A ‘Muslim Union’ is the need of the hour

[p(-)0ENiX]

Arab countries have strong economic and defense ties with our enemy india. That's not brotherhood!

The other point to note is that the article being discussed here means absolutely nothing, knowing that in the era of modern technology information flows rapidly & is available to all. Another funny thing here is that all those that disagree with this union are apparently "nationalists". One of the points I read while skimming through the posts was that this organization would address the problems faced by people in troubled regions of what I am presuming is every member nation. If the governments do not address the issues of communities residing in their territories, why would an organization have better luck unless of course the availability of resources is considered? The financing for those resources & projects would come from wealthier nations assuming that they agree or tolerate it in the long run. Even so, the local government is going to have to be involved once the inquiries are complete, & that again necessitates the need for an expeditious government. In the end, what's truly needed is good governance & mutually beneficial trade, economic, et cetera agreements with any adept country. However, any union on whatever grounds isn't in itself a bad idea provided that all parties benefit equally & our national & societal interests aren't violated.

 

[Developereo]

Noted with interest various POVs.

Reading the posts here, many posters have misconstrued the concept entirely.

There is the false premise that a Muslim union would wall itself in and not trade with the outside world. Does the European Union not trade outside Europe? Does the United States not trade with other countries? Why, then, would a Muslim union forego technical and economic ties with the rest of the world?

The second point is the false dichotomy between nationalism and a union. EU is again a good example. The member countries retain their national character and much autonomy, while reaping the benefits of a greater union. Do German nationalists worry about this union? Far from it. Germany is perhaps the strongest proponent of the EU.

The benefit of a union is to leverage economies of scale and other benefits that only come with size.

Yes, the hurdles are many and, given current realities, the concept seems less feasible than a colony on Mars, but that shouldn't stop us from discussing the pros and cons of the proposal rationally.

 

[JayAtl]

Reading the posts here, many posters have misconstrued the concept entirely.

There is the false premise that a Muslim union would wall itself in and not trade with the outside world. Does the European Union not trade outside Europe? Does the United States not trade with other countries? Why, then, would a Muslim union forego technical and economic ties with the rest of the world?

The second point is the false dichotomy between nationalism and a union. EU is again a good example. The member countries retain their national character and much autonomy, while reaping the benefits of a greater union. Do German nationalists worry about this union? Far from it. Germany is perhaps the strongest proponent of the EU.

The benefit of a union is to leverage economies of scale and other benefits that only come with size.

Yes, the hurdles are many and, given current realities, the concept seems less feasible than a colony on Mars, but that shouldn't stop us from discussing the pros and cons of the proposal rationally.

even if we give you that the union discussed here, based on religion is not going to mean they would not trade with others ( go figure why you call it a Muslim union and not a BRICS like named union)-I will copy and paste again from my earlier post on why EU is wrong example to give.


1.EU is based on some basic fundamentals you don't have here and cannot have with a Muslim union. Examples are:

EU is first and foremost all democracies together, then sharing borders and a single currency deal in place - all under the EU consortium's constitution. The consortium( EU courts) also has final jurisdiction over civil matters and human rights! You won't have Muslim countries agreeing to be under one supreme jurisdiction.

Why?- because your laws among Muslim nations are not ubiquitous rather vastly different. Women in your country(PAK) can fly an aircraft BUT in KSA they can't drive. In Iran there is a religious police , none in Turkey. In Pakistan you can't hold high office if not Muslim, in Turkey and Egypt you can. You can't be a successful union if you can't share the basics of human and civil rights. Those are integral to sustain the EU.

2. Then- you have some that are secular ( Turkey and Egypt to some extent), some that are dictatorship ( Syria), others that are monarchies ( KSA and rest) and then there is Iran where the ayatollah is the last word above the constitution.

3. Then- some are near developed countries while most are underdeveloped. They are not strong enough economies put together to sustain a single currency- which is an important part of being an union. i.e. IF you can't hold the value of your currency, you can't be an economic force.

4. Lastly , you have no peace time status among many of them, unlike the EU, which has been peaceful for decades now.

I hope you are getting the picture.

 

[Chak Bamu]

1. In my view, any such union would necessarily have to account for differences among member countries and avoid anything remotely resembling micro-management. The acid test would be to have Shia and Sunni co-exist and tolerate each other. Whoever heads such an institution could be Shia or Sunni and nobody ought to be bothered. That is the beauty of systems that are derived from democratic institutions. Unless something goes horribly wrong, no one can permanently damage a system.

2. @Echo_419 has made an interesting observation. That Pakistan (or any other country) would have to avoid being a dead weight. If we in Pakistan are able to ensure that the obfuscation and deliberate misunderstanding of constitutionalism is taken care of, we shall indeed not be a dead weight. That would mean that we have taken care of people who reject constitutionalism. Such people include most indoctrinated militants (TTP, some jihadists), supporters of Martial laws, and corrupt leaders who think they can use political parties and democratic institutions to loot and plunder (more needs to be said about this particular point, but not now). In my view a 'dead weight' country would be the one that does NOT have developed institutions, no matter how much cash it may have. To give you an idea, if royal family of SA were to be thrown in disarray, all the money that SA has would be of no use in preventing a Tribal civil war, since Tribalism is very strong and entrenched there. If a country does not have Constitutionalism, developed institutions, and a politically aware population, then it is a very poor country as far as I am concerned.

To re-iterate, this union thingy would be of no value if it is for economic benefit alone. It will be irrelevant like RCD. Does anyone remember Regional Co-operation and Development formed by Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan? Therefore it must be based on countries with 'developed' institutions. Such countries would know how and why of managing differences of opinion and experience of handling diversity of POVs. Only Islamic democratic countries can be the leading lights, not any of the Arabs. Tunisia might be an exception in a decade or so. Let us see.

Such an organization could get a start by democratic countries agreeing to fund shared initiatives in education, technology, research, disaster response & recovery, humanitarian assistance, and institution building. A small group of experienced ex-ministers from member countries could comprise a 'parliament' supported by a small budget. This beginning could later be expanded via small steps and in a very transparent manner without any other country feeling threatened by it.

A military aspect for peace keeping could later be developed. A force of no more than 10,000 smart multilingual personnel with excellent training in peacekeeping and disaster recovery could be kept busy. Our young-blood would-be jihadists could be incorporated into a volunteer peace corps and made to do jihad of providing services in various sectors like disaster recovery, quick response peacekeeping, diffusing flashpoints, etc...

The next step could be a court for dispute & conflict resolution and diffusing tensions among member states. Before long, the whole of Muslim world including Muslim minorities in East, West, North, & South would be looking up to this institution. Dictatorships might fall, monarchies might feel pressured to give way to constitutionalism instead of despotism, etc...

Policy guidelines could be issued to ensure a certain uniformity and standards in provision of services for public, conflict resolution. An important aspect would certainly be the rights and duties of Muslim minorities. If any group uses repression as an excuse to start 'jihad', then this institution could investigate and issue a result after looking at all pertinent angles including the view from the authorities of the country concerned. This way spurious organizations could be isolated and actually be confronted. We shall then see who uses name of our religion for their parochial and self-serving agendas.

In a few decades Muslims would cease to be seen as disruptive element in our global village and instead be viewed as a force for positive change. Any conflicts that do arise would be managed before they escalate. If there is a need to take a stand, sane minds would decide; not wide-eyed fanatics.

 

[Echo_419]

1. In my view, any such union would necessarily have to account for differences among member countries and avoid anything remotely resembling micro-management. The acid test would be to have Shia and Sunni co-exist and tolerate each other. Whoever heads such an institution could be Shia or Sunni and nobody ought to be bothered. That is the beauty of systems that are derived from democratic institutions. Unless something goes horribly wrong, no one can permanently damage a system.

2. @Echo_419 has made an interesting observation. That Pakistan (or any other country) would have to avoid being a dead weight. If we in Pakistan are able to ensure that the obfuscation and deliberate misunderstanding of constitutionalism is taken care of, we shall indeed not be a dead weight. That would mean that we have taken care of people who reject constitutionalism. Such people include most indoctrinated militants (TTP, some jihadists), supporters of Martial laws, and corrupt leaders who think they can use political parties and democratic institutions to loot and plunder (more needs to be said about this particular point, but not now). In my view a 'dead weight' country would be the one that does NOT have developed institutions, no matter how much cash it may have. To give you an idea, if royal family of SA were to be thrown in disarray, all the money that SA has would be of no use in preventing a Tribal civil war, since Tribalism is very strong and entrenched there. If a country does not have Constitutionalism, developed institutions, and a politically aware population, then it is a very poor country as far as I am concerned.

To re-iterate, this union thingy would be of no value if it is for economic benefit alone. It will be irrelevant like RCD. Does anyone remember Regional Co-operation and Development formed by Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan? Therefore it must be based on countries with 'developed' institutions. Such countries would know how and why of managing differences of opinion and experience of handling diversity of POVs. Only Islamic democratic countries can be the leading lights, not any of the Arabs. Tunisia might be an exception in a decade or so. Let us see.

Such an organization could get a start by democratic countries agreeing to fund shared initiatives in education, technology, research, disaster response & recovery, humanitarian assistance, and institution building. A small group of experienced ex-ministers from member countries could comprise a 'parliament' supported by a small budget. This beginning could later be expanded via small steps and in a very transparent manner without any other country feeling threatened by it.

A military aspect for peace keeping could later be developed. A force of no more than 10,000 smart multilingual personnel with excellent training in peacekeeping and disaster recovery could be kept busy. Our young-blood would-be jihadists could be incorporated into a volunteer peace corps and made to do jihad of providing services in various sectors like disaster recovery, quick response peacekeeping, diffusing flashpoints, etc...

The next step could be a court for dispute & conflict resolution and diffusing tensions among member states. Before long, the whole of Muslim world including Muslim minorities in East, West, North, & South would be looking up to this institution. Dictatorships might fall, monarchies might feel pressured to give way to constitutionalism instead of despotism, etc...

Policy guidelines could be issued to ensure a certain uniformity and standards in provision of services for public, conflict resolution. An important aspect would certainly be the rights and duties of Muslim minorities. If any group uses repression as an excuse to start 'jihad', then this institution could investigate and issue a result after looking at all pertinent angles including the view from the authorities of the country concerned. This way spurious organizations could be isolated and actually be confronted. We shall then see who uses name of our religion for their parochial and self-serving agendas.

In a few decades Muslims would cease to be seen as disruptive element in our global village and instead be viewed as a force for positive change. Any conflicts that do arise would be managed before they escalate. If there is a need to take a stand, sane minds would decide; not wide-eyed fanatics.

We'll done my man
I was expecting that some Pakistani will eventually understand my point & will reply to it without calling me a Hindu Baniya
I salute you for that

 

[Chak Bamu]

We'll done my man
I was expecting that some Pakistani will eventually understand my point & will reply to it without calling me a Hindu Baniya
I salute you for that

A sane world is a good place for both of us, despite our differences. I do not envision a Muslim union as a threat to anyone. It should be a source of stability.

 

[JayAtl]

1

In my view, any such union would necessarily have to account for differences among member countries and avoid anything remotely resembling micro-management. The acid test would be to have Shia and Sunni co-exist and tolerate each other. Whoever heads such an institution could be Shia or Sunni and nobody ought to be bothered. That is the beauty of systems that are derived from democratic institutions. Unless something goes horribly wrong, no one can permanently damage a system.

So in short, not possible given the implausibility of all your sects. Forget shia-sunni, what about ahmadis? You can't even agree on who is muslim and who is not from country to country.

2. @Echo_419 has made an interesting observation. That Pakistan (or any other country) would have to avoid being a dead weight. If we in Pakistan are able to ensure that the obfuscation and deliberate misunderstanding of constitutionalism is taken care of, we shall indeed not be a dead weight. That would mean that we have taken care of people who reject constitutionalism. Such people include most indoctrinated militants (TTP, some jihadists), supporters of Martial laws, and corrupt leaders who think they can use political parties and democratic institutions to loot and plunder (more needs to be said about this particular point, but not now). In my view a 'dead weight' country would be the one that does NOT have developed institutions, no matter how much cash it may have. To give you an idea, if royal family of SA were to be thrown in disarray, all the money that SA has would be of no use in preventing a Tribal civil war, since Tribalism is very strong and entrenched there. If a country does not have Constitutionalism, developed institutions, and a politically aware population, then it is a very poor country as far as I am concerned.

again, we are not dealing in plausible changes here, you calling for a fundamental change to your constitution and that will never happen! because that would mean you would have to change to being a secular constitution. there is no deliberate misunderstanding of article 63/65 of your constitution. There is no obfuscation of the deliberate bias against other religions that can hold top political offices.

To re-iterate, this union thingy would be of no value if it is for economic benefit alone. It will be irrelevant like RCD. Does anyone remember Regional Co-operation and Development formed by Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan? Therefore it must be based on countries with 'developed' institutions. Such countries would know how and why of managing differences of opinion and experience of handling diversity of POVs. Only Islamic democratic countries can be the leading lights, not any of the Arabs. Tunisia might be an exception in a decade or so. Let us see.

Iran is not democratic firstly- the ayatollah is the head and last word period. Pakistan and Turkey are democratic institutions. Interestingly if you remove the arabs, you remove the strongest economies.

Such an organization could get a start by democratic countries agreeing to fund shared initiatives in education, technology, research, disaster response & recovery, humanitarian assistance, and institution building. A small group of experienced ex-ministers from member countries could comprise a 'parliament' supported by a small budget. This beginning could later be expanded via small steps and in a very transparent manner without any other country feeling threatened by it.


A military aspect for peace keeping could later be developed. A force of no more than 10,000 smart multilingual personnel with excellent training in peacekeeping and disaster recovery could be kept busy. Our young-blood would-be jihadists could be incorporated into a volunteer peace corps and made to do jihad of providing services in various sectors like disaster recovery, quick response peacekeeping, diffusing flashpoints, etc...



The next step could be a court for dispute & conflict resolution and diffusing tensions among member states. Before long, the whole of Muslim world including Muslim minorities in East, West, North, & South would be looking up to this institution. Dictatorships might fall, monarchies might feel pressured to give way to constitutionalism instead of despotism, etc...


Policy guidelines could be issued to ensure a certain uniformity and standards in provision of services for public, conflict resolution. An important aspect would certainly be the rights and duties of Muslim minorities. If any group uses repression as an excuse to start 'jihad', then this institution could investigate and issue a result after looking at all pertinent angles including the view from the authorities of the country concerned. This way spurious organizations could be isolated and actually be confronted. We shall then see who uses name of our religion for their parochial and self-serving agendas.

In a few decades Muslims would cease to be seen as disruptive element in our global village and instead be viewed as a force for positive change. Any conflicts that do arise would be managed before they escalate. If there is a need to take a stand, sane minds would decide; not wide-eyed fanatics.

You have removed the best of economies( arabs) and now you will fund with what money? Sanctioned to death Iran having near poor status and an aid dependent Pakistan economy and NATO secular turkey? This has gone beyond an academic discussion based on reality, it is list based on fantasy. Your answer to everything is we can make the earth flat and all will be good. You basically calling for cows to fly like changes

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I have a few things to add after reading some of the posts here. I think we are all aware that if a Muslim or whatever union was formed, member countries would continue to trade & develop ties with non-member countries. That is obvious, the only real difference is that countries may have to revise their foreign relations when the union itself revises & defines relations with non-member nations as a single entity. However, as with the EU, foreign relations would for the most part continue to be an internal matter. As far as nationalists go, I have maintained that nationalists would not have any problem with this union in spite of its religious basis as long as our national & societal interests aren't violated. Policy makers are simply going to have to account for the views presented by every group & make compromises in situations ranging from protectionist polices to currency pegging.

 

[Developereo]

even if we give you that the union discussed here, based on religion is not going to mean they would not trade with others ( go figure why you call it a Muslim union and not a BRICS like named union)-I will copy and paste again from my earlier post on why EU is wrong example to give.


1.EU is based on some basic fundamentals you don't have here and cannot have with a Muslim union. Examples are:

EU is first and foremost all democracies together, then sharing borders and a single currency deal in place - all under the EU consortium's constitution. The consortium( EU courts) also has final jurisdiction over civil matters and human rights! You won't have Muslim countries agreeing to be under one supreme jurisdiction.

Why?- because your laws among Muslim nations are not ubiquitous rather vastly different. Women in your country(PAK) can fly an aircraft BUT in KSA they can't drive. In Iran there is a religious police , none in Turkey. In Pakistan you can't hold high office if not Muslim, in Turkey and Egypt you can. You can't be a successful union if you can't share the basics of human and civil rights. Those are integral to sustain the EU.

2. Then- you have some that are secular ( Turkey and Egypt to some extent), some that are dictatorship ( Syria), others that are monarchies ( KSA and rest) and then there is Iran where the ayatollah is the last word above the constitution.

3. Then- some are near developed countries while most are underdeveloped. They are not strong enough economies put together to sustain a single currency- which is an important part of being an union. i.e. IF you can't hold the value of your currency, you can't be an economic force.

4. Lastly , you have no peace time status among many of them, unlike the EU, which has been peaceful for decades now.

I hope you are getting the picture.

I think the term "Muslim union" is interpreted differently by different people. I use it in the sense that Jinnah wanted Pakistan: not a theocratic Muslim state ruled by Sharia law, but an entity where Muslims are empowered to defend their interests: there's strength in numbers. It's not a "Muslim union" as much as an alliance of Muslim-majority states.

Your observations about the similarities within the EU, and the differences across the Muslim world, are valid and that is why I wrote that, given current realities, the concept is fiction. However, as I also wrote, shaping public opinions (on women, minorities, secularism) is the easy part. Look at public attitudes in the West towards blacks and gays, for example, fifty years ago v/s today. A concerted media campaign, combined with a reformed education system, can fix those problems in a few decades. All it takes is the will and resources to do so and, axiomatically, a union of any kind (Muslim or otherwise) would require instilling a tolerant mindset, accepting of diversity. A "Muslim union" would be a far more tolerant and inclusive union for non-Muslim minorities.

The big problem with this idea will be the dictators, vested interests and fat cats who will lose their monopoly over their tinpot domains. The job would be a lot easier if these countries were a democracy. However, the good news is that business interests would see the benefits of a wider market over a narrow national segment.

Anyway, it's all pie in the sky for now anyway...

 

[JayAtl]

I think the term "Muslim union" is interpreted differently by different people. I use it in the sense that Jinnah wanted Pakistan: not a theocratic Muslim state ruled by Sharia law, but an entity where Muslims are empowered to defend their interests: there's strength in numbers. It's not a "Muslim union" as much as an alliance of Muslim-majority states.

Your observations about the similarities within the EU, and the differences across the Muslim world, are valid and that is why I wrote that, given current realities, the concept is fiction. However, as I also wrote, shaping public opinions (on women, minorities, secularism) is the easy part. Look at public attitudes in the West towards blacks and gays, for example, fifty years ago v/s today. A concerted media campaign, combined with a reformed education system, can fix those problems in a few decades. All it takes is the will and resources to do so and, axiomatically, a union of any kind (Muslim or otherwise) would require instilling a tolerant mindset, accepting of diversity. A "Muslim union" would be a far more tolerant and inclusive union for non-Muslim minorities.

The big problem with this idea will be the dictators, vested interests and fat cats who will lose their monopoly over their tinpot domains. The job would be a lot easier if these countries were a democracy. However, the good news is that business interests would see the benefits of a wider market over a narrow national segment.

Anyway, it's all pie in the sky for now anyway...

Just a quick historical correction. The public attitude towards gays and blacks did not enforce the change . It was the constitution and courts that first led the way.

Most states when they had Gay marriage issue on the ballot- the public voted no on it. same with Black civil rights, the public voted no...

even today the gay marriage issue is 50/50 among the US public.

 

[Developereo]

Just a quick historical correction. The public attitude towards gays and blacks did not enforce the change . It was the constitution and courts that first led the way.

Most states when they had Gay marriage issue on the ballot- the public voted no on it. same with Black civil rights, the public voted no...

even today the gay marriage issue is 50/50 among the US public.

I am well aware of the legal history of the civil rights movement in the US. My whole discussion here has been about shaping grass roots public opinion, not about the top-down governmental approach. That's why I mentioned "the West" rather than any specific country in my comment above.

As I wrote in my first post, the proper way to approach this goal is from the bottom up, with a public awareness and education campaign. The top-down governmental approach simply will not work because the rulers in Muslim-majority nations will not give up their personal dominions to be part of a larger union. The push will have to be led by ordinary people and business leaders seeking the benefits of economies of scale.

 

[FaujHistorian]

......

Somehow getting into a union with Other Muslim Countries who have a Industrial Base better than Pakistan [Turkey,Malaysia etc] & act as a dead weight for them
with only useful thing which is NUKES
Gulfies have Oil & Money
Turkey,Malaysia,Iran to some lengths Indonesia have tech
Pakistan will be viewd as a dead weight
Pakistan needs to develop first & then talk all about this Ummah & stuff

Allama Iqbbal
Khudi ko kar buland itna ke har taqder se pehle
Khuda bande se ye poche bata teri raza kia hai

Worse possible placement of Iqbal's verse, or this was the only thing you remembered so you had to "shove it in".

Oh wait,

So many INdians behave like 2-bit Pakistani village Mullahs, and just like Mullahs you to are using Chair-o-chairy (shair-o-shairy done by arm-chair poet) to spread this pathetic diseases concept aka Khilafah empty lifafah.

You are not the first INdian (most likely Hindu to do so), Gandhi being a Hindu was supporter of Khilafah empty lafafah all the way back in 1918. (while Jinnah totally abhorred this foolish Islamism).


Hope you find a bit of history as enlightening.


Coming back to mentioning Turkey etc.

So did they become technically advanced by trading with Pakistan. Hahahahahahahah


Oh wait, they must be so advanced because Islamist Emirates of Afghanistan is their biggest trading partner.

hahahahahahahahaah


p.s.

bunch of pathetic Mullahs and their supporters continue to spread false propaganda of Islamism, Keep on spreading $hit., Keep on Keep on and on and on and on.

And then so many so called educated Pakistanis continue lapping that "Holy cr@p" just because it being exported by INdians and Arabs with big stamp of "Made for Islamists".

Since when we ignore the contents and buy for label.

I guess Mullahtic ignorants have done that from time immemorial.

Noted with interest various POVs.

@FaujHistorian is doing what he does best, ie. spread pessimism

better to be pessimist than being freakingly euphoric while being high on Islamist opium (or worse Islamist crack)

Haha, yar why so pessimistic?

Islamic World, as a whole, is 50 years, if not 100 years, behind the most advance markets of human history (European Union and North America)...Don't expect to have any Walmart or Boeing in Muslim World anytime soon. But atleast something is happening and appreciate that.

Offcouse trade with West is farrrrr more important/profitable than trading with other Muslim countries..No one denied that.

But more regional trade and intra-Islamic World trade is always welcomed and should be encouraged alot.

Corporate culture demands fair laws, transparency, and political stability to thrive..and I already stated how Islamic World needs massive reforms and improvements in this regard.

Dear Auz,

what you say being "pessimist" is in really being "pragmatic".

Please do not confuse the two terms.

You are among some really good posters. I respect you.

Somebody comes to you and tries to sell paras puther (touchstone) and promises to turn your iron into gold.

Would you buy that?

Will you saying "NO", means the all the charlatans and their gullible toadies have a right to call you "pessimist" about the possibility of turning iron to gold?




Thank you

 

[FaujHistorian]

What are you speaking?

First of all shiaism doesn't start as a consequence of genocide of sunnis, but shiaism was there which led to genocide(if at all) of sunnis.

You are misreading into what I said. Try to learn how Iran was subjected to horrible atrocities so as to change its people from Sunni majority to Shia majority.

What are you speaking?

Secondly, how come it vindicate the now genocide of shia community? Does it fall in line with Quran?

What the fork are you talking about my dear? what the fork?

See the stance of Pakistanis moderate thinkers on how we all must protect our minorities and let them prosper in a positive nurturing manner.

....

I dont need to read history, geography or anything. Just a sense of humanity is enough.

Lack of historical understanding makes one ignorant.
Lack of geographical knowledge makes one dumb about the world.

Don't try to spread ignorance. One cannot serve humanity by being dumb and ignorant.


Thank you.

It is a very "Wishful" article written by world famous "Turkish" Muslim scholar Harun Yahya (The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science.).[/I]"

Wishful indeed. nuf said.

 

[PoKeMon]

You are misreading into what I said. Try to learn how Iran was subjected to horrible atrocities so as to change its people from Sunni majority to Shia majority.

Fail attempt to sound smart. Lot of text with nill substance or citation.

Never thought sunnis who were in majority would face atrocities by minority shia and get converted without resistance. Sunnis were/are never so peaceful, so just spare me.

What the fork are you talking about my dear? what the fork?

See the stance of Pakistanis moderate thinkers on how we all must protect our minorities and let them prosper in a positive nurturing manner.

I was replying to one of you who thinks pakistan muslims should get rid of shias and at the same time follow quran.

Is there a way mentioned in quran to get rid of shias peacefully? Isn't it an oxymoron, asking to kill shias and follow quran at the same time?

Now you get what the fork?

Lack of historical understanding makes one ignorant.
Lack of geographical knowledge makes one dumb about the world.

Don't try to spread ignorance. One cannot serve humanity by being dumb and ignorant.

Thank you.

You missed the bus, comprehension problem may be.

Rant, should better be ignored, so enjoy.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Fail attempt to sound smart. Lot of text with nill substance or citation.

Never thought sunnis who were in majority would face atrocities by minority shia and get converted without resistance. Sunnis were/are never so peaceful, so just spare me.



I was replying to one of you who thinks pakistan muslims should get rid of shias and at the same time follow quran.

Is there a way mentioned in quran to get rid of shias peacefully? Isn't it an oxymoron, asking to kill shias and follow quran at the same time?

Now you get what the fork?



You missed the bus, comprehension problem may be.

Rant, should better be ignored, so enjoy.

So you still refuse to study history and geography.

Just being ignorant but surely a humanist-ignorant. hahahahahaah


Oh Bhai sahib.

Good intentions aka humanism are only the first step and not the last.

As soon as you declare to be humanist,

your job is to learn and understand

Becuase if you don't


you will end up throwing "well intentioned" $hit (if one can ever call it so), on someone who is a believer in humanism as well.


Try to understand meri Jaan, my dear dear dear "cousin from across the border".

May be we share ancestors from Bihar.

Who knows.

Who forking knows!