Muslim Pakistan versus Islamic Pakistan - Which Was Jinnah’s Vision?

[Neelo]

Calm down bro

No one really wants Sharia Law here.(neither liberalism or LGT stuff)
People just want some check points in our present democratic system so that every institution works within its boundaries and only capable people come to top.

Sharia or no Sharia is not a debate on street (it's a stuff i see only on online forums by Overseas Pakistanis)
Bad Economy,InJustice and instability are our concerns.
You people sitting outside of Pakistan should really calm down.

I've been trying to tell him this for a while. He pretends nothing is hypocritical about him spatting on about ISISstan while he lives in a secular democracy.

 

[villageidiot]

India is not secular. It's an extremist Hinduvita country led by a RSS member mass murderer.

Thanks my point. You can only be secular on paper i.e. change the constitution, laws. You can't change how think. What do you think, people should be put into concentration camps, after the constitution is made secular?

I've been to Malaysia and I was drinking a cocktail in a bar while the locals where going to Friday prayers. , everyone minding their own business. Let me know when Pakistan can achieve a tolerant society like that. The issue has to be forced with our lot unfortunately.

That's my point. All of this has nothing to do with what's on paper. Work needs to be done to bring societal change. Concentration camps don't work. That's why I made the India vs Malaysia comparison.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, it's our forum. And we Pakistanis hereby do a regime change on PDF's indian populace and install you as their leader.

But, seriously though. It's a theme, we've noticed. Most of us Pakistanis tend to appreciate sane voice from across the wire, and vice versa. A rare breeze of cool wind amidst a storm of hot air.

What IS strange is the irrational dislike of Pakistan and Pakistanis that some of us display.

Don't get me wrong, there is much about both Pakistanis, and sections of Pakistani opinion, that induce a face in one's palm. The generic dislike, even hatred, is totally irrational and very unfair both to Pakistanis and to Indians.

Silly and childish.

Another member here belongs to a forum where there are almost equal numbers of each nationality. He would, if I dragged him kicking and screaming to the witness stand, vouch for the fact that whether discussing this country or that, whether discussing politics, society or religion, there has never been a moment when the intervention of a disciplinary figure was even remotely sensed by any member to be needed.

People need to behave like officers and gentlemen.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wonder why some catholics churches dedicate to Latin mass... eventhough, perhaps seeking purity or originality...

There is an historical reason for this one.

The Catholic Church was not the only focal point of early Christian activism (couldn't find a more appropriate word - suitable substitutions will be welcome). It was the vehicle of the Patriarch of Rome, the seat founded by Peter. There were four others, Alexandria, founded by Mark, Antioch, also founded by Peter before he went to Rome, the centre of civilisation in those days, Jerusalem, founded by James, and Constantinople, founded by Andrew.

While the eastern patriarchates were largely Greek-dominated (early versions of the Bible were in several languages, and Greek was among them), Rome, the centre of the Roman Empire, was clearly and decidedly saturated by Latin, was the patriarchate that was intensely Latin in its sacerdotal language and its early writings by its scholars.

Celebrating Mass and other services in native languages was a rebellion, and was one of the foundations of Protestantism. This obscures more than it clarifies, but short of a 500 page discourse on the divide between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism, that is the best that can be said.

Just to close the loop, the four eastern patriarchates are today fifteen in number, and, in effect, are independent churches, each headed by a patriarch. Common decisions are taken by Ecumenical Councils, and the decisions of such councils are binding on eastern orthodox Christians.

 

[villageidiot]

I like history, so it was nice reading the article. It’s very disappointing to realize that the Gangus have stolen all our gods, especially Indra.

We’re the real Vedic Hindus and they’re the Gangetic Gangus. We need to make war with them to take our gods back. We can start with building a huge statue of Indra in Islamabad and renaming the city Indraganj, capital of Vedic Republic of Industan. Reading the Rig Veda must be made be compulsory for all school children. Our ancestral language, Sanskrit, must be revived.

However, it may be too late. It would be hard to convince ignorant Pakistanis to read history books about our Vedic ancestors of 2-3,000 years ago and to fight in the name of Indra, Agni and associated gods.

@NagaBaba , thought?

PS: Years ago, on another Pakistan defense forum I started using the word ‘gangu’ for Indians. I don’t remember it being used before.

Then I salute you. BTW, I heard it was @IndusPakistan who first used that. I first read it on Pakistani reddit. This origin issue needs to be resolved as it's an important milestone in Pakistan-India relations, the word gangu.

It's so loveably offensive. I am sure some of my gangu comrades appreciate the term, too. Right, @NagaBaba ?

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@Neelo

Interesting point and will go through all the responses. Here is my two cents

I have no doubt in my mind that our beloved Qaid (RA) wanted a liberal, secular Pakistan. But it is by no means certain that the rest of the AIML as a whole wanted any such thing. Individuals like Danyal Latifi and Mian Iftikharuddin may have but not necessarily the rest of the party.

But all that is irrelevant. What is important is what do today's Pakistanis as a whole want. If they want a truly Islamic they must have it even if the Qaid didnt want it.

Regards

PS: I suggest you reach out to my dear friends Yasser Latif Hamdani or MD Umair Khan. You can give my reference- they know who I am

 

[villageidiot]

our beloved Qaid (RA)

 

[NagaBaba]

@NagaBaba , thought?

yeah, checks out.. even if @Tamerlane is kinda taking the piss.

there's this whole OIT vs AIT (out of India vs Aryan invasion theory) debate

my 50cents on it would be worthless, these are matters for scholars and proper intellectuals to dissect. Tag the Shearer sab for the in depth well articulated posting on this matter

mere bas ki ni

baaki, aap khud research kallo.. plenty of literature out there on it.

this wormhole is going in many dimensions, its too deep.. jump in and see for yourself if you're so inclined to.

good luck out there lol

heard it was @IndusPakistan who first used that

of course it was lol

what was his handle on here before that one ?

I don't like how (some) Pakistanis have co-opted the Indus v civilization as solely theirs, to the exclusion of others across the line here..

Gangetic bhi hai, the throbbing heart of India

we are from both, the Indus and the Ganga

 

[Warking]

Modren liberal secularists are agents of the west and must be purged and destroyed from Pakistan these are the same people with power our political elite is such only using Islam for thier own agendas these murtads need to be killed or we risk to become enemies of Allah. We must reject foreign ideologies and make our own based on Islam and our own culture.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Modren liberal secularists are agents of the west and must be purged and destroyed from Pakistan these are the same people with power our political elite is such only using Islam for thier own agendas these murtads need to be killed or we risk to become enemies of Allah. We must reject foreign ideologies and make our own based on Islam and our own culture.

So, you want to kill everyone who disagrees with your exclusivist and parochial (mis)interpretation of Islam?

And given your advocacy for the elimination of modern liberal Muslims from Pakistan, I am curious as to how you would regard the founding fathers of this nation, who held "divergent" views. Would you consider them as apostates deserving of being deemed "Wajib ul Qatl"?

For example:

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam..."

and

"The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to re-interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life, is, in my opinion, perfectly justified."

(Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)

And it was not just Iqbal.


Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is hailed as the father of the two-nation theory. He, in a lecture given by him before a large and very influential audience of Muslims in Lucknow, on 18th December 1887, said :

" ..... Gentlemen, I am not a Conservative, I am a great Liberal.... "

And Jinnah fits quite closely the model of the classic liberal politician.... He wanted a Liberal constitution for Pakistan as well (as recorded by Fatima Jinnah in "My Brother")


And as for the Separation of State and Church(i.e. Secularism), Iqbal categorically stated:

Islam as a religiopolitical system, no doubt, does permit such a view

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

@AA_ Since you have shown support for a highly inappropriate post advocating violence, I am interested in hearing your perspective regarding the founding fathers of our nation and their divergent beliefs

You said you were a Shia. The Shia community in Pakistan has been subjected to severe violence at the hands of the same extremist elements and mindset that you are endorsing here. If given an opportunity, these extremists would not hesitate to resort to violent means and take the lives of all those who hold divergent beliefs, including you and your loved ones. Be careful what you wish for

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

There is an historical reason for this one.

The Catholic Church was not the only focal point of early Christian activism (couldn't find a more appropriate word - suitable substitutions will be welcome). It was the vehicle of the Patriarch of Rome, the seat founded by Peter. There were four others, Alexandria, founded by Mark, Antioch, also founded by Peter before he went to Rome, the centre of civilisation in those days, Jerusalem, founded by James, and Constantinople, founded by Andrew.

While the eastern patriarchates were largely Greek-dominated (early versions of the Bible were in several languages, and Greek was among them), Rome, the centre of the Roman Empire, was clearly and decidedly saturated by Latin, was the patriarchate that was intensely Latin in its sacerdotal language and its early writings by its scholars.

Celebrating Mass and other services in native languages was a rebellion, and was one of the foundations of Protestantism. This obscures more than it clarifies, but short of a 500 page discourse on the divide between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism, that is the best that can be said.

Just to close the loop, the four eastern patriarchates are today fifteen in number, and, in effect, are independent churches, each headed by a patriarch. Common decisions are taken by Ecumenical Councils, and the decisions of such councils are binding on eastern orthodox Christians.

The only reason I gave him that example is because in contemporary U.S it is considered a spiritual connection with the past, when Latin is no longer a spoken language... it is considered reverent and traditional.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

So, you want to kill everyone who disagrees with your exclusivist and parochial (mis)interpretation of Islam?

And given your advocacy for the elimination of modern liberal Muslims from Pakistan, I am curious as to how you would regard the founding fathers of this nation, who held "divergent" views. Would you consider them as apostates deserving of being deemed "Wajib ul Qatl"?

For example:

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam..."

and

"The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to re-interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life, is, in my opinion, perfectly justified."

(Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)

And it was not just Iqbal.


Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is hailed as the father of the two-nation theory. He, in a lecture given by him before a large and very influential audience of Muslims in Lucknow, on 18th December 1887, said :

" ..... Gentlemen, I am not a Conservative, I am a great Liberal.... "

And Jinnah fits quite closely the model of the classic liberal politician.... He wanted a Liberal constitution for Pakistan as well (as recorded by Fatima Jinnah in "My Brother")


And as for the Separation of State and Church(i.e. Secularism), Iqbal categorically stated:

Islam as a religiopolitical system, no doubt, does permit such a view

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

@AA_ Since you have shown support for a highly inappropriate post advocating violence, I am interested in hearing your perspective regarding the founding fathers of our nation and their divergent beliefs

You said you were a Shia. The Shia community in Pakistan has been subjected to severe violence at the hands of the same extremist elements and mindset that you are endorsing here. If given an opportunity, these extremists would not hesitate to resort to violent means and take the lives of all those who hold divergent beliefs, including you and your loved ones. Be careful what you wish for

And that is the crux of the problem. They could have diverging(ent) views... reflecting "their" understanding.
Can we allow the same impunity to us, ourselves?
Why using their shoulders to push phony, personal or proxy agendas?
Now that we know better...

We know the Western discourse better...

Why can't Shi'i be allowed to be Shi'i without secularism... altering national ethos... without scholarship?
Should people's lives be changed on ever-changing laws and legislation... swinging ideologies... fleeting grounds... fringe minorities?

It is this swinging pendulum that causes extremes in the society... forms far right and far left ideologies... ultra nationalists, fascists and populists.
But because the discourse is perverted... party and leadership corrupt/compromised most of the time such fringe elements find it hard to get traction. It is popular vote afterall that is deciding the outcome... and candidates need eyeballs, siloed narratives and sliced/slivered talking points, opinion makers and influencers.
But you are amenable to that...

You may or may not get it... as your namesake Sarmat, the Russian upgrade on Satan, is a one way fuse to oblivion.

 

[Warking]

So, you want to kill everyone who disagrees with your exclusivist and parochial (mis)interpretation of Islam?

And given your advocacy for the elimination of modern liberal Muslims from Pakistan, I am curious as to how you would regard the founding fathers of this nation, who held "divergent" views. Would you consider them as apostates deserving of being deemed "Wajib ul Qatl"?

For example:

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam..."

and

"The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to re-interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life, is, in my opinion, perfectly justified."

(Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)

And it was not just Iqbal.


Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is hailed as the father of the two-nation theory. He, in a lecture given by him before a large and very influential audience of Muslims in Lucknow, on 18th December 1887, said :

" ..... Gentlemen, I am not a Conservative, I am a great Liberal.... "

And Jinnah fits quite closely the model of the classic liberal politician.... He wanted a Liberal constitution for Pakistan as well (as recorded by Fatima Jinnah in "My Brother")


And as for the Separation of State and Church(i.e. Secularism), Iqbal categorically stated:

Islam as a religiopolitical system, no doubt, does permit such a view

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

@AA_ Since you have shown support for a highly inappropriate post advocating violence, I am interested in hearing your perspective regarding the founding fathers of our nation and their divergent beliefs

You said you were a Shia. The Shia community in Pakistan has been subjected to severe violence at the hands of the same extremist elements and mindset that you are endorsing here. If given an opportunity, these extremists would not hesitate to resort to violent means and take the lives of all those who hold divergent beliefs, including you and your loved ones. Be careful what you wish for

I don't care what these historical figures say and as someone wrote above the views of Iqbal and Jinnah changed over time thus everyone from Commies, liberals and hardcore islamists quote them all.
First see too what Liberalism means and what Islam means you can be a Muslim and be progressive i.e encourage education and all other things Islam encourages. Issues start when break the core rules of Islam allow modren degeneracy such in the west which has a dead society that cant even sustain itself. Why should we accept ideology of these people and how much do we value Islam? Is Islam so bad that you reject it from your national institutions and put your own laws? Have we forgotten what goal of Islam is? To take man out of lordship of man into lordship of God. Islam is an integral part of our culture and we must create our own ideals and not be inspired or try to cosplay the west.

I have been called an extremist for saying we must reject foreign secularist ideals created to give powers to the elites and our colonizers and rather create our own system built within the bounds of Islam. Honestly I am quite sad you see Islamic system as something backwards this speaks for the success of Liberal indoctrination. Islam when it was applied led to an advanced society morally and technologically this was achieved through having proper Islamic scholars, Educated Muslims that could differentiate mullas from actual intellectuals and upholding Islamic tenets and having the world view that universe while a test is also a gift from Allah for us to study and use to benefit mankind. This was the original Islamic doctrine and which should be encouraged it also led to diverse societies of Muslims and non Muslims. Islamic system is a system of progress only issue is that it has been hijacked by people with thier own agendas and Liberals who call Mullas true Muslims and tell us Islam has failed. We must have our own ideology around Islamic ideals this should be compiled into some sort of writing perhaps our own Islamic manifesto proper political Islam instead of extremist crap.

 

[M. Sarmad]

And that is the crux of the problem. They could have diverging(ent) views... reflecting "their" understanding.
Can we allow the same impunity to us, ourselves?
Why using their shoulders to push phony, personal or proxy agendas?
Now that we know better...

We know the Western discourse better...

Why can't Shi'i be allowed to be Shi'i without secularism... altering national ethos... without scholarship?
Should people's lives be changed on ever-changing laws and legislation... swinging ideologies... fleeting grounds... fringe minorities?

It is this swinging pendulum that causes extremes in the society... forms far right and far left ideologies... ultra nationalists, fascists and populists.
But because the discourse is perverted and party and leadership corrupt/compromised most of the time such fringe elements find it hard to get traction. It is popular vote afterall that is deciding the outcome... and candidates need eyeballs, siloed narratives and sliced slivered talking points, opinion makers and influencers.
But you are amenable to that...

Unfortunately, in overly religious societies like ours, secularism is viewed as an attack on the dominant religion i.e. Islam, leading to misunderstandings and resistance to the idea of secularism.

Interestingly, the notion of the separation of State and Church, commonly referred to as secularism, was brought to Western Europe from Islamic philosophy. However, contemporary orthodox Muslims often reject the concept of secularism as a Western ideology incompatible with Islam. One of the most influential Islamic philosophers who played a significant role in shaping the evolution of secularism in Western Europe was Ibn Rushd, an Arab-Spanish polymath and philosopher. Dante's Divine Comedy, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and Rafael's fresco of the School of Athens all immortalize his contributions to Western thought. In the West, Ibn Rushd is celebrated as the founding father of secularism.

It is my belief that the fundamental problem stems from a lack of understanding of the all-encompassing nature of Islam.

You may or may not get it... as your namesake Sarmat, the Russian upgrade on Satan, is a one way fuse to oblivion.

Be that as it may, You are trying to mock a Quranic word:

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

I don't care what these historical figures say...

Fair enough.

While it is within your rights to reject "the vision of the founding fathers" (the topic of this thread), advocating violence against those who disagree with you is unjustifiable.

 

[VCheng]

"the vision of the founding fathers"

A small question: Where is General Zia Ul Haq in this list of founding fathers of present day Pakistan?