My religion is not the business of the state: YLH

[VCheng]

The Constitution, not the 'rule of the land', and one that guarantees their freedom of faith, consistent with the Constitution.

But what of a Constitution that codifies discrimination?

 

[Hyperion]

Of all the ills with the constitution, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with declaring Ahmadis as non Muslims, as they are NOT Muslims. Period. Well, what they are .... they are Ahmadis or Qadiyanis, it's up to them to choose the correct title.

Now regarding their persecution, that is something I don't agree with. As members of every religion, whatever that maybe, are free to live in Pakistan (as supported by our constitution, as long as they are loyal to the State of Pakistan. Period.

Desh drohis, on the other hand, should be butt-fucked repeatedly, irrespective of their cast and creed. Doesn't matter if they wear uniform, are judges, politicians or plain ol' civis. REPEATEDLY.

 

[Khafee]

Of all the ills with the constitution, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with declaring Ahmadis as non Muslims, as they are NOT Muslims. Period. Well, what they are .... they are Ahmadis or Qadiyanis, it's up to them to choose the correct title.

Now regarding their persecution, that is something I don't agree with. As members of every religion, whatever that maybe, are free to live in Pakistan (as supported by our constitution, as long as they are loyal to the State of Pakistan. Period.

Desh drohis, on the other hand, should be butt-fucked repeatedly, irrespective of their cast and creed. Doesn't matter if they wear uniform, are judges, politicians or plain ol' civis. REPEATEDLY.

Agree with everything except your last para. You are a title holder, respect your title, and frame your words in a more polite manner. You are an intelligent person, you don't need to be crude or vulgar, to get your point across.

Thank You.

 

[Hyperion]

Mate, sorry if I hurt your feelings with wrong selection of words, however, I am who I am. I'm exactly the same if you met me in person. And I kind of like who I am!

@Horus, ban me..... please....

Agree with everything except your last para. You are a title holder, respect your title, and frame your words in a more polite manner. You are an intelligent person, you don't need to be crude or vulgar, to get your point across.

Thank You.

 

[Khafee]

Mate, sorry if I hurt your feelings with wrong selection of words, however, I am who I am. I'm exactly the same if you met me in person. And I kind of like who I am!

@Horus, ban me..... please....

You didn't hurt my feelings. I enjoy your posts.

I just feel leaving out the vulgarity, you would be improving the quality of your posts, and we do have female members on the forum as well. We need to respect that.

I do hope you will consider my suggestion seriously.

 

[Syed1.]

Of all the ills with the constitution, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with declaring Ahmadis as non Muslims, as they are NOT Muslims. Period. Well, what they are .... they are Ahmadis or Qadiyanis, it's up to them to choose the correct title.

Now regarding their persecution, that is something I don't agree with. As members of every religion, whatever that maybe, are free to live in Pakistan (as supported by our constitution, as long as they are loyal to the State of Pakistan. Period.

Desh drohis, on the other hand, should be butt-fucked repeatedly, irrespective of their cast and creed. Doesn't matter if they wear uniform, are judges, politicians or plain ol' civis. REPEATEDLY.

Why would it effect YOUR faith if someone wants to call THEMSELVES Muslim?

So child killing monsters like the Taliban can call themselves Muslims and you lot don't have a problem with it?

 

[django]

It is when your cult declares everyone else other than your cult as Kuffar. This Ahmadi writer is on Statedep doll out.

Well said Sir.Kudos

 

[Hyperion]

Seriously dude - you think I'll fall for that trap? Taliban's / ISIS, whatever variety they belong to, can be best described as Khwarij. Rest of the labelling I'd leave to Allah SWT.

Why would it effect YOUR faith if someone wants to call THEMSELVES Muslim?

So child killing monsters like the Taliban can call themselves Muslims and you lot don't have a problem with it?

 

[Syed1.]

Seriously dude - you think I'll fall for that trap? Taliban's / ISIS, whatever variety they belong to, can be best described as Khwarij. Rest of the labelling I'd leave to Allah SWT.

Exactly... only Allah can decide who is Muslim or not. So why has the government of Pakistan taken upon itself to do so?

 

[MultaniGuy]

Exactly... only Allah can decide who is Muslim or not. So why has the government of Pakistan taken upon itself to do so?

Ahmadis/Qadiyanis are not Muslim. The Pakistani government has the right to say Ahmadis/Qadiyanis are not Muslims.

 

[Hell hound]

Of all the ills with the constitution, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with declaring Ahmadis as non Muslims, as they are NOT Muslims. Period. Well, what they are .... they are Ahmadis or Qadiyanis, it's up to them to choose the correct title.

its the matter between them and god.who are we or state to judge.

 

[Musafir117]

its the matter between them and god.who are we or state to judge.

Honestly they blind and deaf not seeing hearing around we mess in be doing God's parts ( Naouzbillah ) Bhutto and Zia's fate are clear enough to open up eyes or brain and the Adhazb on us after that. But again sigh.

 

[Sliver]

The Constitution, not the 'rule of the land', and one that guarantees their freedom of faith, consistent with the Constitution.

they are both same for me..

This term was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...

 

[Joe Shearer]

they are both same for me..

This term was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...

That is precisely my point of contention. The 'rule' of the land is not the law of the land. I believe in the law of the land. What is being imposed on us in India, with each turn of the screw, is the rule of the land; a majoritarian imposition of will, and NOT the law of the land, NOT the Constitution.

That is the situation that the best, most credible Pakistani analysts and thinkers assure us prevailed in Pakistan in the past, and that is receding now, with sense gradually dawning, and with the rule of law increasingly prevailing. The rule of the land includes honour killings, mobs that assault the minorities on suspicion, or at the instigation of motivated individuals or groups or entities, murderous gangs that assault other sects or systems of faith, and blow up their schools and mosques and places of reverence, storing arms in mosques and preaching revolution, and that sort of thing. NOT the Constitution, but sanctified by popular preachers or by popular superstition.

That is what is happening to us, one step at a time.

 

[Sliver]

That is precisely my point of contention. The 'rule' of the land is not the law of the land. I believe in the law of the land. What is being imposed on us in India, with each turn of the screw, is the rule of the land; a majoritarian imposition of will, and NOT the law of the land, NOT the Constitution.

the constitution is also given to the people, by the people. its also formed by the majoritarian view. each "law" passed in the GOP/house forms part of the constitution - which is again formed by the opinion of the group winning the election - decided by the majority.