An opinion from a Turkish brother: Pakistan's best response to Indian actions

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

The modern nation state is Secular to it's core. It may profess religion but state itself and it's functions, institutions and laws are secular. Which is why a declared secular state starts acting a religious one the minute a religiously motivated takeover occurs. India is prime example, but so is Turkey, a country which is over 98% Muslims but for a while severly oppressed and continues still to a great extent even today, it's own population by obstructing its people to perform their religious duties, the state still remains secular.

 

[GlobalMillitary96]

Almost any ideology can also fall into fanaticism as well. For instance, nationalism can morph into jingoism.

True. But religion is the most self damaging. If India falls for the radicalism trap, it will suffer.

Radical Islam has destroyed many countries or turned them into sh!tholes. India, a country with many already existing problems, will suffer if radical Hinduism spreads. Modi is making a big mistake.

We've seen Hindus killing Muslims because they were suspected of eating beef... This ideology is a sickness which is spreading in India. This is no different than radical Islamism. It's backwards, damages all credibility and is very detrimental to the future of the nation.

 

[Baby Leone]

Dear constitution of 1973 did not change the concept and base of Pakistan. It founded on Religious base that you can see whats is going on in India for Muslims.

but there is no concept of boundaries in Islam, hence we call Ummah. Practically no country can be found based on religion in modern world. Two Nation Theory was based on difference between Muslims and Hindus culture, way of life and thinking and not based on difference between religions,

 

[Lincoln]

Salam Brother.
Nations dont define themselves just to meet a certain momentary narrative. Pakistan, isn't a politician that can change gear depending on the curves in the road. Its a country of 200 million Muslims of different ethnicities that is held up together by one thing. Islam. It's not Turkey that majority is of one race (Turks) which holds the overwhelming majority and the rest are basically powerless to do anything about it other than towing the line. Take away Islam & I as a Pashtun will have more in common with a Pashtun in Afghanistan than a Punjabi or Sindhi. Our languages, cultures, food, color, traditions are all different. Its all held up together by Islam. Thats our foundation. You take that away & the whole house of cards will crumble faster than you can say secularism. & btw A secular Pakistan already exists, it called India.

Every few years we get this debate from Surkha remnants or some foreigner who has no idea about the foundations of Pakistan. Its the same as "Pakistan should recognize Israel" debate. Yes, it might have some good superficial points working in its favor, but if you take a minute two actually weigh the pros and cons, you realize its suicide.

An argument can be made that Pakistan hasn't lived up to Quaid's expectation of religious equality but efforts to realize his dream needs to be bolstered within the walls of the Islamic republic. Wasting time on secularism will take us nowhere.



False. Of all the speeches of Quaid, he mentioned secularism ZERO times. You are more than welcome to try and find a single instance where he even flirts with a secular Pakistan. He, granted, called for freedom of religion but that's basically what Islam also promises & is not limited to secularism. We have two four states at our border. The two secular one are putting Or preparing to put minorities in concentration camps.

Jinnah talked about Islamic social democracy, again and again.
Here are a few examples

"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" QuaidEAzam to officers & men of the 5th Heavy & 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi (21 February 1948)

"I can't understand logic of those who hv bn deliberately & mischievously propagating tht Constitution of Pak will not b based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago” Speech to Karachi Bar Association, Jan 25, 1948

"When we say this flag (Muslim League's flag) is the flag of Islam they think we are introducing religion into politics - a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. In fact, it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as all embracing word. We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity." Address to the Gaya Muslim League Conference in January 1938

"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" QuaidEAzam address on occasion of the opening of State bank of Pakistan (1st July 1948)

"I am glad that there is full realization on your part tht now the position is basically different. It is no longer a foreign govt .... but it is now a MUSLIM govt & MUSLIM rule that holds the reigns of this great .... State of Pakistan" Address to Tribal Jirga 17 April 1948

"You are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of Musalmans when you say that [[Pakistan should be based on sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism]] which emphasizes equality and brotherhood of man." Jinnah's Speech in Chittagong, 26/3/1948

"It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver, Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals & principles"QuaidEAzam at Darbar in Sibi Balochistan 14/2/1948

"I dont know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam . . . In any case Pak isnt going to be a theocratic State" Radio Broadcast to the People of USA Feb 1948

"What more can one really expect than to see that this mighty land has now been brought under a rule, which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent State" Speech in reply to Welcome Address by the Principal, Staff & Students of Edwardes College, Peshawar, 18/4/1948

I hope i have provided enough evidence to argue the fact tha a secular Quaid-e-Azam is a figment of surkha imagination. Same surkhas who were purged out of Muslim League by Jinnah in 1940s.

I have read most of those. I believe Jinnah meant it symbolically because most of such addresses were to public.

Here are some more of his sayings and why there is controversy over it.

"We are starting with this fundamental principle that we all citizens and equal citizens of one state."

"You may belong to any religion, caste or creed, it has nothing to do with the business of the state."

I think Jinnah believed that the secular state India was establishing would never be secular for Muslims, Muslims would be underrepresented in democracy, and oppressed, and subject to Hindu rule in reality, which is what have we seen throughout.

This below is the biggest evidence, I believe.

"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. "

All these quotations were said to the constituent assembly in 1947.

Note that all the quotationa you made were to the public. Reason being? I believe he symbolically wanted Islam to represent Pakistan, and for Pakistan to represent Islam, but by law and constitution, he wanted the state to be secular. Clearly our constitution does not support what Jinnah said to the constituent assembly in 1947.

Other quotes.

“….Religion should not be allowed to come into Politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God”. [Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935 ]

“….in the name of Humanity, I care more for them [the Untouchables] than for Mussalmans. ” [Jinnah, Speaking about the Shudras or Untouchables, during his address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi, 1934 ]

“….I am not fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.” [Jinnah, Press Conference, 14 November 1946]

This is a big evidence. A visionary indeed. He did not believe in the Hindu secular state. He wanted Muslims to run the secular state.

”In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims—Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.” [ Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948 ]

Continuation of your incomplete quotation. After saying it will embody the essential principles of Islam. I do believe, he meant it symbolically, look at what he says after.

- - - - - - - - - -

Conclusively, I believe he wanted an Islamic constitution, but we don't realize that no one is able to define an Islamic constitution, everyone has different definitions for it.

But Quaid e Azam defined what kind of an Islamic constitution he wanted. It was one where the essential principles of Islam would be emobodied into the constitution but also a constitution where all citizens are treated as equals, is not theocratic, and direct intervention of religion is not allowed in politics. Knowing Muhammad Ali Jinnah's personal life, I want you to visionate if he would have really imposed a hard line Islamic constitution. Think about it.

Her sister, Fatima Jinnah, for her, even Jamiat e Islami in 1960s ammended their rules that a woman can't be in power to vote for her.

We by all means were meant to be a secular state.

He died before a constitution could be framed, but his speeches are evidence enough of the road he would have taken had he lived. Objectives Resolution by Muslim League in March 1949 officially paved the way for Pakistan becoming Islamic republic in 1973 He was against a theocratic state run by Mullahs & that is exactly what we are not. Neither will we ever be a secular state.

How Islamic exactly did he mean when he said he desired an Islamic constitution. We need to be able to define it.

 

[fisher1]

Nonsense

Minorities get more rights in Pakistan than any other secular country in the world.

Islam gives more rights than secularism does.

 

[Verve]

Constitutionally we treat all minorities equally, except that they can't become head of state and government, also Ahmadis are legally persecuted. Except for that, we are good.

Are you an Ahmadi?

 

[Kabira]

Salam Brother.
Nations dont define themselves just to meet a certain momentary narrative. Pakistan, isn't a politician that can change gear depending on the curves in the road. Its a country of 200 million Muslims of different ethnicities that is held up together by one thing. Islam. It's not Turkey that majority is of one race (Turks) which holds the overwhelming majority and the rest are basically powerless to do anything about it other than towing the line. Take away Islam & I as a Pashtun will have more in common with a Pashtun in Afghanistan than a Punjabi or Sindhi. Our languages, cultures, food, color, traditions are all different. Its all held up together by Islam. Thats our foundation. You take that away & the whole house of cards will crumble faster than you can say secularism. & btw A secular Pakistan already exists, it called India.

Every few years we get this debate from Surkha remnants or some foreigner who has no idea about the foundations of Pakistan. Its the same as "Pakistan should recognize Israel" debate. Yes, it might have some good superficial points working in its favor, but if you take a minute two actually weigh the pros and cons, you realize its suicide.

An argument can be made that Pakistan hasn't lived up to Quaid's expectation of religious equality but efforts to realize his dream needs to be bolstered within the walls of the Islamic republic. Wasting time on secularism will take us nowhere.



False. Of all the speeches of Quaid, he mentioned secularism ZERO times. You are more than welcome to try and find a single instance where he even flirts with a secular Pakistan. He, granted, called for freedom of religion but that's basically what Islam also promises & is not limited to secularism. We have two four states at our border. The two secular one are putting Or preparing to put minorities in concentration camps.

Jinnah talked about Islamic social democracy, again and again.
Here are a few examples

"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" QuaidEAzam to officers & men of the 5th Heavy & 6th Light Ack Ack Regiments in Malir, Karachi (21 February 1948)

"I can't understand logic of those who hv bn deliberately & mischievously propagating tht Constitution of Pak will not b based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago” Speech to Karachi Bar Association, Jan 25, 1948

"When we say this flag (Muslim League's flag) is the flag of Islam they think we are introducing religion into politics - a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. In fact, it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as all embracing word. We do not mean any ill. The foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and fraternity." Address to the Gaya Muslim League Conference in January 1938

"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" QuaidEAzam address on occasion of the opening of State bank of Pakistan (1st July 1948)

"I am glad that there is full realization on your part tht now the position is basically different. It is no longer a foreign govt .... but it is now a MUSLIM govt & MUSLIM rule that holds the reigns of this great .... State of Pakistan" Address to Tribal Jirga 17 April 1948

"You are only voicing my sentiments and the sentiments of millions of Musalmans when you say that [[Pakistan should be based on sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism]] which emphasizes equality and brotherhood of man." Jinnah's Speech in Chittagong, 26/3/1948

"It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver, Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals & principles"QuaidEAzam at Darbar in Sibi Balochistan 14/2/1948

"I dont know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam . . . In any case Pak isnt going to be a theocratic State" Radio Broadcast to the People of USA Feb 1948

"What more can one really expect than to see that this mighty land has now been brought under a rule, which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign independent State" Speech in reply to Welcome Address by the Principal, Staff & Students of Edwardes College, Peshawar, 18/4/1948

I hope i have provided enough evidence to argue the fact tha a secular Quaid-e-Azam is a figment of surkha imagination. Same surkhas who were purged out of Muslim League by Jinnah in 1940s.

Weak argument looking at history. If Islam is all that there is then pashtuns should create ethno state pashtunistan because on both sides there is no difference of language and religion. Giving equal rights to hindus/christians will not make rest of Pakistanis non-muslims.

For a start make a law that forbid conversion of hindus to another religion just like muslim cannot become hindu in Pakistan. That will solve majority of hindu community problems in Sindh. This isn't liberal law but its same for everyone which matter.

 

[PakSword]

valid quertion regarding the last part whose fore fathers might have called Pakistan Napakistan and termed Qaed e Azam Kafir e Azam
also valid counter to our claim about equality when our heads of state and institutions in some cases cant be non muslims

Another question is that, if we change our constitution, what was the need for Pakistan? It will be a valid question as India until recently acted as a secular state.

It would really seem hypocritical while countering Indians.. that we wanted a state for Muslims where they could live as per their standards, but we now want to become secular.. it will be a similar case with us what India is going through now.. that India wanted to remain secular but couldn't keep itself worthy for this title..

And the word "secular" doesn't end on giving a certain minority certain rights.. the whole nation will have to change its behavior and how it looks at other minorities.

For example, Christian missionaries will have to be allowed to roam on the streets how Tableeghi Jamaat goes to every house.. People will be given the right to wear whatever they like to wear.. the dress could be as small as a bikini (or maybe no dress at all for followers of nature). People will be given the right to criticize any religion (including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Qadiyaniat).

We have to ask this question, since we preach democracy.. is majority ready to embrace this huge change? Are they ready to ignore the 1% bikini public on the beach while 99% are also enjoying time right there? Are they ready to ignore the atheists who criticize Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam, or ready to listen to a Bishop every Sunday (of course if there's a Khutba on a loud speaker, a Hindu and a Christian priest will ask for the same privilege to let him speak for half an hour on a loud speaker). Are we ready for these changes? If we are not, then we should just drop this idea..

India even in its best form wasn't a true secular country.. In fact, I don't know a single country which is truly secular.

Instead, I would like Pakistan to be an Islamic republic, where the minorities are fully protected. I want true implementation of this verse:

“And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge” [al-An‘aam 6:108]

I want similar punishments for Muslims who insult other minority religions.. I want minorities to respect our Islamic culture, but I also want Muslims to respect their culture, their places of worship and their religions. I want specific places for them to enjoy their time freely without the fear of being called a kafir.. I want our mosque to stop mentioning nasranis, yahoodis as some form of worst creatures while we know that they are hearing that too.. I want the state to impose strict punishments on Muslims who insult other religions openly.. whether they are imams or not..

This is completely opposite to the secularism.. it restricts people from insulting others.. while secularism forces us to accept insults as free speech..

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Yeah but then the anti state radical extremist liberals come in to the picture and ruin everything

I'm going to cop a lot of hate for this. But I must say it.

The best response to India, especially after their citizenship law is to push for secularism. Pakistan should make it very clear that it supports all religions equally. This would piss off India. India would prefer an even more Islamic Pakistan.

Trust me as a Turk. Secularism is the best thing for your country. It will gain support and respect from a lot of countries.

India is slipping into Hindu fanaticism. It is the perfect time to show the world that Pakistan is more civilised than India.

Don't forget my brothers. Secularism doesn't mean western values or liberalism. It just means that all religions are treated the same. It separates religion and state. It is the best way to go.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Nonsense

Minorities get more rights in Pakistan than any other secular country in the world.

Islam gives more rights than secularism does.

on paper yes, Pakistan is a heaven for the minorities

in reality they constantly face blasphemy charges , forced conversions, abductions and marriages.
now that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith and Islamic constitution itself but the problem is with those who are custodians and responsible to enforce the equality and justice
which brings us to another question

will making Pakistan secular really change things for the better? would the minorities stop getting harassed? would the lynch mobs stop setting people on fire? would poor stop getting abducted and forcefully married under a secular Pakistan? I have doubts .

 

[Lincoln]

Nonsense

Minorities get more rights in Pakistan than any other secular country in the world.

Islam gives more rights than secularism does.

LOL

on paper yes, Pakistan is a heaven for the minorities

in reality they constantly face blasphemy charges , forced conversions, abductions and marriages.
now that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith and Islamic constitution itself but the problem is with those who are custodians and responsible to enforce the equality and justice
which brings us to another question

will making Pakistan secular really change things for the better? would the minorities stop getting harassed? would the lynch mobs stop setting people on fire? would poor stop getting abducted and forcefully married under a secular Pakistan? I have doubts .

Not even on paper. What the hell. Since when is pakistan even on paper more secular than a Scandinavian country

 

[Ali Tariq]

I'm going to cop a lot of hate for this. But I must say it.

The best response to India, especially after their citizenship law is to push for secularism. Pakistan should make it very clear that it supports all religions equally. This would piss off India. India would prefer an even more Islamic Pakistan.

Trust me as a Turk. Secularism is the best thing for your country. It will gain support and respect from a lot of countries.

India is slipping into Hindu fanaticism. It is the perfect time to show the world that Pakistan is more civilised than India.

Don't forget my brothers. Secularism doesn't mean western values or liberalism. It just means that all religions are treated the same. It separates religion and state. It is the best way to go.

@AgNoStiC MuSliM @Indus Pakistan

 

[Psychic]

We by all means were meant to be a secular state.

Yani ke logon se Islam ke naam par vote batorna mehaz fraud tha

 

[Xestan]

Are you an Ahmadi?

Am I in the Passport office?

 

[El Sidd]

I'm going to cop a lot of hate for this. But I must say it.

The best response to India, especially after their citizenship law is to push for secularism. Pakistan should make it very clear that it supports all religions equally. This would piss off India. India would prefer an even more Islamic Pakistan.

Trust me as a Turk. Secularism is the best thing for your country. It will gain support and respect from a lot of countries.

India is slipping into Hindu fanaticism. It is the perfect time to show the world that Pakistan is more civilised than India.

Don't forget my brothers. Secularism doesn't mean western values or liberalism. It just means that all religions are treated the same. It separates religion and state. It is the best way to go.

Shalom,

The argument drags along the lines of " Since you are getting bullied as a woman, have a sex change and solve the problem ".

Nations do not give up their fundamental basics based on momentary change in geopolitics, for appraisal or for business prospects. One of the reasons why Arabs get away with their influence in Pakistan is simply because of the fact that Arabs respect Pakistan's foundation basis and ideology.

There have been massive attempts for the past 20 years to change the fundamental of the states by migrating from Nation State borne out of Religion to Nation State borne out of River Indus. All such efforts have fallen flat on the face.

The only reason why people like Urdugan and Mahatir are respected in Pakistan are for their marketed "Islamist" stance.

In the end i would like to thank you for your concerns but minority view upon majority will not be accepted in Pakistan specially when minorities like Sikhs and Christians now are being provided freedom of personal laws.