Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Then, is Islam implemented correctly in Pakistan? If not, how and when will it be done?
Jinnah's Pakistan - Then and Now
- Thread starter muse
- Start date
Then, is Islam implemented correctly in Pakistan? If not, how and when will it be done?
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
ISLAM is not completely implemented but soon it will come and it will come through revolution
TARIQ BN ZIYAAD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 0
Assalam alaikum
What i might say it may offend many of my brothers but since we r in the month of fast they might won't get that angry.
First of All i love my religion and it is my 1st priority.
Iqbal's pakistan , jinnah's pakistan ? hey what r u talking about these two gr8 ppl were never prophets the were only followers of islam
I want the islam what Porphet ( PBUH ) exercised in madina and all those masses voted for pakistan was for that reason if qaid told them come to pakistan where my islam is gonna be implemented ( sub jootay dikhatay excuse me for using this term )
Now our secular and liberal brothers who try to convince us that qaid was fooling the masses before the independence and showed his real face after independence and he is as munafiq as our present day politicians.
In that case, the ppl of pakistan should have no problem of distancing them from his quotes he gave afterwards. Remember Qaid is not hujja for us.
Our secular and liberal brothers, Do u ppl think during Prophet's ( PBUH) era the minorities were oppressed if not then that is the model for which my elders migrated from india ( eastern punjab ) and we have many many shahada'a from my mother's family. These ppl didnot support,migrated or got killed for jinnah's or iqbal's pakistan they came with the dream of living like the model of madina during the Prophet ( PBUH ) time
i m going to sleep i will check later who fired on me lolz
TARIQ
What i might say it may offend many of my brothers but since we r in the month of fast they might won't get that angry.
First of All i love my religion and it is my 1st priority.
Iqbal's pakistan , jinnah's pakistan ? hey what r u talking about these two gr8 ppl were never prophets the were only followers of islam
I want the islam what Porphet ( PBUH ) exercised in madina and all those masses voted for pakistan was for that reason if qaid told them come to pakistan where my islam is gonna be implemented ( sub jootay dikhatay excuse me for using this term )
Now our secular and liberal brothers who try to convince us that qaid was fooling the masses before the independence and showed his real face after independence and he is as munafiq as our present day politicians.
In that case, the ppl of pakistan should have no problem of distancing them from his quotes he gave afterwards. Remember Qaid is not hujja for us.
Our secular and liberal brothers, Do u ppl think during Prophet's ( PBUH) era the minorities were oppressed if not then that is the model for which my elders migrated from india ( eastern punjab ) and we have many many shahada'a from my mother's family. These ppl didnot support,migrated or got killed for jinnah's or iqbal's pakistan they came with the dream of living like the model of madina during the Prophet ( PBUH ) time
i m going to sleep i will check later who fired on me lolz
TARIQ
OrionHunter
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,818
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
What's bugging you, man? He just asked a simple honest question why Sunnis and Shias are at loggerheads. Everyone in India isn't an expert in Islamic traditions and the reasons for the Sunni-Shia divide. Why bring in Dalits and Naxals here? Just shows your intellectual bankruptcy! For God's sake stop these diversionary tactics and flame-fed nonsensical ripostes.
Thanks.
yousaf goebbels
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 0
Allama Iqbal saw a dream for separate homeland and Hazrat Quiad E Azam fulfilled it.....
Iqbals poetry if u read it ..its all about potential of muslims...distingishing them from kafirs...Iqbals has frequently used the word Kafir in his poem ....Iqbal talked about Ummah,,,rising again..defending muslims anywhere on the planet and etc etc
The same is Jinnah's Pakistan....a Shariah Compliant welfare state.
Iqbals poetry if u read it ..its all about potential of muslims...distingishing them from kafirs...Iqbals has frequently used the word Kafir in his poem ....Iqbal talked about Ummah,,,rising again..defending muslims anywhere on the planet and etc etc
The same is Jinnah's Pakistan....a Shariah Compliant welfare state.
Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
I wish i could use the "thanks" button more than once for your post.
TARIQ BN ZIYAAD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 0
Assalam alaikum
Jazak Allah brother
Tariq
Jazak Allah brother
Tariq
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
What afflicts, blights, Jinnah's Pakistan? People generally agree that it is religious fundamentalism that blights Jinnah's Pakistan
The intellectual foundations of religious fundamentalism
Ahmad Ali Khalid
What is ‘fundamentalism’ and why is it so widespread? ‘Fundamentalism’ is different from violent extremism and there is no necessary connection between the two, hence it is critical to treat fundamentalism on its own merits without confusing it with violence.
Religious fundamentalism has been described in various terms and jargon; however, the most compelling description of fundamentalism when we consider the topics of knowledge production and social practice is “the virtual absence of historical scholarship, liberty and rationality”. In the fundamentalist worldview, history ceases to exist.
Fundamentalists are by no means inclined towards force but they do deny the call for reform and change (instead arguing for a revival or restoration of the ‘Golden Age’
, arguing that religion is unchangeable hence any interference by human beings through manipulative means of interpretation is an adulteration of the purity of faith. In one clear move human reason is subordinated under an imagined social reality, which disregards historicity and is trapped by rigidity.
Fundamentalism has a worldview of perpetual dystopia, that the ‘Golden Age’ of faith is gone and we must strive backwards to recreate the conditions of that time.
But with the passage of time and throughout history, great shifts in our thinking occur such as the emergence of modern science, the social sciences and the emphasis on empirical, naturalistic explanations of the world, all of which are readily ignored by the fundamentalist. “Islam is for all time,” hence why the need for human interference in interpretation? But this notion is precisely undermined by new and critical Muslim intellectuals. Hassan Hanafi, an Egyptian philosopher, throughout his work argues that there is not, cannot be and has never been a uniform interpretation of religious scripture. Human interpretation is essentially a pluralistic endeavour. As AbdolKarim Soroush points out:
“All understanding assumes suppositions and entails ‘categorisation’ that is subsuming the particular under universal categories and concepts. Understanding religion is no exception. It is preceded by certain assumptions and principles, which are necessary conditions for its intelligibility and interpretation.”
Soroush, a prominent Iranian philosopher, undermined Iran’s clerical authority over religious interpretation by suggesting his theory of ‘Contraction and Expansion of Religious Knowledge’.
The basic premise of the theory is that religion is divine and perfect, but religious knowledge is by no means perfect or divine; the interpreter is always fallible, and interpretation by its very nature, due to human fallibility, always pluralistic. In this theory, Soroush realises there are several crucial points to establish, such as the fact that human reason is capable of being trusted and should be used (hence his claims of initiating a neo-Mu’tazilite project), all knowledge is historicised (influenced by historical conditions) and never ahistorical, and human beings have always engaged actively with religious texts, at times impressing their own preconceptions onto these texts.
Assigning mere human beings infallibility just because of the antiquated value of their views is dangerous. This does not by any means devalue great pieces of literature, art or philosophy, but enhances and humanises our experience vis-à-vis the piece in question. It provides a three-dimensional portrait, giving us insight into the genesis of the creation, and can open new avenues for understanding.
Religion is eternal but no single religious interpretation is final; the last religion is here but the last understanding of religion has not arrived. Religious knowledge is in continuous flux. We can have general moral values and principles, which can stay constant, but how we apply them in terms of politics, means that institutions must continually change to keep pace with social developments.
Indeed, we must remember the distinction (from the Islamic legal tradition) between the two main categories of legal rulings (ahkam): ibadat (ritual/spiritual acts) and mu’amalat (social/contractual acts).
When we speak of change and reform in the religious context, it has nothing to do with beliefs and the main pillars of Islam but the social, political, legal and ethical applications of the faith. Legal and political fundamentalists will constantly speak of a ‘shariah’ system and Caliphate, ignoring the conflicting opinions and diversity within Islam. They completely ignore the distinction between religion and religious knowledge, and do not even think of the historical contexts in which Islamic law has operated.
By imposing narrow limits and constructs over the interpretation of religion, we ignore the other precious dimensions. Religion is not only legal; it is ethical, moral, spiritual and experiential as well. The divine in Pakistan is stripped of ethics, spirituality, philosophy, and culture and only fixated on doctrine and law. Ziauddin Sardar captures this eloquently, when he said in a recent interview:
“Islam in Pakistan, I am afraid, has ceased to be a religion and a worldview; it has become an obsession, a pathology. It has been drained of all ethics and has become a mechanism for oppression and injustice.”
Fundamentalists not only manipulate our literary heritage but our wider culture and dupe us into believing that without accepting their narrow moralisms and religious teaching, we as a society are hopelessly devoid of any serious civilisation.
Fundamentalists instead of living with uncertainty, suck the life out of intellectual pursuit by hammering out formulaic and sterile pamphlets about ‘Science in the Quran’ and other such erroneous attempts. These are reductive attempts aimed at propaganda, simultaneously discrediting the Islamic traditions and reinforcing the stereotype that Muslims cannot rationally engage in philosophical debate.
This activity also stretches the philosophical and linguistic content of the Muslim traditions to the breaking point and such endeavours are ‘feel-good confidence boosting’ exercises for those insecure in their faith and threatened by outside intellectual influences. Reading the ‘big bang theory’ into the Quran, like some of these pamphlets do, is a trivialisation of faith.
It is this ‘pamphlet Islam’ that Omid Safi describes as being fostered by fundamentalist thinking: “I think Muslims are in imminent danger — if we are not there already — of succumbing to ‘pamphlet Islam’, the fallacy of thinking that complex issues can be handled in four or six glossy pages.”
Fundamentalism perhaps rests on a single assumption — that God is on their side and they have complete and ‘pure’ access to religious knowledge.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He tweets at Ahmad Ali Khalid (@AhmadAliKhalid) on Twitter and can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com
The intellectual foundations of religious fundamentalism
Ahmad Ali Khalid
What is ‘fundamentalism’ and why is it so widespread? ‘Fundamentalism’ is different from violent extremism and there is no necessary connection between the two, hence it is critical to treat fundamentalism on its own merits without confusing it with violence.
Religious fundamentalism has been described in various terms and jargon; however, the most compelling description of fundamentalism when we consider the topics of knowledge production and social practice is “the virtual absence of historical scholarship, liberty and rationality”. In the fundamentalist worldview, history ceases to exist.
Fundamentalists are by no means inclined towards force but they do deny the call for reform and change (instead arguing for a revival or restoration of the ‘Golden Age’
, arguing that religion is unchangeable hence any interference by human beings through manipulative means of interpretation is an adulteration of the purity of faith. In one clear move human reason is subordinated under an imagined social reality, which disregards historicity and is trapped by rigidity.Fundamentalism has a worldview of perpetual dystopia, that the ‘Golden Age’ of faith is gone and we must strive backwards to recreate the conditions of that time.
But with the passage of time and throughout history, great shifts in our thinking occur such as the emergence of modern science, the social sciences and the emphasis on empirical, naturalistic explanations of the world, all of which are readily ignored by the fundamentalist. “Islam is for all time,” hence why the need for human interference in interpretation? But this notion is precisely undermined by new and critical Muslim intellectuals. Hassan Hanafi, an Egyptian philosopher, throughout his work argues that there is not, cannot be and has never been a uniform interpretation of religious scripture. Human interpretation is essentially a pluralistic endeavour. As AbdolKarim Soroush points out:
“All understanding assumes suppositions and entails ‘categorisation’ that is subsuming the particular under universal categories and concepts. Understanding religion is no exception. It is preceded by certain assumptions and principles, which are necessary conditions for its intelligibility and interpretation.”
Soroush, a prominent Iranian philosopher, undermined Iran’s clerical authority over religious interpretation by suggesting his theory of ‘Contraction and Expansion of Religious Knowledge’.
The basic premise of the theory is that religion is divine and perfect, but religious knowledge is by no means perfect or divine; the interpreter is always fallible, and interpretation by its very nature, due to human fallibility, always pluralistic. In this theory, Soroush realises there are several crucial points to establish, such as the fact that human reason is capable of being trusted and should be used (hence his claims of initiating a neo-Mu’tazilite project), all knowledge is historicised (influenced by historical conditions) and never ahistorical, and human beings have always engaged actively with religious texts, at times impressing their own preconceptions onto these texts.
Assigning mere human beings infallibility just because of the antiquated value of their views is dangerous. This does not by any means devalue great pieces of literature, art or philosophy, but enhances and humanises our experience vis-à-vis the piece in question. It provides a three-dimensional portrait, giving us insight into the genesis of the creation, and can open new avenues for understanding.
Religion is eternal but no single religious interpretation is final; the last religion is here but the last understanding of religion has not arrived. Religious knowledge is in continuous flux. We can have general moral values and principles, which can stay constant, but how we apply them in terms of politics, means that institutions must continually change to keep pace with social developments.
Indeed, we must remember the distinction (from the Islamic legal tradition) between the two main categories of legal rulings (ahkam): ibadat (ritual/spiritual acts) and mu’amalat (social/contractual acts).
When we speak of change and reform in the religious context, it has nothing to do with beliefs and the main pillars of Islam but the social, political, legal and ethical applications of the faith. Legal and political fundamentalists will constantly speak of a ‘shariah’ system and Caliphate, ignoring the conflicting opinions and diversity within Islam. They completely ignore the distinction between religion and religious knowledge, and do not even think of the historical contexts in which Islamic law has operated.
By imposing narrow limits and constructs over the interpretation of religion, we ignore the other precious dimensions. Religion is not only legal; it is ethical, moral, spiritual and experiential as well. The divine in Pakistan is stripped of ethics, spirituality, philosophy, and culture and only fixated on doctrine and law. Ziauddin Sardar captures this eloquently, when he said in a recent interview:
“Islam in Pakistan, I am afraid, has ceased to be a religion and a worldview; it has become an obsession, a pathology. It has been drained of all ethics and has become a mechanism for oppression and injustice.”
Fundamentalists not only manipulate our literary heritage but our wider culture and dupe us into believing that without accepting their narrow moralisms and religious teaching, we as a society are hopelessly devoid of any serious civilisation.
Fundamentalists instead of living with uncertainty, suck the life out of intellectual pursuit by hammering out formulaic and sterile pamphlets about ‘Science in the Quran’ and other such erroneous attempts. These are reductive attempts aimed at propaganda, simultaneously discrediting the Islamic traditions and reinforcing the stereotype that Muslims cannot rationally engage in philosophical debate.
This activity also stretches the philosophical and linguistic content of the Muslim traditions to the breaking point and such endeavours are ‘feel-good confidence boosting’ exercises for those insecure in their faith and threatened by outside intellectual influences. Reading the ‘big bang theory’ into the Quran, like some of these pamphlets do, is a trivialisation of faith.
It is this ‘pamphlet Islam’ that Omid Safi describes as being fostered by fundamentalist thinking: “I think Muslims are in imminent danger — if we are not there already — of succumbing to ‘pamphlet Islam’, the fallacy of thinking that complex issues can be handled in four or six glossy pages.”
Fundamentalism perhaps rests on a single assumption — that God is on their side and they have complete and ‘pure’ access to religious knowledge.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He tweets at Ahmad Ali Khalid (@AhmadAliKhalid) on Twitter and can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com
Vassnti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,167
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Sums up fundamentalists of all religions. Much the same thing is expressed by christian fundamentalists in the US. If we just go back to a time where God was the centre of our lives every thing will be magically better. The problem is with the second part.
Religious leaders are no more perfect than any other type of politician, the only difference is in a dictator hangs your for treason the mullah hangs you for blasphemy.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Vassanti
Incredible that you used Dictators and Mullahs as comparisons - In describing the Fundamentalist worldview with regard to knowledge production and social mores consider, fundamentalism is characterized by:
Look at what the author outlines and analyze the posts from the "usual suspects" -- every element the author highlights is present in their "reaction"
Incredible that you used Dictators and Mullahs as comparisons - In describing the Fundamentalist worldview with regard to knowledge production and social mores consider, fundamentalism is characterized by:
followed by
Fundamentalists...do deny the call for reform and change (instead arguing for a revival or restoration of the ‘Golden Age’
Look at what the author outlines and analyze the posts from the "usual suspects" -- every element the author highlights is present in their "reaction"
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Sir Quaid had really good english but he never used the word Secular and Pakistan was the vision of Iqbal and we all know Iqbal very well and his love for Islam and secondly Quaid himself on many occasions said that Pakistan Law will be based on Quran
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Iqbal's majpr work " The RECONSTRUCTION of RELIGIOUS THOUGHT in Islam" -- have you ever read this book?? What do you think the "Reconstruction" part is about? What do you think Iqbal quoting White "The ages of Faith are Ages of Reason" to mean??
And you are exactly right that the Quaid e Azam spoke and wrote English not just well, but eloquently and therefore did not need to make persons not as educated, who neither speak or write eloquently, to understand the substance of what he said.
The Quaid is clear, Equality before the law is the substance of secular governance - to the less well educated, this the part of about Faith being a personal matter, not a matter for the state witness:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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. 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.”
Go forth now, and do not reproduce - we do with a lot less of half educated dim wits such as yourself.
And you are exactly right that the Quaid e Azam spoke and wrote English not just well, but eloquently and therefore did not need to make persons not as educated, who neither speak or write eloquently, to understand the substance of what he said.
The Quaid is clear, Equality before the law is the substance of secular governance - to the less well educated, this the part of about Faith being a personal matter, not a matter for the state witness:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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. 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.”
Go forth now, and do not reproduce - we do with a lot less of half educated dim wits such as yourself.
