:22 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Liaqat & Fraz

I hope this qoutes clarify any ambiguity in regards to Quad--Azam's views and vision for Pakistan and its society.

"The idea was that we should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play" -- M. A. Jinnah (Oct 11, 1947)

By Hassan Niazi @ Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:06 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Liaqat Ali, Fraz Shafique & Other secular visionaries

By the way I found the above quote on PTI's home page.

What an irony our own members don't even read it before posting their blogs and floating their "visions".

I call for moderation protocol on PTI's website before "Ideology" blogs are allowed to be posted. If they are in contrary to the already established Ideology of PTI, then these should not be allowed to be posted. This is not a barrier to free speech since you can do that on your own website and nobody will stop you. But this is PTI's website. An external reader takes it as PTI's views as PTI in itself is nothing but what it's members are and what their vision is.

PTI's Ideology is very clear on this. All members should read it before entering discussion to avoid conflict of vision. Despite the disclaimer at the top of the blogs that these blogs are personal views of the members and do not represent party's vision, nevertheless in this day and age, readers form opinion fast and they can form perception about the party in a wrong way and this will only hurt PTI as a whole.

Here is PTI ideology on this particular secularism and anti-two nation theory view that a few PTI members, named above, are trying to sell.
------"Our Ideology" Section of "PTI Website". Read paragraph number 4 (Reproduced below for your convenience)-----------
"We strive a moderate society that banishes hatred and religious bigotry. We are focused on addressing the root causes of religious extremism, which are injustice, poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy while Islam and the Two-Nation Theory remain the bedrock of Pakistan's foundations, religious dogma must not be used to whip up passions to create fear in society. On the contrary, a truly Islamic society advocates tolerance, moderation and freedom to practice the religion of one's choice without fear. Sectarianism is a curse that must be eliminated from society."

The answer is in a true Islamic society. Not secularism.

If secular visionaries are reading this than do one of the following:

a) Accept PTI's ideology whole heartedly and work to promote it.
b) If you still prefer to "cling" to your version of the truth/vision, then resign from this party and start a new tehreek since this is in contrary to PTI party's ideology and will hurt party's cause. My personal wish for you two would be to select the first choice. We need everyone to work for our country through this great party called Tehereek-e-Isnaf.

Whatever you reply now will be reflective of your character. Best of Luck!

Jazzakullah
Hassan Niazi.
PTI-USA.

By Haider Tariq @ Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:50 AM  |   (Haider)
I fully agree with Mr. Niazi that there shall be clarity of vision among the members of PTI only then it would help our party to progress and prosper. There shall be no ambiguity whatsoever in the minds of its workers regarding the mission statement of our party as it unequivocally advocates for the supremacy of Islamic welfare ideology that was once the corner stone of the Pakistan movement.

Unfortunately our secularists are the victims of inferiority complex and they start finding faults with our Islamic based ideology when they see our country struggling to come out of its crises. It is true the sectarian violence has shaken the very fabrics of our society but it has nothing to do with our ideology as it was never implemented in its true letter and spirit similarly do not forget that ethnic violence has equal role to play in shattering our foundations but these racists and ethnic groups are never put to sword by our so called moderators and liberals because of their ideological partnership with them. Thus the secular idealism is never blamed for the mischief and violence done by the liberal fascists.

It seems that Mr. Fraz eventually could not stand against the heavy arguments of Mr. Bukhari, Mr. Niazi, Mr. Rzivi, Mr Ali and Mr Zafar and others as he could not reply some of their questions and the debate also reflects that where does the majority of the participants stand. The reasoning, logic, analysis put forward by pro Islamic ideology group deserves our strong appreciation and applause. I really thank you all for enlightening us with your views and opinions.

I would second brother Niazi’s suggestion that we shall toe the policy guidelines what PTI manifesto has drawn for its followers.

By Hassan Niazi @ Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:15 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Brother Haider Tariq

Jazakullah Kher for your comments. I didn't want to dim the light of your excellent comment by adding mine but had to appreciate your analysis.

You are setting up a good practice of concluding a blog. Obviously if I or any other contributor to the debate would have done it would have had been biased naturally. But it's encouraging to note that an independent reviewer analyzed the debate and concluded upon it.

@Imran Ghazali Bhai I really hope from the PTI Web management team that the moderation protocol is adopted. Especially for Ideological debate if they deviate from PTI's philosophy and Ideology. Improvement ideas are always welcomed but not at the cost of our identity ...that is Islam. Not just spiritual Islam but Socio and Economic Islam. It's a way of life, rather It's THE way of life.

"Rabbi Zidni Ilma"

Love to all my Pakistani brothers and sisters.

By Liaqat Ali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 7:49 AM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
The list of secular visionaries should srart from :-
Iqbal , Jinnah ,Imran khan and others ....
And the non secular , religious revisionists the un informed sectarian misguided Islamists , the pro US Zionist Capitalist and Saudi jehadists , the freeloading semi illitrate middle class propogandists are ,''a dime a dozen'' on PTI website nowadays .
Instead of censuring the website educate yourself , specially history of politics .
be humble and like me willing to learn .

By Ali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:21 AM  |   (masyed)
@Liaqat Ali - offcourse you can maintain a list of your own for anything - this is beauty of democracy that everyone can have his own opinion- However slight reflection below might help you correcting your list based on Facts.


-----------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT THE ALL INDIA MUSLIM LEAGUE SESSION
" I, therefore, demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim State in
the best interest of India and Islam."

"Allama Muhammad IQBAL in ALLAHABAD - 1930"
--------------------------------------------------------------

By Ali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:30 AM  |   (masyed)

to conclude

http://www.insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/2/postid/44884/view/topic/Default.aspx

By frazbama @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:55 AM  |   (frazbama)
Sorry to dull you alls celebratory spirits.

@Hasan Niazi:
"You will come to the same point where our founders ended demanding for a separate homeland for Muslims separate from Hindus. Read the letter sent by Quaid-e-Azam to Winston Churchill in 1946."

In 1946, the letter to Churchill was Jinnah explaining why the Congress was not sincere about a United India. Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have kept a united confederate India giving the option to the groups of provinces to vote on the future a decade later. In the letter you point out, Jinnah accepted a United India with strong provinces.

By frazbama @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:56 AM  |   (frazbama)
In any case, as stated earlier, rather than look at just the words of Jinnah, simply look at his actions.

Jinnah, an Ismaili Shia - a natural target for being declared an infidel by many among Muslims - spent his entire life practicing British Law. Not Shariah. He was a westernized liberal. His lifestyle was who only cut down on drinking wine and gave up eating pork due to a deteriorating health.

Furthermore, here were some of his more notable actions:

1) Lucknow Pact - an agreement that gave constitutional safe-guards to Muslims of United India
2) Rejecting the Khilafat Movement solely because it polluted politics with religion
3) 14 Points - a list of demands asking for a minimal of constitutional safe-guards - again, within the framework of a secular-inspired British system of governance
4) Accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan to maintain a United India with strong provinces as late as 1946 (with the 1935 Constitution - secular British inspired - as basis for governance).
5) Forced to win a separate homeland - the last option, and one he left to the last days of his life as no Ulema-e-Islam could do jack to help the Muslims.

Others (Stanley Wolpert) point to Jinnah being an avid member of the Leftist-Secularist Fabian Society whilst in England.

So it makes no sense to twist words to mean that he wanted some legal code that he never practiced. He was not a stupid man. Belief in Islamic principles means simply belief in the universal principles of justice and equality. However, these principles all religions teach in form or another. That is why Jinnah could uphold these principles by practicing British law - the passion of his life.

I fail to understand how anyone can attribute a desire by Jinnah (an Ismaili Shia no less!) to wish a Shariah law whereas he never bothered with such laws and preferred and practiced the liberal, western, secular laws his entire life!

If - if - we are going to judge people, only actions count. Jinnah's actions are sufficient to understand the man.

However, I once again repeat, if Pakistanis wish to implement Shariah law, that is their democratic right.

By Ali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 10:11 AM  |   (masyed)
Brainstorming is a good thing to for understanding eachothers viewpoint
however we don't have to get into debate if someone for 'obvious reasons' doesnot wants to understand it with open mind and heart

Fraz you are refering to events rather then idealogy and then drawing conclusion of your own - (you are free to do so )
e.g He was liberal, western minded,secular inspired etc etc-

Laws of the state are not set by individuals ( & they also take long time /evolutionary process to legislate them other way round ) and at that point in time (1857-1946) it was British rule and everybody including Jinnah and Iqbal followed that law - so what is the roblem


we dont want to dig too much in Qaid's personal life - Nation stood behind his idealogy rather then his personal life
idealogy of 2 Nations theory
Idealogy for getting a piece of land where Muslims could experiment laws as per their religion (as per M.A Jinnah at Islamia college) )

Qaid might have limitations as an normal human being ,nobody is perfect ( and even IK will have today -- fine ) but that doesnot takes away the right for living for an idealogy from 170 million ppl


No point to say one can always be liberal and open minded with Islam as idealogy for his individual life as well as for system for state as been given by our Last Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H).

Those who donot idealize Prophet Muhammd (P.B.U.H) not much we can do for them unfortunately


By Ali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 10:18 AM  |   (masyed)
then to pray

By Ali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 4:29 PM  |   (masyed)
worth reading a book

"Secular Jinnah: Munir's Big Hoax exposed"

http://www.cyberblurb.co.uk/

By Imran Ghazali @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 4:38 PM  |   (Emron G)
@ Hassan Niazi Bhai: Sir if you go back to the original blog post, I just had a little note saying that I just want to bring this address into everyone's attention. Other than that it is all "Jinnah's words".

Now as far as the moderation of comments is concerned I think it is a healthy debate going on and only motivating people like me who don't have enough knowlede to take part in it; to learn more, to educate ourselves

My only concern would be that people should not attack each others' personality but discuss the issues.

I personally also don't find anything wrong in Fraz bhai's arguments, he has the right to put forward his views.

I think we are all fighting for justice and equal rights for ALL citizens of Pakistan, and that very much is the ideology of PTI.

Suggestions and constructive criticism are always welcomed.

I will forward your request to Website Management Team.

By frazbama @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 6:56 PM  |   (frazbama)
Ali:

There were many who practiced the Islamic law even during the British era - in fact, most educated Muslim preferred were products of the Islamic schools at that time. Jinnah chose to be different and passionately stuck with the British Law as evident by his struggles.


"No point to say one can always be liberal and open minded with Islam as idealogy for his individual life as well as for system for state as been given by our Last Prophet Muhammad ( P.B.U.H)."


Well said. Not just liberal. But even secular!

The world's largest Muslim organization, with the largest number of schools, hospitals and madrassas, Nahja-ul-Ulema (NU) produced the first democratically elected President of Indonesia after Suharto's dictatorship. The Islamic scholar, Abdur Rehman Wahid, demanded before, and continued to declared after becoming President, that Islam by nature is secular and Islam insists that governance remain secular! Thus he rejected calls by a small rabid group to 'Islamise' the laws, understanding that if you promote one religion, even if just only in name, you are naturally subjugating everyone else's beliefs.

This is an Islamic scholar of a conservative NU, with the world's single largest following (70 million members)!

Anyway, thank you for your comments. I think we all would like to see equality and justice for all citizens of Pakistan. Hopefully we can implement it in spirit as well as letter sometime.

Cheers!

By wbuttar buttar @ Thursday, December 25, 2008 11:44 PM  |   (wbuttar)
Surely we are fighting to make this country as envisaged by the Quiad and should help Quiad-e-Azam Sani (IK) to bring this country on track.

I am really inspired by the job done by ISF Peshawar and all the PTI team. I am also trying to organize ISF Gujranwala, any body from Gujranwala on this forum can contact me

on my cell 0301-4059248.
Email [email protected]


I also have a suggestion for PTI Members and wel wishers in Pakistan to past PTI posters and other relevant materials on their vehicles i.e cars/motorcycles to show their affiliation and solidarity with the movement and I am sure it will work as mobile camps to moblize people. Contact numbers of the party office bearers can be mentioned so that the people may contact them if they are willing to join us. We do not have to make extra efforts for this.



By Zaltan @ Friday, December 26, 2008 3:14 AM  |   (Zaltan)
Indeed this is a very healthy debate going on and I pray to Allah the Almighty that all members benefit from this and get the right direction (Hidayah). I have indeed benefited from this debate in knowing history but surely it is all History now and we need to move forward to resolve issues in light of Islam.
I would like to mention here that word/sentences like “Maududian nonsense” shall not be used by any one because no one have right to CRITICIZE any ones belief and religion. I personally was annoyed at this and would pray that may Allah give hadayah to our beloved member. As far as I know Poor Modudi just assembled a translation and explanation of Quran for people who understand Urdu. Why has he been dragged into politics?
My question to our respected members is that if Secular system was to be followed and was every one’s priority than why did a separate home land (Pakistan) was to be obtained to practice Secularism? Secularism could have been practicable without stressing/pushing for separate land? According to me Indeed Pakistan was obtained for Muslims (Doo Qoomee Nazriya). I was just wondering that when Pakistan came into existence, why Muslims were rushing towards Pakistan from India? And why were many Muslims being killed, raped, looted e.t.c during Hijrat? We need to think hard on this and realise that Muslims did needed separate home land to practice Islam (Although unfortunately it is not that case at present).
In the end I would stress that we SHALL SHALL take into consideration the context (Background information) whenever we read any speech or any saying. We shall not adopt a habit of extracting meanings from just face of the sentences of any particular speech/sayings. If we do this than we will indeed be extracting the true and honest meaning and will be forced to keep aside our personal views/mentality.
Cheers.

By ali karim @ Friday, December 26, 2008 6:49 AM  |   (Ali Karim)
SECULARISM is the integral part of Islam. To be a TRUE MUSALMAN you have to be secular, that's what Jinnah was.

By amajid.malik @ Friday, December 26, 2008 7:53 AM  |   (amajid.malik)
Make it a democractice Pakistan where one should educate voters to select honest persons who have impeccable character. More then 90% Muslims representatives of such kind sitting in parliament would take into account Islamic teachings before making any law. So this debate would automatically finish.

So leave this to voters and their representatives. Instead of pushing something from above (secularism or a particular version of Islamic law) , let democractic systems evolve and people's representatives decide what changes are required in existing laws.

If 97% muslims sitting in parliament do not care about Islamic values or you don't agree with them then educate voters to select different persons or educated representatives to change their view.

Anything pushed from above would yield no result. We have put Islam in objective resolution and 1973 constitution but did it achieve anything. Did people at the the helm of affairs,be it a judge or minsiter, follow Islamic principles of justice and fair play?

It is my gut feeling that a democratice Pakistan with honest and God fearing representatives in the parliament can not ignore Islamic teachings when making any law.

By Hassan Niazi @ Friday, December 26, 2008 11:07 AM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
@Fraz

Man I thought you were done with your speeches. First you started with Jinnah's sayings. And now you are ending with Jinnah's actions. Well done! Allah knows how far you will go on using Jinnah's personality to prove your "visions".

We do need to rewrite history but not literally!!
Well as I indicated earlier a few things don't have limits.

@All others

Found this on another blog. Found it interesting.
____________________________
Faarigh Jazbati Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Slaam Everyone

I dont understand why people in Pakistan are stuck what Jinnah said or what he wanted Pakistan to be. If you say that Jinnah was a true democrat then under democratic principle if people of Pakistan decided to be a theocratic or secular or nationalistic or fascist state then so be it. What Jinnah said becomes less relevant as under democratic principle it is people who decide what type of government or state they want to be.

On a different note for Muslims it is not what Jinnah said or not said IT IS WHAT Allah and His messenger SAW SAID. It is what type of government system or state system we are commanded by Allah and His messenger SAW.


FJ
_______________________________________

By Ali @ Friday, December 26, 2008 3:03 PM  |   (masyed)
I think everybody has riight to express, so is to Fraz also -we don't have anything in person against Fraz
your thoughts actually brought some content /view point from other side also
It was very good debate - an imp & useful one
Thanks everyone for your thoughts which educated me more

I don't want to dig into his personal life too much here, but unfortunately as been raised here Jinnah's even sectarian belonging
it would be interesting for many that even after been born in Ismaili family - Jinnah made his own decision to for following even that, he didnot followed Ismaili practises rest of his life -
He even denied his Ismaiili belonging in a meeting to Ismaili community after Partition.

on various occasion he said I belong to sect which
Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) used to follow

I really feel sorry when people even want to drag his for-fathers religious belonging

we have to move on from there -
it has been more then 120 years

we have to go far ...

let's rebuilt this country irrespective of our religious/secatrian belonging


By frazbama @ Friday, December 26, 2008 8:39 PM  |   (frazbama)
Yousaf:

Maududi made his contribution for a 'theo-democracy' based on what he analyzed was right according to Islam.

However, Maududi's political stance, including insulting the Pakistan Movement and calling the country 'Na-Pakistan' was nonsensical. He continued with such nonsense even after partition.

In contrast with Maududi's view on secular ideals, look at those of Abdur Rehman Wahid, the former President of Indonesia, and also used to head the Nahj-ul-Ulema (NU), the world's single largest Muslim organization with the largest network of hospitals and madrassas. Wahid was also a fervent activist opposing the western backed dictatorship of Suharto.

Wahid, being a scholar trained and groomed in Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni university, before and after becoming President was vehement in declaring that ISLAM DEMANDS SECULARISM!
On becoming president, Wahid refused to inject his religion (he was Islam's most respected Ulema-e-Islam in Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic country) as the supreme source of thought for laws (as demanded by Maududi).

Wahid believed that even the Prophet (PBUH) was a secular leader (Politics of Islam) and that common sense says that if you project one religion or belief, you are naturally subjugating every other belief as a 'lesser' one.

Islam demands secular governments according to Wahid. Maududi and other rag-tag scholars we've been 'blessed' with say otherwise.

We can chant from the top of minar-e-pakistan but there are many opinions on secularism in Islamic jurisprudence. Many reject it, others believe secularism is the true form of Islam where all beliefs are treated equally.

In my view, I think Ali Karim's post in this blog sums it up quite well.

Thus even if we were not allowed to use common sense to say that everyone must be treated with equality and justice, we also have Ulema-e-Islam (contemporary, and with the single largest following) who declare that Islam insists states be secular!

By Liaqat Ali @ Friday, December 26, 2008 11:11 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
Maududi sb was different to Guz Dur (Abdurrehman Wahid ) on one more account .
Ex President Wahid is on record for appologising on behalf of right wing Islamist who took part in killing of many hundred thousand Indonesians at the behest of US ,Capitalist allies. Most of this genocide took place in villages.
The city mass graves lie beneath multi storey car parks of hotels .
This happened at the time of Sukarno over throw 64.
Urdu digest published extensively in support of American supported coup .
Maududi sb on the other hand never felt sorry for his party's part in the Genocide of East Pakistanis And Afghanistan.

By Liaqat Ali @ Friday, December 26, 2008 11:24 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
Will some one responsible inform us :-
The sub forums on debate on issues , such as education,health and land reforms has been closed down since july07 . Why is it so ? .

By frazbama @ Saturday, December 27, 2008 12:26 AM  |   (frazbama)
Good to know your familiarity with Gus Dur Liaqat! He is an inspiring man.

Outside the ideological-tilts of this debate, Abdul Majid Malik's post sums up well how Pakistani people inevitably have the right to choose the type of government.

Let us not just be tolerant but ACCEPT that there are many different beliefs and ideals citizens of Pakistan have. Not everyone believes in Allah (SWT). Not everyone believes in the Bible. Not everyone believes in the uniform "Urdu plus Islam" ideology of Pakistan.

We have citizens who are Hindus and Kafirs. We have (today at least) a plethora of communist parties.

To conclude my input in this blog, I would like to mention a rather inconsequential but insightful incident: During the weekly Thursday rallies at the Mall Road lawyers, political activists and other citizens march for the restoration of the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, the different groups are carrying their flags - PTI, Labor Party, PMAP, JI etc. But there is also one firebrand late-middle-aged lawyer carrying the flag of the former USSR. His office is in the Dayal Singh Mansion and he always has an anti-imperialist poster emphatically displayed for all to see as you drive down Mall Road.

Just over twenty years ago, the Islamic parties, being paid by the West, would actively beat him and the other communist party workers up for criticizing America or burning its flag. The Islamic parties, being paid by America, would refuse to let these people even open an office.

Today, despite those feelings, he, with his views contrary to our beliefs, comes out every Thursday to demand the restoration of the chief justice. He has rejected religion - like many commies and in religious terminology would be called 'kafir' (ones who reject the Truth). Yet, even if he is alone in his beliefs, he never falters in his commitment to bring justice for the citizens of our country.

We all claim that our religion demands tolerance. But the only test of tolerance is how equally, justly and humanely we treat those who completely disagree with our ideas or actions. I disagree with many ideas of the commie lawyer, but one must admit that he walks along with his former tormentors (JI etc.) for the cause of equality and justice for all.

As a citizen of Pakistan, he can believe in whatever he wants, but when in the court room, the one whose independence he has been marching for since March 2007, he would expect that the laws treat him equally and justly as every other citizen of the country and his beliefs or lack of belief in Allah (SWT) or the Koran would be inconsequential in administering justice!
That is called justice. And today is our test to create such a tolerant and egalitarian state.

Ameen!


By Ali @ Saturday, December 27, 2008 4:12 AM  |   (masyed)

same debate on Capital Talk
http://awaz.tv/playvideo.asp?pageId=1714

By Hassan Niazi @ Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:11 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
"You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment."
-- Jinnah's message to Frontier MSF April 4, 1943

By Hassan Niazi @ Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:17 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
“You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood in your own native soil. With faith, discipline and selfless devotion to duty, there is nothing worthwhile that you cannot achieve.”
----------Jinnah's address to the officers and men of the 5th Heavy Ack Ack and 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi
February 21, 1948

By Hassan Niazi @ Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:45 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
“We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind”
Speech at the opening ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi
July 1, 1948

By Hassan Niazi @ Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:48 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)
“Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.”
Jinnah's Presidential Address at the All India Muslim League, Lahore
March 23, 1940

By Hassan Niazi @ Sunday, December 28, 2008 4:38 PM  |   (Hassan Niazi)




And let me conclude with this quote of Quaid-e-Azam Muhmmad Ali Jinnah:

“Finally, let me tell you, fellow citizens, Pakistan is a land of great potential resources. But to build it up into a country worthy of the Muslim nation, we shall require every ounce of energy that we possess and I am confident that it will come from all whole-heartedly.

The establishment of Pakistan for which we have been striving for the last ten years is, by grace of God, an established fact today, but the creation of a State of our own was a means to an end and not the end in itself. The idea was that we should have a state in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find fairplay.”
Jinnah's Broadcast Message 15th August, 1947
_______________________________________

I pray to Allah All Mighty that He blesses us with wisdom and not only knowledge, show us the radiance, and not only light, tracing the footsteps of our leaders especially the greatest leader in human history, our beloved Prophet PBUH.

Give us the potency and wisdom to look at our own ideals like the State of Madinah than Turkey or Senagol etc. Give us the courage to comprehend our own theories of Islamic socio/economic justice instilled by Prophet Muhammad PBUH in Islamic Sharia than Holyoake's or Hegel's "visions".

Ah what can I say more. This is what Allama Iqbal wanted. Freedom from Frangi's physical and cerebral occupation. Today we are free physically but more slave mentally. So many Mr. Browns amongst us trying to instigate alien imported philosophies which our people will never accept and there will always be a reaction.

My messages through this blog is my reaction.

Secularism is a bluff. It has a noble idea behind it but a tragic end. It starts with replacing political and social decisions of state to be based on "rationale" than religious beliefs. This way it achieves non-discrimination. In doing this it challenges every moral limits set by religions and takes the control of setting rules from God to its own hands. A debate for Gay rights to marriage in California state these days is a classic example. This is its extreme.

I want set an example of agreeing with your counter person on these blogs. So I agree with Fraz on the fact that we should strive for a State which is free of religious discrimination. I agree that we should be more tolerant to the ones we differ from in any respect (communist or capitalist for e.g.). I agree that our aim is Justice for all and not for few. I only differ, respectfully if I may say, in the way we can achieve all this. I go back to Islam to find answers and not to pre-Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, Hegel or Holyoake.


"Tu apni khudi agar na khota
zanari bargasau'n na hota
hegel ka sadaf gehar say khali
hay iss ka tilsem sub khiyali" …….(Allama Iqbal)

True Secularism (which I take as State level religious non-discrimination) is achieved by practicing Islam and not abandoning it. By being a tolerant Muslim society and not a society without a role of religion altogether and in its extreme without a place for a believer. This is the end result of current secularism. Secularism is not Atheism but it does result in an Atheist State. That's the dangerous freedom. That's what we don’t want. A delicate balance is found in Islam.

I end here with a wish for mental sovereignty. The real enlightening! The real wisdom! The real Vision! ----- Islam! And I leave a quote of my hero, Allama Iqbal, and a salute to the incarnation of his idea of human elevation (khudi), Imran Khan.

"Nations who have no hold over their process of thinking are likely to be ruined by liberty of thought. If thought is immature, liberty of thought becomes a method of converting men into animals."

Love to all my Pakistani brothers and sisters.

By Saqib @ Monday, December 29, 2008 3:56 AM  |   (Saqibt)
I agree with Hassan Niazi that we must find our own unique way of democracy based on our religion and mindset as Pakistanis. Pakistan was created with immense sacrifices for the sake of a nation for Muslims. We need not to imitate each and every other Muslim or non-Muslim country. What we need to do is to survey and analyze each and every step in order to implement new policies that we feel will fit according to our religion and social structure. Off course we also need to eradicate negative social factors, which are non compatible with Muslim norms……BUT please, NO THEOCRACY. The traditional Mullahs will be disastrous for Pakistan since they have a habit of being sold out and mostly focus on external show as to grow beards, wearing the right clothes etc. instead of primarily to focus on Muslim practice.

Turkey: I think they are slowly progressing in the right direction after Ata-Turks bending the knee to European culture and customs. He was a great soldier but not a great statesman. The current Turkish government without doubt has Islamic inspiration. They have already tried to remove the head scarf ban and will surely move towards other important issues. The military factor in Turkey has been quite strong and they will not let it go so easily. Just like the Pakistani top military brass they are also used to Western living style with non-native living or thinking style. These are the powers which want to Turkey to become a member of the EU. The European Union on the other hand has been very reluctant to let Turkey in. They are openly saying it is because of religious factors. They claim they have a democracy based on Christian values and thus cannot have a big Muslim country in EU with different set of values. The Turks have been humiliated time and again on these issues, but their own breed of “brown sahibs” to push for an EU membership or more humiliation. The ideal situation could be to create a kind of EU between Turkey, Iran and Pakistan with further expansion with able and democratic countries. If these countries could show a success then others would certainly follow.

By Liaqat Ali @ Monday, December 29, 2008 10:03 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
Quaid e Azam and question of rightfull ownership of lands in Pakistan ... Mr Jinnah being legal mind , would have had to answer this question .
I beleive the correct answer to this question , would lay the foundation stone of real independence and justice in our society.
Since our lands are possesed as a result of foreign occupation / invasion. The question arises about the rights of the disspossed .
I beleive invasions and occupations do not extinguish the rights of the indignous / previous owners .
Hence let us guess what the quaid would have said and done.

By AB07869 @ Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:03 AM  |   (AliBukhari2012)
I believe that its time to conclude "NOW" (from my side) with a sher of Allama Iqbal as I fear key anqareeb ab BJP/Shiv Sena/Bajrang Dal key ideology ko Mr. Jinnah key presidential address kee roshnee main bayan kiya jaaney wala hai takey PTI members key ilm aur shaoor main bey mazeed izafa ho"


Sher (Allama Iqbal):

KHIRD K PAS KHABAR K SIWA KUCH AUR NAHIN
TERA ILAJ NAZAR K SIWA KUCH AUR NAHIN

WASALLAM

By Zaltan @ Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:37 AM  |   (Zaltan)
I too agree with Hasan Niazi and other brothers who support Islam as the main source of our lives, our way of living and the political system. As majority agree that secularism is in itself part of Islamic political system so let us pray to Allah the Almighty that our beloved country men realise the truth and work together to achieve the common goal of being a good Muslim and creating a good Islamic political system. Nothing is unachievable now days and we can definitely succeed in establishing a true Islamic Political system. And to do so we have true guidance in the form of Holy Quran and beloved Profit Muhammad’s’ (May PBUH) life (Sunnah).
Let me mention here that in order to be a true Muslim and to achieve true Islamic political system we have to follow instruction of Holy Quran and Sunnah of our beloved Profit Muhammad’s’ (May PBUH) and not that of other Islamic countries (Specially Turkey as this has been discussed here a lot). Majority of Islamic countries are just like Pakistan which is not good.

May Allah give us success and Hidayah. (Ameen)

By Adeel @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:44 AM  |   (madeel)
Every discussant has participated in a remarkable spirit. Here are my thoughts on Islam and struggle for Pakistan.

All Muslim use the word Allah but if you try to analyze what each person understood by it, you will find significant dissimilarities. This certainly true for Muslim Theologian or well known mystics like Rumi. All using the one word "Allah" but with different connotation, sometimes very different. In the same line of reasoning, Jinnah used the word Islam. But the sense in which the Muslim in India understood was different. And Mr. Jinnah deliberatly kept it vague.

Analyzing Quaid-e-Azam personality would lead to the results which Fraz has suggested. However, no historian can deny that Islam was used in the struggle for Pakistan. But this told us by historian after a long while. This inference doesn't shed any light what Muslims were thinking at that time.

Muslim in India are not responsible for this confusion. Remember, Mr. Jinnah speeches were in English which, I imagine, was understandable tp less than 0.1% of the muslim of India. Later on his message was spread by Muslim League workers. I haven't seen any study which focus on these workers who served as bridge between Mr. Jinnah and the common man. I have listen to few people who served in that time. I think it can be said safely that people voted in the name of Islam. Whether it should be that way or not, is alogether separate issue.

We should also appreciate people's intent of vote too. Our religious parties basically support theocracy which is not the intent of Muslims of India either. It is more in the lines which Saqib Tasneem has said.

By Adeel @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:54 AM  |   (madeel)
Fraz has made an statement that almost all ulema opposed the creation of Pakistan is historically inaccurate.

""The only Islamic groups that whole-heartedly supported the Pakistan movement were: Jamat-e-Ahmediya (Qaid-e-Azam believed they had the right to call themselves Muslims) and I suppose the Ismailis "

This Jamiat-e- Ulema Pakistan was a group of ulema which parted from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam to support the creation of Pakistan. And it has some big names. As far as my studies are concerend, ulema did play a very important role in the creation of Pakistan. Many of the masjids as my elder told served as comapigner for the Pakistan.

In any case, it does not mean that discrimination on the name of religion should be allowed. Rather we should strive to eliminate it. And this require responsible and open debate on TV channels, newspapers. And yes, we need to review our history textbooks as well. You need to first prepare the ground. This discrimination not only be eliminated from our law or constitution but also our behaviors.

By Adeel @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:03 AM  |   (madeel)
@ Hasan Niazi

"You may have to disagree what I have said, but I will fight for your right to disagree to my last breath." --Voltaire

There are some religious laws which are (mis)use for the discrimination. Sometime even as a threat to other religious community. Fraz target is that. he sees solution in Turkey style democracy. It is only by intellectual debate we can reach to a solution which will be rooted in our cultural setting.

By Adeel @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:14 AM  |   (madeel)
WHAT IS SECULARISM?
==============

What do we mean by secularism? or a person being secular? I am sure many people understood it differently.

Liaquat defined it as no discrimination based on religion, race or creed. On the othr hand, Hasan Niazi at one point ridicule other discussants which he termed as secular; however, he also said that if true spirit of Islam is understood, there is no conflict between Islam and secularism. I am bit curious how does Hasan Niazi define it?

Shouldn't we first agree on some workable definition of Secularism?

By Adeel @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:18 AM  |   (madeel)
I have made a mistake in my first post, not a serious one though.

The group of ulema was parted from Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. It's branch in Pakistan is Jamiat-e-Ulema Pakistan.

The group which parted become Jamiat-e-Ulema Pakistan, after the creation of Pakistan.

By Zaltan @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:26 AM  |   (Zaltan)
@ Muhammad Adeel.

Mate you seem to be lost by miles. Regarding secularism Vs Islam have a look at the following link and you will be clear on it. (Hopefully).
http://www.insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/46/tpage/1/view/topic/postid/45317/Default.aspx#45317
Regarding your point on religious discrimination, yes I agree with you and would like to make it clear that Pakistan was obtained for MUSLIMS of India. Again abovementioned link will help you.
I would also like to make it clear also that key facts shall be considered before writing any thing and shall not be confused with religious discrimination, Qadyanees (Ahmdiya jamat) are universally declared as non Muslims so they are out of definition of Muslims. They cannot call them Muslims as they technically does not fall in definition of Islam. They can call themselves with other name if they like to. In this regards I would agree with Sabir Rizvi’s comments (@ Friday, December 19, 2008 8:06 PM).

By Zaltan @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:27 AM  |   (Zaltan)
Please note that I am not discrimination Ahmadiya Jamat they can do what ever they want to except for confusing them selves with Muslims..... I am only requesting them to use some other identity.
Cheers

Yousuf

By Liaqat Ali @ Wednesday, December 31, 2008 9:42 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
@ Yousaf Khan :- ..... You have said , that , Qadyanis / Ahmadi Jamaat are universally declared non muslims and secondly ,that , they are out of the defination of muslims .... My information on both accounts is as follows :-
1. Ahmadi jamaat and its Lahori faction were declared non muslims by the supreme court of Pakistan during Bhutto Regime. There are no reports of any other muslim country in the world , officially declaring Ahmadis as non muslims . They are officialy non muslims in Pakistan only .
2.To say that they, ie , the Ahmadis are out of the defination of muslims ,..... You would need a defination of a muslim . And then based on that defination , one can judge whether or not ...Now !
before attempting to make a defination of a muslim I would ask you to considers the dangers
of a fatwa against you..... Plz read on ...
During the first agitation against Ahmadyas in Punjab ( Daultana govt ), there was wide spread damage of life and property, as result a judical commission of inquiry was formed ,headed by justices Munir and Kiyani . Their report has now been published by ''Nia Zamana '' publications .
During the Inquiry the Judges asked all the leading Ulemas of all the Firqas of Pakistan to define a muslim. No two could agree on a common defination , instead they produced documentry evidence (fatwas) to prove each other a kafir .
I conclude by sugessting to do what Quaid had done , accept them as equals , whatever their beliefs are , and move on to provide social justice for the poor and hungry.
Sir Zafrullah an Ahmedi was a cabinet minister in the Quaid's govt.

By Zaltan @ Thursday, January 01, 2009 3:15 AM  |   (Zaltan)
L.A
Qadyani issue is quiet straight forward. When one embraces Islam I am sure that he say Kalmah - Shahadat(Main/core difference point).
Qadyani's are confused on issue of Nabi and Rasool and they take wrong meaning out of it.
I personally do not need to say this as this is a known thing and every one know it. Infact Qadyanis themselves know it.

You are right that they have all their rights to practice their religion any where in the world but they shall not hide their identity in calling them Muslims. Why dont they use separate identification?

Any ways I will conclude by saying that may Allah give Hidayah to all.

By Raza Zaidi @ Thursday, January 01, 2009 11:41 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
Hi everyone.
All contriubutors of Islamic school of thought on this forum deserve our greatest applause.

It is clear that Fraz, Liaqat and Adeel dont have a clue as to what are they talking about and seem to be molding everything from Qaid's pork eating habbits to Ahmadiya sect non-sense to support their version religion.

I concur with @Ali Bukhari that before things gets uglier on this blog & confused thinkers (the latest being Adeel & Liaqat..... Fraz I guess had enough for this round) start supporting a new definition of Muslim.

@ Liaqat. Well done Liaqat in supporting Ahmadis. Shah say ziyada sha kay wazeer wafadar. Keep it up. So according to you the new definition of muslim being not accepting khatm-e-nabuwat. Shabaash mery bhai. Tu cha giya. Shabaash. To me Ahmadi Kafir hein aur kafir rehein gay. Kalma change karnay say kuch nahi ho ga.

@Adeel. Secularism simple hay bhai. Iss ka mutlab hay non-discrimination. If you adopt Islam then Islam does not do non-discrimination against non-muslims. Iss may kia baat samajh nahi aa rahi aap ko?? To me it is very well defined by pro-islamic bloggers here. I think you just dont want to understand it or Islam is the problem to all of you Fraz, Liaqat and Adeel.

@Yaosaf Khan sahab

I think you have stepped on Liaqat's tail. Dont do that yar. wo cheikhay ga nahi to kia karay ga. ha ha ha.

Salam hay sub bhaioun ko.

By Raza Zaidi @ Friday, January 02, 2009 12:36 AM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
A mistake I made above. Correct is below.

"Islam does not discrimnate against non-muslims".

Salam

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:34 AM  |   (madeel)
@Raza Zaidi
You should read my post once again. This time little carefully :)

I nowhere based my whether Quaid-e-Azam eat pork or enjoy wine. Rather I correct Fraz that ulema did play an important role in the creation of Pakistan.

I am pointing out that there is confusion in the usage of the term "secularism". I have found people debating whether secularism is compatible with Islam or not. Such debates suggest serious confusion on this term.

If you look at it in historical context, secularism is a political concept on the one hand, and against the authority of church on the other hand. When somebody talk about secularism, it widely perceived in Pakistan as if you are against religion.

Another aspect of this confusion is the human language which remains in continuous evolution or it perish. Through a course of time, sometimes words enter into different relations with the other words. Consequently, ts meaning changes. For example, take the word 'gay'. It used to refer to person who is very lively and always happy. But now it also means homosexual. It is still in use in the former sense.

This same has happened to the word secularism. Now it is also use as if it an ethical concept. People often understood secularism as tolerance or open-mindedness. However, tolerance is an ethical concept and open-mindedness is an attitude. One may argue tolerance as an implication of secularism, but in any case tolerance and secularism are not synonymous. Further, a person may be a secular without being open-mindedness. You should understand tolerance and open-mindedness are not synonymous either.

So what is secularism? First, it require that constitution does not state any religion as its official religion. Second, it require an independent legislative body and third an efficient bureaucracy which implement the laws passed by the legislative body.
England is not a secular state as its constitution does declare a religious affiliation officially. This is what secularism means in a nutshell as a political concept.

Its historical usage is still there. Western media uses it in both historical sense and also as if it is ethical concept. This double meaning is the main source of the confusion.

In my personal opinion, this term should not used anymore. Rather, people like Liaquat, Fraz, (perhaps me?) should be called Muslim modernist. None of us saying that we should do a legislation which is in conflict with the Quranic teachings.

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:37 AM  |   (madeel)
Lastly, I dislike any label whether right,left, liberal, secular, conservative or fundamentalist. Depending on the issue, I can be any of these. The only thing I try is that I should not be one of those who deny truth.

You won't find me labellings any one as conservative, secular or liberal. Sometime I can use it as merely a term of convenience.If you are out there to understand something, first step should be to think beyond such labels.

By Saqib @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:46 AM  |   (Saqibt)
@Muhammad Adeel

"In my personal opinion, this term should not used anymore. Rather, people like Liaquat, Fraz, (perhaps me?) should be called Muslim modernist."

Nothing wrong in that as such :-)

Just for clarification; I would like to know whether Liaqat and/or Fraz agree on the below point.

"None of us saying that we should do a legislation which is in conflict with the Quranic teachings."

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:24 PM  |   (madeel)
@Saqib Tasneem

I suppose you agree that there is a confusion in using the term "secular". I will avoid its uses henceforth. By labeling people we send the message: "Ok, I am here to listen your points but you can not convince me unless you are belong mine category/label" The purpose to develop an understanding disappear silently.

One of the disscussants Hasan Niazi made some good points. But in the end he went on labaelling Fraz, or Liaquat as "All new generation secularists and pseudo Westerners." which is perhaps wrong. However, he did agree many of the points made by Fraz/Liaquat.

This thoughtless categorization served to widen the division only. Another consequence is that you close the door for your understanding as such, though at unconscious level.

Muslim modernism too is mere a term of convenience. I don't like to use it as term of convenience wither. However, its chief advantage is that it bypasses the confusion which originate from the word secular. And would not turn off, (so-called) people who regard themselves as right or centrist right.






By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:26 PM  |   (madeel)
I request all please quit labeling those who have opposing views in comparison with yours. If you indeed want a label, do not use the secularist at all. Discussants in this thread have defined it mostly in simplistic terms but it is not understood in that way within Pakistan, especially among our ulema.

By Sultan @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:37 PM  |   (Sultan08 )
Mr. M Adeel.
By trying to finish one topic you have launched another topic by calling others and yourself as Muslim modernist. Well we need to mention what do you mean by that? Muslims shall be a fundamental Muslim and a good practicing Muslim. This means we shall be following Islamic laws honestly and in true spirit of Islam. Again Modernist Muslims, now a day, tend to be more inclined towards skipping some important Islamic Laws Just for the sake copying western culture and please them at the same time. Please mind here that I am defining “MODERN MUSLIM” here and am not targeting any one. As everyone knows that Israel has entered into Gaza Strip and has already killed 400 Muslims. Now my question towards Modernist Muslims is that will they call Hamass as Terrorist organisation? (Well in true spirit of Modernist Muslims a Modernist Muslim would easily call current Hamas as Terrorist organisation where as clearly they are not).
Regarding Secularism I would end this debate by mentioning that Pakistan is an Islamic State and not a Secular one. That’s it.
In the end your comment for Hassan is wrong as whatever he said is right. You need to concentrate on current mentality of Muslims in Pakistan and what it shall be. Meray bhayee we all need to refresh the history of Muslims which is full of interesting facts. And than we will realise that to be a true success in this world we have to be a good, courageous and brave Muslims (no doubt modern days technology shall be with us but that is not an end in itself).


By Saqib @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 4:00 PM  |   (Saqibt)
@Muhammad Adeel

“I suppose you agree that there is a confusion in using the term "secular". I will avoid its uses henceforth. By labeling people we send the message: "Ok, I am here to listen your points but you can not convince me unless you are belong mine category/label" The purpose to develop an understanding disappear silently.”

Maybe you are right. I think there are many understandings of being “secular”. I also think it is wise if avoid using the term in the Pakistani context.

“One of the disscussants Hasan Niazi made some good points. But in the end he went on labaelling Fraz, or Liaquat as "All new generation secularists and pseudo Westerners." which is perhaps wrong. However, he did agree many of the points made by Fraz/Liaquat.”

I think I am with Hassan N. on this. I have discussed a lot with Fraz on other topics and also discussed with Hassan N. on a lesser extent. Unfortunately Fraz seems more like a person living in a fantasy world about Western way of democracy/life. I bet the same system will just not work in Pakistan.

We have different values and a different way of life and hence we need to develop our own kind of democracy with roots in Islam (Quran) and our society. Thereby I don’t say that we should not learn from experience from foreign countries. We should do that and “translate” the experience to our own system/way of life i.e. copy with necessary modifications. You see that will be profitable for us as a nation and not by acting as coconuts (brown outside and white inside).

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:41 PM  |   (madeel)
@Sultan Ahmed

The muslim modernist simply mean that we will learn from the experience of Western countries. However, no legislation would be contradictory to Quran.

Put it in other words, we will exercise our intellect in doing legislation. But if we would discover that it is or some elements of it are contradictory to Quran, we will review the proposal accordingly. Quran has set some boundaries, within those boundaries we can do any experiment or make any law.

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:46 PM  |   (madeel)
Here is a simple question:

"Is democracy compatible with Islam or not?"


By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:00 PM  |   (madeel)
This post is for those who believe that democracy and Islam are NOT compatible.

Shariat approves almost all forms of government. Muslims history testifies that. Allow me to mention one great aalim specifically: Imam Ibn-e-Taimya. After Khilafat-e-Rashida, we have dynasties (malokiat in Urdu), which too were approved by the most scholars of the times.

Here is an illuminating example to support my claim. Rememver Seljuq dynasty. Imam Ghazali were living in that empire at a critical power struggle for throne. He is very well-regarded at that age. In the power politics at that disintegration, came a point when the widow queen requested Imam Ghazali to provide legitimacy for the kingship of his ten years old son. And Imam Ghazali went on inventing a sophisticated system so that the kingship of a ten years old kid would become legitimate. I assume that I don't need to tell the Imam Ghazali credentials, who is among the few of the well-known original minds in the Muslim history.

The point I want to make is that the principles provided by Shariat are broad enough to allow democracy as legitimate form of government. The above example provide an specific instance to it. However, you may argue we need some other form of government than democracy, but calling democratic form of government as un-Islamic does not work, rather wrong.



By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:16 PM  |   (madeel)
Nowhere in the world we have pure democracy. Every society has its own norms, tradition, culture and needs. Any democratic system need to be transformed accordingly. Look at British, United States, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France for example. None has the same governmental structure. However, fundamental democratic ideas are the same.

In Pakistan too, we don't need to have western style democracy. It can be modified to make it rooted in our socio-cultural context. It is an unrealistic expectation that Pakistan will ever have western style democracy.

Among the basic pillars of democracy are

(i)independent judicial system
(ii) Effective accountability system
(iii) Merit based institutions
(iii) No Fascism or military rule (I regard theocracy as Fascism as well)

Lastly, every sensible Pakistani dislike the present form of "democracy". Nonetheless it is better than military rule. At wake od Mumbai attacks, prestn government tackle the US pressure much better than Musharraf. Despite all the shortcoming for the present government, IK himself said that he won't be part of any effort which change the present regime through unconstitutional means. (See Dec 21, 08 kal tak. )

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:20 PM  |   (madeel)
@ Sultan Ahmed

Hammas was democratically elected organization. It was its right to govern Philistine, but it wasn't given any chance to govern. If the US was serious in establishing peace, it must had let the Hammas government run for a year or two.

By Sultan @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:59 AM  |   (Sultan08 )
Haats off to Western countries who have influenced us so much that we can’t even think of implementing a system which is other than democracy and is in accordance to Sharia.
Poor Muslims of current era are so much ignorant of our great Islamic history that they believe that western way of everything is the sole example for us to succeed.
Friends I would like to urge everyone to go back and study great Islamic era which starts from 620AD till mid 18th century. Muslims were the super power in the period and was based on Islamic rules as described by Quran and Sunnah. They ruled Spain, Ciccilli, Cyprus, northern African states, all of Middle East, subcontinent reaching till edges of Moscow, Indonesia, Malaysia, reached little parts of china. Just imagine what an excellent era of Muslims.
The brightest period of Muslims was when Muslims ruled Spain and from there on Muslims did everything which we see now adays. Every research and technology was studied and invented there. Spain (Indalucia) was centre for whole of the world for latest studies and research. The Spanish rule of Muslims came to end in 1492AD and was the darkest age of Muslims. All books and technological researches of that time were taken to Europe from Muslims. Allama Iqbal speaks of this in his Poems. Reason of downfall was division amongst Muslims and Christians/jews non seriousness with Muslims. A renowned Historian said that if Muslims of Spain were not kicked off from Spain than human would have been on the moon 200 years earlier.
So we Muslims can again rule the world by adopting the basics of Quran and Sunnah and not by Western systems.
Muslims Zinda Bad.

By Adeel @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:04 PM  |   (madeel)
@Sultan Ahmed

I suppose you agree that Islam is compatible with democracy. That's good.

Another question:

What kind of government system Muslim had?

By  @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:08 PM  |   ()
@ Muhammad Adeel

Congratulations on making least/no sense in most posts.

Cheers

By Sultan @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 3:35 PM  |   (Sultan08 )
@ Adeel
Meray Western doost I dont believe in democracy. Islamic system is every thing for me. I will not compare democracy with Islam. I dont know why are you so much ghulam of their system!!!!!!!!

Musalmanooo Ghairat Khaoooo

By Adeel @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:23 PM  |   (madeel)
Ha Ha Ha.

I really enjoyed your comments Afzal. I am bogged down into details. But look, I was forced to go into these subtleties.

If you will discuss this issue into general public, academia, scholars whether religious or otherwise, you will then appreciate that it was not my choice to become detailed, or obscure.

Cheer :)

By Adeel @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:30 PM  |   (madeel)
@ Sultan Ahmed

If you think that democracy is not compatible with Islam, of course, most of my points would not work.

It is widely held in our masses, there was a time I too hold it myself, that democracy is not compatible with Islam. That is why I have given you the example of Imam Ghazali who happen to legitimize a kingship of a ten years old kid. And Ghazali is still very well regarded in Muslim.

May I re-iterate my point in different wording once again: There may be other systems better than democracy, we can discuss them as alternatives. However, democracy is not un-Islamic. Or at least we may modify it to make it compatible with Islam.

By Adeel @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:34 PM  |   (madeel)
@ Sultan Ahmed,

Brother, you didn't tell me what kind of the government system was in Muslim Spain?

It may be better than democracy. Bring it up so that we may discuss/decide. I am open to any alternative to democracy.

By  @ Sunday, January 04, 2009 9:33 PM  |   ()
@ Muhammad Adeel

Bhaee Jaan, I appreciate your sense of humor.

Janab, aap aur bhaee Sultan Ahmed jo ferma rahey hain woah koi mukhtalif nahin....Yaani, jo bhi nizam ho Quran aur Sunnat sey "Mutsadim/Tukrao" per na mabni na ho...Naam uska chahey kuch bhi ho...

Misal key tor per lafz "Pakistan" koi Quran ya Hadees main sey nahin liya gaya lekin yeah ghair Islami bhi nahin....

So I believe we are all on same page key whehter East or West it should not contradict Islamic Rules and Boundaries...

God bless us all. Ameen.

By Raza Zaidi @ Monday, January 05, 2009 1:29 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Afzal Chaudry bhai

Afzal bhaijan aap theek he keh rahay ho. Adeel bhai bhi wohi bat kartay hein jo Sultan bhai kar rahay hein. Adeel bhai bus angrezi ziyada boltay hein to khud confuse bhi hotay hein aur shayed kar bhi daytay hein. Magar Adeel bhai mujhe phir bhi kum "modern" lagtay hein. Dua ki ja sakti hay in k liye. Aur Adeel bhai aap hamray liye bhi dua karein k hum bhi thoray "modern" ho jaein. Zara aur tolerant ho jaien. Gaza may 600+ musalman mar gaye hein aur koi muslaman mulk kuch nahi keh raha. Ab iss say ziyada aur kitna tolerant houien hum. behral Modern Adeel bhai aap dua to karein nay yara. By the way, modern musalman dua to kartay hein na? Iss liye pooch raha houn kay mera koi comment aap ko "discriminate" na kar jaye. Really sorry if my any comment has cause any such thing. May to siruf "convenience" k liye alqab use kar raha tha :-)

Fraz baray bhai ka agenda nahi samajh aya. Pakistan may 96% musalman rahtay hein. Yeah chatay hein k 4% ki "discrimination" khutam karnay kay liye 96% ko discriminate kar do. Shabaash bhai shabaash. Yeah democracy nahi, democrazy hay bhai. Waisay mujhe personally un ki doosri baat ziyada pasand ayi. Who yeah k Kadiyani kafroun ko musalman sabit kar do. Is tarah minority rahay gi hi nahi. Discrimination bhi nahi rahay gi. Balkay Islam bhi religion of state rahay ga. Aisi hi 100 comments post kar da lay aap sub nay. May to Fraz bhai ko support karta houn full time. Hum ghurbat bhi aisay khatum kar saktay hein. Sub ghareboun ko mar do. Ghurbat khatum!

Tamam "Modern" bhai Pakistan k liye dua karein k yean jo "fundamentalist" practicing musalman hein na, in say Allah nijat diliwaye. Namaz pharnay ko kehtay hein, Allah ki hakmiyat batein kartay hein, shariat ko sahi proof karnay ki koshish kartay hein……modern kaisaein banay gay yeah log. Adeel Modern bhai aap hi dua karein na. Please na. Hum sub muslaman "Modern" ho jaien. Fraz bhai ki tarah. Liaqat bhai ki tarahan. Aur taro taza modern bhai, Adeel bhai ki tarahan. Na Islam rahay ga, na Muslaman. Sub hansi khushi rahein gay phir. Shayed Israel yahi soch kar Gaza per hamla kar raha hay. Hume us k saath dayna chahiye.

Salam hay bhai.

By Raza Zaidi @ Monday, January 05, 2009 6:53 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Saqib Tasneem Bhai

Yar aap ka comment "Mr. Coconut" bara acha laga. Agar aap ijazat den to me issay as a Trade mark registered kara loun.

Mr Coconut.....ha ha ha bhai buhat hi alla concept hay. Bahir say brown. undeer say safeed. Aur agar aap ijazat dein to may add kar doun, kay under say khali bhi :-) Bus thora meetha pani hota hay meethi meethi batein karnay k liye. Ab aap hi batein yeah words kitnay meethay nahi hein;

Modern
Discrimination
Freedom of Speech
Secularism
Liberals
Equal rights
Enlightened
Democracy
Tolerant
Western

Agar kisi "fundamentalist, backward, conservative, religious, old school, extremist, radical" ko meri baat samajh nahi aa rahi to neechay likhi tehreer phar lein. Sub samajh aa jaye ga.

Aur please koi bhai bura na manay meri batoun ka. Yeah kisi "secular", ya "enlightened" bhaioun ko "discriminate" karnay ko nahi likh raha. Kioun kay sub k pass "equal rights' hein khas tor per bolnay ka haq to sub kay pass hona chahiye, koin k yahan "freedom of speech" ka qanoon chalna chahiye, "modern" mulqoun ki tarahan.

Saqib bhai nay aik achi baat kahi. Enjoy kar raha houn aik "liberal' ki tarhan. koi bura na manay please. Thora "tolerant" hona chahieye hum sub Pakistanioun ko. "Democracy" ki taraf safr bhi to karnay hay na. Akhirat may apnay "Western" aqaoun (khuda) ko kia moun dehkhaein gay.

Salam hay sub bhaioun ko. Balkay mujhe bhi thora modern hona chahiye. iss liye salam ki bajaye, "Cheers" :-)

Ahhh…. ab may bhi "enlightened" feel kar raha houn. Neend achi aye gi. "Modern" wali.

By Adeel @ Monday, January 05, 2009 8:55 PM  |   (madeel)

naraz ho gai hai Raza bhai :)

Hamari batein dil per na lia karein, yeh tu aik nazry (theoretical) bahas hai. jis ka maqsad baat cheet kay zariyen apni fiqr ko mazeed behter kia ja sake; kisi mamley par aik behtar understanding paida ke ja sakay. Agar meray nazrayat mein khami hai to bahas kay zariye us ki nishadahi ho joyae gi. mere bahas ka maqsad kuch seekhna hota hai.

I have said earlier that I can be any of the liberal, conservative, fundamentalist, radical, depending on the issue at hand. Whatever you may like to call me you are welcome. The only label which describe me accurately is: explorer.

By Adeel @ Monday, January 05, 2009 8:57 PM  |   (madeel)
And yes, what I am saying and Sultan is saying has one big difference. He does not believe Islam and democracy as compatible.

He did praise Muslim Spain, and rightly so but didn't tell what kind of government system was in Muslim Spain?

By Adeel @ Monday, January 05, 2009 9:01 PM  |   (madeel)
I don't want to make your opinion about Iqbal become low. However, let me tell you that Iqbal showered his praise to modern Turkeyon and regarded abloshing of the Khilafat institute as the right step.

"The truth is that among the Muslim nations of today, Turkey alone has shaken off its dogmatic slumber, and attained to self-consciousness. She alone has claimed her right of intellectual freedom; she alone has passed from the ideal to the real - a transition which entails keen intellectual and moral struggle."

See his book "Reconstruction on Religious Thought in Islam." It is available online at: allamaiqbal.com

The above except is taken from the sixth lecture titles, "The principle of Movement in the structure of Islam."

By Adeel @ Monday, January 05, 2009 9:03 PM  |   (madeel)
Syed Sulema Nadvi, a well-known religious scholar of that time, wished that these lectures should remain unpublished. Still today many people read Iqbal's poetry without his own words which were first delivered in 1929. So you are not the first expressing your disgust on any step meant to break intellectual fossilization within Muslim world. No wonder, Iqbal is yet to be discovered.

---------------------------

sleep tight!

By  @ Monday, January 05, 2009 10:13 PM  |   ()
@ Adeel (The ExploDer)

Yaar, compatibility, Iqbal, Qaid aur doosrey leaders (Insanon) ki baat baad main hogee... pehlay is basic sawal ka jawab to do key tumhara apna benchmark kiya hai....

Mera sawal sirf itna hai key agar Democratic ya koi aur doosra system Islam ki taleemat key against hoga to tumhara apna decision kiya hoga...

Will you reject Islam/Quran/Sunna? or

will you reject that system (or that particular
contradictory part of system)?

Please aik post aur aik line main jawab dey dena...Qasam hai tujh ko PTI ki

Cheers

By Adeel @ Monday, January 05, 2009 11:15 PM  |   (madeel)
I have replied it in my earlier post.

"No legislation should be contradictory to Quranic teachings."


I like exploder too:) But usually I don't explode.

By Raza Zaidi @ Monday, January 05, 2009 11:17 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Adeel modern bhai aap aik zabardast admi hein. Aap say naraz? Toba karein.

Aik word may nay mis kar diya aap nay us per aap nay dant diya. Who word that "intellectual". Chalein ab hum disgusting bhi sahi. Aap intellectual bhi sahi.

btw aap nay Iqbal janab ko post kar kay dil jeet liya. Pehli bar laga k aap say bat kar k asli may behas ka maza aye ga. Yea alag baat hay apni mun pasand bat paste kar kay aap nay apni baat agay kar di "modernism" ki.

Iqbal ji ki batein ghor say parhiye. Wo thought reconstruct zaroor kar rahay hein proving k Islam evolve ho sakta hay magar kabhi bhi apnay maqsad say hut kar nahi. Kabhi bhi kalma change kar k nahi. Khalis Allah ki khusnudi ki liye sub kaam karnay hein. Yahan tuk kay hukoomat bhi. "Sprirtual democracy" jo insaan ko elevate karay. Aaj ki democracy ki tarhan janwar na banaye.

Kehtay hein musalman evolve karein, magar maqsad say hut kar nahi. Turkey ki example may buhat kuch hay. Islam ki evolvement ko national boundaries say agay ja kar samjhaya hay. Yeah iss sense may secular kaha giya k independent of national boundaries. Independent of Islam nahi. Is simat may turkey ki tareef ki gayi k unhoun nay pehli koshih ki Islam ko evolve karnay ki khas tor per religious reform party ka zikar kar kay. Kamal Ata turk ka nahi. Us nay to khatum kia Islam ko "secular" kay nam per. Us nay doosri definition li secularism ki aur Islam ko hi nikal diya. Aap agay phariay jahan wo batatay hein k State aur Church ka masla west k han ho sakta hay, musalmanoun kay haan yeah msala hi nahi hay kioun k Islam siruf religion of prayer hay hi nahi. Us may har chez k adab hein. Iss liye us ko state say alag karnay ka masla hi nahi uth sakta. Hamaray yahan "modern" log yeah sub miss kar jatay hein kioun ka apna Islam hi nahi partay.

Agar aap religious reform ki bat kartay hein to hum aap ka sath hein Adeel modern bhaijan. Agar app religion ko nikal kar reforms ki bat kartei hein to hum aap kay samnay kharein hein Adeel modern Bhaijan….. Faisla aap ka.

Explorer ka laqab acha hay. Allah karey aap manzil per pohancein aur roshni phelain… roshni k bhes may andhera nahi jo aaj ka west kar raha hay.

Salam.

By Raza Zaidi @ Monday, January 05, 2009 11:59 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Adeel Modern bhai

"No legislation should be contradictory to Quranic teachings."

Aap ab Adeel Modern bhai nahi. Balkay Adeel Bhai hein. Aap ka yeah jawab buhat acha tha. Dil jeet liya.

Apnay aap ko Fraz Bhai or Liqat ki Modern category may na dalein. Agar wo aapp ki statement say agree kartain hein to hum sub kay darmian koin bhi nazriyati behas nahi.

Salam hay bhai sub ko.




By Sultan @ Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:34 AM  |   (Sultan08 )
@Brooo Adeel (British style)

After such a wonder full answer from bhayee raza zaidi and subsequent answers from you gives me feeling that we all all coming to a single stand point. In furture i feel its not than mee appp kay muqblay par hoon gaaaa.

On spain meray bhayee I will ask you why the muslim spanish state failed? I dont need answer on this as I will at any cost prefer Islamic system on democratic ass.

By Adeel @ Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:53 PM  |   (madeel)

@Raza Zaidi

I am not an intellectual, only a student.

Second, I didn't call you disgusting. This time you heard what I didn't say. My point was that Syed Suleman Nadvi expressed his disappointment/disgust with the Iqbal's lecture as it has many radical ideas which are still unacceptable our clergy. Even a personality like Iqbal remain largely unsuccessful in breaking intellectual fossilization. One of the important aspect of Iqbal's philosophy is dynamism. That is, Iqbal does not claim finality on his opinion.

The above one line answer was just a copy and paste from one of my previous posts. My stand is still modernism as it asks you to utilize full power of your intellect. If you somewhere contradict Quranic teachings, you will correct yourself. There is a huge difference between Sultan's claim and mine. I have told you that I too held it once that Islam and democracy are not compatible; of course misunderstanding Iqbal. It was Iqbal's criticism on democracy, which is largely valid. However, Iqbal saw it as the best available option. He even suggested that now fiqah should be reconstructed by an assembly which consist of not only ulema but also experts in different worldly disciplines. These lectures made me re-evaluate my understanding of Iqbal.

Everyone read Iqbal's poetry with meaning of its own. Iqbal's message is largley lost. For a trustworthy appreciation of Iqbal require reading of his prose. His book Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam is important as he composed at the near end of his life. My appreciation of Iqbal may still be incorrect. Iqbal own views may have mistakes, but the Iqbal intent was to begin a debate in the religious domain, re-new ijtihad which is practically absent since last 800 years, whether Sunni or Shia. (Although Shia would claim otherwise, but practically it is absent there too.) Most of the works on Iqbal are merely expository, or commentary. It is rare that you will find a critical analysis of Iqbal's thought. This is precisely against the Iqbal's intentions.

Fraz represents a different view point. That is require for a debate. He creates disturbances in our world view which I regard as healthy. There is nothing wrong listening him. In this thread, every one has made some good points. We all should appreciate gray areas.

By Adeel @ Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:12 PM  |   (madeel)
@Sultan Ahmed

You have yet to explain what does Islamic system means? Muslim Spain had a kingship. Democracy is certainly better than Kingship. If Kingship can be approved by Shariat what wrong with the democracy. You didn't tell us either why democracy is un-Islamic?

Islamic system is a very catchy phrase. It has romance of its kind. More precisely, Muslim world has idealized Khilafat-e-Rashida. Whenever he talk about a government system, that ideal haunt him, at least unconsciously. As a result Islamic system has a magical soothing effect. It is like the word "spirituality", which is very good to hear. But if one ask you to explain this precisely, in points: One ... Two ... Three ... It is formidable task.


By Adeel @ Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:14 PM  |   (madeel)
If I didn't make sense, I apologize. I am just short of time.

By Raza Zaidi @ Friday, January 09, 2009 1:45 AM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Adeel Bhai

Aap ki baat achi hay aur aap apnay personality reflect kar rahay ho is may. Kehna kay aap aik student ho, achi aur daniswarana baat hay. Meri dua aap k sath.

may buhat der say enter hua is debate may aure may nay saray comments parhay. Aap jis modernism ki bat ab kar rahay ho Iqbal janab ki roshni may wo samajh aati hay. Aap nay pehlay issay define hi west say sekhnay say mutaradif kia, wo different image aap ka day giya (Fraz wala).

Ji han Iqbal nay Ijtehad ko renew karnay ki bilqul bat ki aur yahi unki modernism ki definition thi. Is ka har giz yeah matlab nahi tha k religion ko hata do (jaisa ka kuch aur logon nay yahan promotoe kia magar aapp nay nahi).

Reconstruction of R.T in Islam buhat achi kitab hay aur meri pasandeda may say hay. Buhat say doosray 'modern" log (aap nahi) usay "out of date" keh chukay hein in blogs may.

Asal may jis tarah aap bat kar rahay hein mujh say, wo andaz acha hay. Tameez wala. Jub bhi koi aggressive hojata hay aur badtameezi karta hay, us ki baat chahay sahib hi ho koi nahi sunta. "Its not what you say, its how you say it".
Doosir raye dayna baes-e-barkat hay agar main kalmay say na hatay. Dekhein na, agar doosri raye yeah hay k Islam ki bajae law of man apna lo, to wo to doosri rae nahi bal kay ulti rae ho gi. us per reaction to aye ga.

Aur yea bhi zarrori hay k aap daleel k sath bat karein. Jaisay k aap kar rahay hein ab. Siruf dosray k nam say bath agay bhrana say yeah tassur peda hota hay k aap bus zehni ghulami kar rahay hein.

Aap nay aik missal Fraz Shafiqe. janab ki di to unhi ki bat kar dayta houn. Doun cheezein zaroori hein kisi bhi raye k liey. Aajzi (respect for others) and logic.

Yeah donou chezeiin Fraz janab may kum hein. May nay en sahib k doosray blogs dekhay. Jahan enhoun nay kuch batein achi agar kar hi dein to iss badtamisizi say k dosroun nay en ko "fitna" tak kaha. Shayed ghalat hi magar in ki tone parahy likhay shaks ki nahi thi.

is ki missal in ki apnay "ilm" ko arrogance hay. Enhoun nay aik jaga per Iqbal hi ki "Reconstruction of R.T in Islam" kay baray may yeah kaha.

"As for Allama Iqbal, we can discuss his philosophies another time as my reading of his 'reconstruction of religious thought in islam' found him trite to say the least."

Aap bayshak aiteraz karein kisi per bhi including Iqbal janab, magar paray likhay shaks ko itni badlihazi zeb nahi dayti. Aik statement day dena k falana shaks "trite" tha, show karta hay aap ka ghroor, jahalat aur lack of logic. Kisi ko ghalat proof karma hay to daleel do, nahi aati to chup raho, bol kar confirm nahi karo k angrezi k kuch alfazoun k ilawa kuch aur nahi ata. Jaisay k Adeel bhai aap nay kaha k aap student hein. Yeah aik bari bat hay halan k aap ki batein buhat pari likhein hein. Bus gharoor admi ka moun kala hi karta hay.

Agar aap Adil bhai doosri opinion dein, koi disrurbance nahi ho gi. kioun k aap tameez dikha rahay hein. Jahan ap bhi aggressive houn gay, aap dekhiey ga, aap ki bat log sunna bhi chor dein gay.

Aap dekhiye na Fraz, nay is blog may ziyada batein, Quiad k khanday per goli chala kar kein. Aur to koi us nay jawab diya nahi achay sawaloun ka. Personally mujhe Ali bukhari, Hassan Niazi, aur Sabir Rizivi ki batein buhat challengning aur logical lagein. Saqib aur Yousuf bhai bhi acha bolay.

Adeel bhai aap doosra point of view day rahay hein magar Fraz say to lakh darjay behtar. Yeah fark hay doosri raye daynay ka. Blkay pehli raye bhi usi waqt support pakrti hay jab tameez say boli jaye. Yahan per pro Islam bloggers nay buhat zabardast kam kiya hay. Mujhe un ki logic may jan lagi.

May to Fraz say kahun ga Addel bhai say hi kuch seekh lein janab. Tameez pehli chez hay. Fraz aap ki bat logical bhi (agar) to fail ho jati hay kioun k aap tameez say bat nahi kartay. Tameez sekhen Insh'allah bat aap ki suni bhi jaye gi aur fayde bhi ho ga.

Ab may khatum karta houn Adeel bhai apni input is blog may. Aap say bat chet kar k maza aya. Khiyal rakhein apna. Jahan tak aap kay comment to Sultan Ahmad k ta'lluk hay, meri raye yeah hay k democracy may agar aap ka objective Allah aur us kay nabi ki bat ko raij karna hay (jaisay aap nay bhi kaha k Quran say contradictory qanoon nahi) ijtehad ko renew kartay huway, to who bhi theek, Agar khilafat/shariat nafiz kar k bhi duniya ki taraf jaana hay to who bhi ghalat. Ab may iss say ziyada detail bayfaida samajhta houn kioun k phit hum dor suljhanay may per jatay hein aur sira kho daytay hein. May Sultan Ahmad ki taraf say jawab day chuk to dono bhaioun (Sultan aur Adeel) say guzarish hay k iss ko majeed na discuss karein. Agay aap ki marzi.

Slam hay bhai sub ko.
PS: Fraz bhai agar aap yeah par rahay hein to guzarish hay k achay kam kartay rahein magar har aik ki izzat karein. Ghurroor karna Allah ki chadar khenchnay ki tarhan hay. Ghurroor karnay walay ka moun kala ho jata hay. Tamez say bat karein, hum sub aap ki support karein gay (provided thori logic bhi dal dein apni batoun may, personalities nahi). Ameen.

By Sultan @ Friday, January 09, 2009 4:12 AM  |   (Sultan08 )
Well meray doost to your statement:

“Islamic system has a magical soothing effect. It is like the word "spirituality", which is very good to hear. But if one ask you to explain this precisely, in points: One ... Two ... Three ... It is formidable task.”

You seemed like implying that Islamic system is impossible, where as it isn’t. You mentioned that Kingship is better than democracy….. again it is debatable as how are you satisfied that democracy a success????? In Pakistan democracy is a joke. To me now a days democracy is the best tool for western enemy to destabilise the existing Islamic governments. This is the reason that I hate democracy. It is of no use and it simply make the general public Ghulam of the elected government. Democracy every where in the world is totally failed. Western public is simply innocent Ghulam of their government who make fake promises and does what ever they want.

As you mentioned that re-newing Ijtihad was absent for past 800 years. Same is the case with Islamic system which has not been thought upon by the Muslims for long time. If we can re new Ijtihad than why not we can sit and start work on a truly Islamic system.
Just to mention that I never said that Islamic System is a software which we can buy from market and implement it. My point is that an Islamic system can be developed. We Muslims have so talent now a days that I am 100% positive that we can achieve this fate.
Now coming to Spain ……brooo the main reason of down fall of Spanish Muslims was due to differences in between Muslims in Spain. These differences lead to divisions of power and every group of Muslims had their own King. These different Kings in Spain were called as “Taifas” in history. As said earlier main reason of down fall was differences in between Muslims and not Kingship.

Having said that I would conclude by saying that that what ever system we try to follow the key to success will be implementing true Islamic Laws and to promote truth and honesty amongst the public. This will ensure the success of the respective system. And mainly if we can get rid of Democracy that that will be good (This is my personal view and am not forcing others on it).

By Adeel @ Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:59 AM  |   (madeel)
@ Raza Zaidi,

Thanks for your compliment.

@Sultan Ahmed

US always need dictators like Husni Mabarak, Saddam Hussein, General Musharraf. It never destabilizes any dictatorship. Almost all the government which the US thrown by some means were democratically elected. Sometime it uses the idea of promoting democracy to keep dictators in their size. US never has really pushed democracy as it is not in its imperialistic interests. Numerous examples there: Husni Mabarak, Saddaq Hussein. Look at the present Arab world.

I think I can say safely that Muslim Spain didn't have a Islamic system either, in the sense this term being employed by Muslims of our present world. Two differentiate between two different concept we require some discriminatory features. I was in fact asking about the distinguishing features of the Islamic system. My claim is that any distinguishing feature can be embed in the democracy. You may go to develop an Islamic system (although democracy is not un-Islamic either), but there should be some system in that transition. What is the best available alternative until then? Democracy, kingship, or military dictatorship.

There are many factors in the decline of a great powers. Regarding decline Muslim Spain, we have focused only the differences among ruling ethnic groups. But the difference were there since Tariq bin Zayad. Historians tell us that every nation must face the decline after it achieve its plateau. It may make its plateau last longer by maintaining its ethical existence. We can learn a lot in this regard from the decline of the Soviet Union and the US.

By Liaqat Ali @ Saturday, January 10, 2009 8:16 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
@ Imran Ghazali ,

Thanks for posting the speech of our founding father .
I asume you wanted to start a discussion to find solutions to problems raised by the Qaid .
The problems facing Pakistan, at the time of its creation are mentioned in the speech as :-
Law And Order , Nepotism , Corruption , Black Marketing .
We are still facing the above problems , only more severely, and still needing urgent attention ,in the mean time we have done much harm to our own people and our nation.

But , I am sorry to say you have failed , to ignite a serious discussion aiming to find solutions to the ever-green problems described by the Quaid .
On 19 dec 08 the discussion was sucessfully hijacked .
Hassan Niazi was the first to use the word secularism in accusing Fraz to be one .
S Muhammad Ali dragged religon in to the debate . And them many others joined in.

I suggests the debate should have been controlled to the extent, that it not loose its purpose and direction.
Number of contributions should have limited , per person . say two or three .

Perhaps , you start again by asking for suggestions on how to improve, Law And Order, then abolish Nepotism ,Corruption ,Black Marketing.
Thanks ,

Liaqat Ali .

By Raza Zaidi @ Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:25 AM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Liaqat Ali

Liaqat ji aap ki statement parh gar bari hansi aaee. Aap ki sadgi per kon na mar jaye.
Debate hijack Dec 17 ko hi ho gaye thi yara.
Aap nay S. M Ali ko blame kia k who religion drag kar gaye debate may. Shabaash hay bhai shabash. Yahan per may aap ki tasalli k liye Fraz Shafique ka quote of Dec 17, 1008 pesh karta houn
---------------------------
"For example Jinnah says:
' You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.'
What does this mean? Maududian Islam refutes Qaid-e-Azam in this regard - as does the "Objective Resolution" enshrined in the Pakistan Constitution."
--------------------------
"Although Qaid-e-Azam declared that 'religion has nothing to do with the state', our state has declared that many of its citizens cannot call themselves 'Muslim' nor can they say the words 'Aslamualaikum'."
----------------------------
"The question then becomes, should get rid of Qaid-e-Azam's speech throwing it into the dustbin and persist with the currently enshrined idea that declares religion to have everything to do with the state, or retrace our steps and take inspiration from Jinnah's speech by struggling for a state where no one religion is supreme and all religions and citizens are treated with dignity, humanity and justice?"
-----------------------------
Liaqat ji aap ko ginti to aati hay na. Yahan per lafz "religion" panch (5) dafa use huwa Islam aur Muslim jaisay words chor kar. Shayed aap ki zazar nahi pari, yah phir aap nay comment hi Dec 19 say parhnay shru kiye, yah phir aap Fraz ji ki chamchgeeri kar rahay hein. Hum sub ko bata dein sach kia tha. Ghlati tasleem karna bhi achi bat hay. Tofi milay gi jannat may sach bolnay per.

Aur phir aap nay Hassan Niazi ko blame kia k woh secularism lay aye beech may aur Fraz ko accusr kar gaye. Dobara aap ki tassli k liye kuch raye Fraz Shafiq kay Dec 18, 2008 kay comment may say.
"The question is not weather 'true implementation of Islam' or any religion is an answer. The question is, irrespective of how good or bad any religion is (potentially or in reality), can religion have any business of the state?"

Liaqat bhai meray, iss statement may Fraz Bhai keh rahay hein kay religion ka State/ Government kay business may kia kam? Secularism may aur kia hota hay meray bholay masum say bhai. Yeah lein Wikipedia ki definition.
"Secularism is the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs."
Aap baray merherbani in donou statement may farak kar dein samaeen k liye. Aap ki bari anayat ho gi.
End may yeah kahoun ga ka aap nay Imran Ghazali bhai kay saath bari ziadti ki. Aap nay kaha;
"But , I am sorry to say you have failed , to ignite a serious discussion aiming to find solutions to the ever-green problems described by the Quaid ."
Bhai Imarn G ka kia kasoor. Fail to may nay aur aap nay kia yani k Contributors nay. Liaqat ji aap ki apni is blog may sub say pehli quote arz hay (Dec 21).

"Jinnah sb, a shia would be considered a kafir by :- 1. Wahhabis , ahl hadis , jamaat al dawa ,LET, and other groups belonging to Saudi/ wahhabi/ salafi firqa.
2. Deobandi firqa , and its offshoots like JUI ,SSP etc .Incl Jamaat Islami.
In other words all the groups fighting allonside US in Afghanistan in 80s ,who are now victims of US aggression. I call them "troublemakers united"."

Mashallah aap ka focus buhat alag tha, religion ki to bat hi nahi ki aap nay. Yakeenun topic hijack karnay waloun may aap shamil nahi. Shabash.

Chalein aap nia blog bana lein na. Hum sub ab Law & Order discuss karein gay. Aap zarror aye ga……… topic ko hijack honay say bachana k lieye.

By Sultan @ Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:14 PM  |   (Sultan08 )
@LA
Well I think this discussion was a great success. Who are you to be a judge here? This discussion was by no mean harm to our own people. Mind it that different sects of Muslims (Sunni, Shiaa and Qadyanis) have differing points of views on different things so don’t be scared and be generous to listen to others.

By Sultan @ Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:16 PM  |   (Sultan08 )
Mr LA you seriously need spiritual guidance. May Allah widen our thinking.

By  @ Monday, January 12, 2009 8:22 PM  |   ()
@ Liaqat Ali

Please don't mind my previous comment, however, I just wanted to re-iterate that I still standby my last comment.

By Liaqat Ali @ Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:30 PM  |   (LIAQAT ALI)
I am impressed by the many aspects of the political life of Jinnah Sb ....... My comments were in the context of his speech posted on this blog .
I beleive the coordinator should have reminded people to keep their comments in the context of the issues raised by the Quaid in this speech.

Ideally the discussion should have focussed on us workers providing solutions to the issues of ,law and order,nepotism,corruption , black marketeering ,social harmony amongst religons , firqas and ethnic , tribal regional groups . These were some of the issues raised by the Quaid in this speech.

Also, contributors should have kept in mind,that social justice issues are the main focus of IK and PTI .

I hope I have done this ,while displaying good manners.

By Raza Zaidi @ Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:19 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@liaqat Ali

Yar bhaijan theek hay bhai, aap sahi hi keh rahein hein. shyed isi tarhan yeah debate khatum ho jaye. bajae iss k kay hum issues per focus karein, aap apni safaaian pesh kar rahay hein. yeah koi personal blog to nahi. Aap kay comments per koi attack thori kar raha hay.

Jub aap khud doosroun ko accuse kar k personal ho jatay hein to tub aap kay jumlay Quaid k context may hotay hein. Koi aap ko correct karay to aap administrator ko kehtay hein kay "controlled" debate ho. Yeah baat aap ko zeb nahi dayti. Hum sub PTI member hein, aur hamaray standard sub say achay honay chahiyen. "Good manners" siruf shaaista zaban nahi balkay, sacchi aur mukhlis bat hoti hay. Koi hurt na ho us say. "troublemakers united" kis ka comment hay? Iss say hum uss group kay logoun ko aur door kar rahy hein apnay aap say. PTI may sub ko aana hay, religious, non-religious, waghera waghera.
Agar hum "trouble maker united" jaisay comment use karein gay to siwae apni nafrat nikalnay kay, aur kuch nahi hasil kartay. PTI kay kuch log aur against ho jaytay hein. hamein sub ko saath lay kar chalna hay.

Chalein ab thanday ho jaein aur agay ehtiyat karein achay bachoun ki tarhan.

Salam hay bhai sub bhaioun ko.

By  @ Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:21 PM  |   ()
@ Liaqat Ali

Sit down and give your mind a rest.

By Raza Zaidi @ Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:45 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@Fraz Shafique
@Liaqat Ali

Lagta aap donoun ki secular tehreek jo aap nay PTI may aa kar shru kit thi, wo khirki say bahir aundhay moun ja kar giri hay. Ab kia karein gay janab!

Imran Khan, hamaray zabardast chairman, nay kaha hay k who power may aa kar Shariyat nafiz kar dein gay!!!

Watch it with your own, unfortunate, eyes in programme "Kaltak" with Javed Chaudry :-)

http://pkpolitics.com/2009/01/21/kal-tak-21-january-2009/

Imran Khan the great said, "Kitni sharam ki bat hay kay hum musalman hotay huway Shariyat ka aanay say ghabrati hein"

Aur wo log jo secular nizam plead kartay hein aap donoun (Fraz aur Liaqat) ki tarahan un ko shayed ………… doob mar jana chahiye…… mind mat ki jiye ga, may to siruf Imran Khan sahib ki bat per algorithm apply kar raha houn :-)
Ab to apnay khiyalat tabdeel kar lein!! Dheet rehna hay to kamuzkum izzat dar dheet banein. Resign kar dein apnay khiyalat ki defence ki khatir. Kuch to character show karein yara!

Aur janab muthrams;

@Hassan Niazi
@Kamran Rizvi
@Ali Bukhari
@S. M. Ali
@Shahzad Zafar
@Haider Tariq
@Yusuf Khan
@Saqib Tasneem
@Sultan Ahmed
@Afzal Chaudry
@Abdul Majid Malik

Aap sub ka shukria kay aap sub Imran Khan janab ki soch raktay hein. Imran Khan sahib kay khiyalat ko defend karnay ka sukria. Quaid-e-Azam ki image ko manipulate karnay waloun ka asli chehra samnay lanay ka shukria!

PTI Rocks!!

By Syed Ali Raza Shah @ Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:59 AM  |   (salirshah)
@ ALL!

Dear fellow citizens;

what apity that we always tend to take refuge in the terminology of "ghairat", when we are short of true will to discuss and debate in a democratic fashion or when we do not seem to possess many sound justifications or explanations for our character qualities (whereby we know in the depth of our hearts, we know what they are good for......i.e., nothing!). A reference to "ghairat" to stop a debate is a quality of fascism. I love to be a muslim, because it makes sense to me to believe in Unity of Allah, in Prophethood of His Prophets in the truthfulness of His Holy Books and in the freedom given unto mankind by His Holy Divine! Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) gave us the lessons of democracy and freedom of speech, even freedom of Blasphemy by praying for those who spit on him and throw garbage on him. He was in his practice stronged by Allah, in the sense that Allah says in Quran that He Himself will deal with those who insult the Prophet or who defy him! We normal human beings are in no position to give life to any possible thing on earth. How can we ever rationally think of justifying death penalties against human beings through certain clauses of our Penal Code or "social values"? Life belongs to Allah! When He is in a position to give Life then he is surely also in the position of taking Life without our help! Let us simply be tolerant of our fellow beings no matter what they think or say and the world will be a much peacefull surrounding to live in. Islam is and will always be a beacon of peace! What a shame that we muslims don't vouch for it!

May Allah bless you all!

By Raza Zaidi @ Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:13 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
@All

At 38:42 minutes in the video link below, Chairman Imran Khan share his views on SECULARISM during his address at Urdu University on Jan 22, 2009.

http://insaf.pk/Media/Videos/tabid/62/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1735/Imran-Khan-at-Urdu-University-January-22-2009.aspx

"Yeah aik bari ahi bat ki, dekehn Aaj kal aik niya, aik sosha chora houa hay jis ka nam hay SECULARISM.
Is ko zara baray ghor say samjhein kioun kay yeah aap k liey agay jay kay … jis tarhan ka aap ko aaj maghrabi tehezeeb kay ghulam jo aaj kal aap kay upper attack karein gay…. Zara ghor say sunien .. thori khamoshi… mujhe pata hay thori garmi hay thora sun lein…..

Iss waqt aik buhat bara propaganda chal raha hay …Islam kay khilaf
Sub say bari bat yeah hay kay woh Shariyat aanay wali hay! Kay gee woh sariyat nafiz karna chahtay hein, saray dar jatay hein k shariyat nafiz karna chahtein hein……Sub say pehlay to yeah zehen may dal lein k agar woh musalman hay to woh sahriyat may na manay who musalman kon sa hay? Aap musalman hein to shariyat to Nabi (SAW) ka rasta hay…. Shariyat to… hamein Quran kehta hay k Nabi (SAW) kay rastay per chalo… tu woh muslaman kia hay jo keahy kay may shariyyat hi nahi manta.

Yeah maghrab zaday hein… yeah Maghrib kay ghulam hein kay jo maghrib say concept aata hay aap kay upper thons daytay hein pakar kay. En ko khudi hi nahi pata kay shariyat kiya hay? Ab yeah zara yad rakhein kay deen… ab yeah kehtay hein na kay siyasat ko alaihda kar do….. may is may zaroor manta houn kay deen ko siyasat kay liye istamaal nahi karna chahiye… yeah may samjhta houn concept. Jis tarhan Muhajir ko siyasat kay liye Istamal nahi karna chahiye, yah may pashtoon ko, nationalism ko istamal kar raha houn. Yeah jo nafratein phela kay dosroun ko kay jee kay may yea acha kam mar raha houn, doosra wo bura hay.. yah may … maslum may kahoun kay jee Lahorioun kay khilaf koi hamla ho raha hay bahir say, saray lahorioun ko ikhatta kar kay siyasat… yeah sari .. yeah manfi siyasat hay, negative politics.

Lekin Aik Lakh chobees hazar Allah nay peghmaber is dunya may bheje thay.. un ka siruf aik kam tha. Kay Insaan ko insaan banaya jaye bajae Insaan aik janwar kay level per chaley. Insaan woh hota jis may do qualities hoti hein. Insaniyat ka mutlab hay compassion, doosri chez adal aur insaf. Janwar ki kingdom may hota hay might is right and survival of the fittest. Wahan kamzor ki koi haysiyat nahi hoti janwaroun kay andar. Insaanoun kay under utna bara insaan hota hay jo kamzor ki khidmat karta hay. Jo apni nahi sochta wo doosroun ki sochta hay.. woh bara insaan samjha jata hay, us maein insaaniyat ziyada hot hay.

Isi liye yeah kehna kay deen ko aur siyasat ko alehda karo mujhe is ki mujhe koi samajh hi nahi aati. Iss ka yeah matlub hay.. kay may agar musalman houn to may insaan houn .. yani may insaan .. yea iss ko koi samajh hi nhai hay, koi concept hi nahi hay. Asal may jo kehnay ka maqsad yeah hay kay deen ko istamaal na karein siyasat may / power may aanay kay liye. Uss may koi shak nahi kay baray bary logoun nay deen ko istamaal kiya hay, jis tarhan muhajiroun ko istamaal kiya jis tarhan falanoun ki. Apni zat, Politics kay kiye. Wo bilkul ghalat chez hay, Lekin deen to hamein insaan banata hay. "

_______________________________________

Imran Khan nay kaha kay sazish ho rahi hay Islam kay khilaf........... Yakeenun.... Proof to iss blog may hi mil jata hay. "Maghrib Zaday" to hamray asteen may aa kar das rahay hein.

I will send this blog link to Dr Arif Alvi to tell leadership that on the name of Freedom of Speech and Tolerance, yea sazish hamari apni part may ho rahi hay. They will themselves decided if this is a Freedom of Speech issue or a Conspiracy highlighted by Imran Khan himself.

The Dutch MP who made the film "Fitna" against Islam also said its his freedom of speech. Can we then say all Muslims to be "tolerant". The Dutch court has itself taken action against him saying that he is spreading hatered on the name of Freedom of Speech. In Democracy such actions cannot be tolerated!

Those who preech Freedom of Speech first understand what it is and then worship it as their Western idol.

Salam sub ko.

By Raza Zaidi @ Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:44 PM  |   (Raza Zaidi)
Faraz shafique bhaag giya PTI say

Ha ha ha ha. Aik fitna to kum huwa. Bhetha ho ga ab musharraf ki goad may.

Kiy tabha o barbad kiya es ko es blog may. Itni ezzat houi ha ha ha ha,

Liaquat, Fraz ka pet, bhi dafa ho giya

ha ha ha ha

Only registered users may post comments.
 Google+

USA   Canada   UK   Australia   New Zealand

 

© 2013 by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf