Nationalism as opposed to Religion?

[KingMamba]

hmm.. I smell some mullah moroons here too.

We should assassinate them together.

 

[RuheTag]

We should assassinate them together.

No, we are Pakistanis and belong to the religion of peace.. so it wont be a good idea I guess, in theory at least.

 

[Dillinger]

No, we are Pakistanis and belong to the religion of peace.. so it wont be a good idea I guess, in theory at least.

@KingMamba93 He has yet to meet our kemalist brother Hype then..say Ruhe, pardon my boldness, what do you think of nuking Jhang?

 

[KingMamba]

That is a very interesting paradigm. It would make sense that Jinnah would not have particularly favored a theocratic state. I believe that he dreamed of a Muslim majority state which would safeguard the economic interests, the cultural and religious identity of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent as well as safeguard the same aforementioned rights and interests of any religious minorities which would be part of the citizenry of the Pakistani state. Albeit many posters shall not appreciate any attempt at diluting their stand that Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic state, specially if such a dilution is posited by an Indian's post/argument.

In Jinnah's conception of Pakistan, he would have viewed it as a geographical entity which would have nurtured the Muslims of the subcontinent in an environment devoid of monarchy, feudalism, extremism and gurbat. As such, a society at peace with itself and secured economically could have then ventured to interpret Islam in a manner which would have reconciled it with the post-colonial and post-monarchic world. Fashioning the populace into a driver for innovative implementation of Islamic tenets in governance and policy making. Islam would have been the glue which would have eased the tensions, which I believe he would have foreseen, which were bound to arise since the Muslims of the subcontinent were not homogeneous in nature. Let us be cognizant of the fact though that it was not meant as an attempt at assimilation but rather at reconciling the obvious differences which were bound to exist due to the diversity of the populace. A reconciliation which would not require the surrender of ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities- instead the said reconciliation would have been made possible by employing Islam as the bridge where the different constituents of the populace could meet each other half-way.

I believe that this is best described by Brigadier (retired) Salim Zia, who was a campaign volunteer for the 1946 elections, though his following words- “Nobody shouted that famous slogan – ‘Pakistan Ka Matlab Kya? La Ilaha Ilallah’ before 1946. It was only used to attract villagers, but unfortunately we carried the slogan too far … The Quaid wanted a separate welfare state for the Muslims, not an Islamic state or a state for mullahism.”
@KingMamba93

I agree with everything you have written but what you should know is that everything you have written is the very definition of an Islamic welfare state. I think the last word you wrote is where it all went wrong. Mullahs

I say this because I agree that Jinnah wanted Pakistanis to be able to reinterpret Islam to make it reconciable with its monarchic and colonial past but the Mullahs who decided to join Pakistan already expressed an ideology that was made in direct hostility to colonialists.

No, we are Pakistanis and belong to the religion of peace.. so it wont be a good idea I guess, in theory at least.

Well I heard you are an apostate so what do you care of the religion of peace?

@KingMamba93 He has yet to meet our kemalist brother Hype then..say Ruhe, pardon my boldness, what do you think of nuking Jhang?

Hype is a hyper nationalist. He is as dangerous as the mullahs he hates except people like hype are a minority with no power broking behind them.

 

[Dillinger]

I agree with everything you have written but what you should know is that everything you have written is the very definition of an Islamic welfare state. I think the last word you wrote is where it all went wrong. Mullahs

I say this because I agree that Jinnah wanted Pakistanis to be able to reinterpret Islam to make it reconciable with its monarchic and colonial past but the Mullahs who decided to join Pakistan already expressed an ideology that was made in direct hostility to colonialists.



Well I heard you are an apostate so what do you care of the religion of peace?

Yaara If you are referring to the words within quotes then they are not mine. It is conceivable that a significant portion of the clergy will try to hamper a true Islamic welfare state since any reconciliation of Islam with modernity, even within the ambit of the Koran alone through reinterpretation, will require the active participation of an enlightened citizenry thereby diluting their uncontested and exclusive hold on being the interpreters of the word and the Koran. It is further conceivable to imagine that the extant feudal structure and its beneficiaries would have made common cause with the clergy to ensure the same and safeguard their historic stature too.

 

[KingMamba]

Yaara If you are referring to the words within quotes then they are not mine. It is conceivable that a significant portion of the clergy will try to hamper a true Islamic welfare state since any reconciliation of Islam with modernity, even within the ambit of the Koran alone through reinterpretation, will require the active participation of an enlightened citizenry thereby diluting their uncontested and exclusive hold on being the interpreters of the word and the Koran. It is further conceivable to imagine that the extant feudal structure and its beneficiaries would have made common cause with the clergy to ensure the same and safeguard their historic stature too.

Pretty much which is why Pakistan needs real education first and foremost and then when people realize its all about power they will overthrow the clergy, the landowners, the politicians, and the corrupt generals. I am of the opinion all those who fit in the above category need to be lined up and shot.

 

[RuheTag]

Well I heard you are an apostate so what do you care of the religion of peace?

which moroon said that? some son of obama?

 

[t_for_talli]

A society has to evolve as time progresses. Unfortunately that didnt happened with Isalm
Christianity is not the same it used to be in dark ages(12-15th centurd AD) same with Hinduism

Its simple when Islam evolved then societies were united under religious flag. Concept of Nation came later
So you cannot comprehend the words of Prophet literally in present times because some things were incorporated in social culture after Prophet with time and I guess concept of nation is one of them

Its ur choice, either you can contribute positively to society/human race or you can go back to 7th century and practice beheading punishments, burka, sharia etc

 

[Wright]

I dont believe a middle eastern caliphate is possible. Arabs, Turks, Iranians are far too wealthy and proud of their own distinct histories and achievements to shun their own past and ethnic heritage.

However South Asian branch-offs like Bangladesh, Pakistan are both devoid of such legacies, and wealth thus have greater chances of forming a South Asian caliphate.

We must look at this question in context of today. The only viable area in which the muslim brotherhood concept is alive is in South Asia.

 

[ZYXW]

That is a very interesting paradigm. It would make sense that Jinnah would not have particularly favored a theocratic state. I believe that he dreamed of a Muslim majority state which would safeguard the economic interests, the cultural and religious identity of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent as well as safeguard the same aforementioned rights and interests of any religious minorities which would be part of the citizenry of the Pakistani state. Albeit many posters shall not appreciate any attempt at diluting their stand that Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic state, specially if such a dilution is posited by an Indian's post/argument.

In Jinnah's conception of Pakistan, he would have viewed it as a geographical entity which would have nurtured the Muslims of the subcontinent in an environment devoid of monarchy, feudalism, extremism and gurbat. As such, a society at peace with itself and secured economically could have then ventured to interpret Islam in a manner which would have reconciled it with the post-colonial and post-monarchic world. Fashioning the populace into a driver for innovative implementation of Islamic tenets in governance and policy making. Islam would have been the glue which would have eased the tensions, which I believe he would have foreseen, which were bound to arise since the Muslims of the subcontinent were not homogeneous in nature. Let us be cognizant of the fact though that it was not meant as an attempt at assimilation but rather at reconciling the obvious differences which were bound to exist due to the diversity of the populace. A reconciliation which would not require the surrender of ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities- instead the said reconciliation would have been made possible by employing Islam as the bridge where the different constituents of the populace could meet each other half-way.

I believe that this is best described by Brigadier (retired) Salim Zia, who was a campaign volunteer for the 1946 elections, though his following words- “Nobody shouted that famous slogan – ‘Pakistan Ka Matlab Kya? La Ilaha Ilallah’ before 1946. It was only used to attract villagers, but unfortunately we carried the slogan too far … The Quaid wanted a separate welfare state for the Muslims, not an Islamic state or a state for mullahism.”

@KingMamba93 @Secur @ZYXW @Hyperion- Agree or disagree?

I agree completely actually! Having said that, why does it matter honestly. Jinnah contributed a lot to the foundation of pakistan but he doesn't own the country. It shouldn't matter what purpose he founded it for, we should instead be looking to our present and seeing what will help and be beneficial for each and every pakistani. People need to move past the past. I understand he is the founding fathers but in no way do any one man or should any one man define an entire nation. At the end of the day jinnah would have wanted what is best for the state even if it meant just protecting the muslims ratger thn making it an islamic state.

 

[ranjeet]

I agree completely actually! Having said that, why does it matter honestly. Jinnah contributed a lot to the foundation of pakistan but he doesn't own the country. It shouldn't matter what purpose he founded it for, we should instead be looking to our present and seeing what will help and be beneficial for each and every pakistani. People need to move past the past. I understand he is the founding fathers but in no way do any one man or should any one man define an entire nation. At the end of the day jinnah would have wanted what is best for the state even if it meant just protecting the muslims ratger thn making it an islamic state.

yes I agree with it and while you are at it, why don't you stop calling him father of the nation, I mean how can a mere human being father a nation. Give the masses what they really yearn for.

 

[livingdead]

A society has to evolve as time progresses. Unfortunately that didnt happened with Isalm
Christianity is not the same it used to be in dark ages(12-15th centurd AD) same with Hinduism

Its simple when Islam evolved then societies were united under religious flag. Concept of Nation came later
So you cannot comprehend the words of Prophet literally in present times because some things were incorporated in social culture after Prophet with time and I guess concept of nation is one of them

Its ur choice, either you can contribute positively to society/human race or you can go back to 7th century and practice beheading punishments, burka, sharia etc

hinduism is still in 18th century...

I agree completely actually! Having said that, why does it matter honestly. Jinnah contributed a lot to the foundation of pakistan but he doesn't own the country. It shouldn't matter what purpose he founded it for, we should instead be looking to our present and seeing what will help and be beneficial for each and every pakistani. People need to move past the past. I understand he is the founding fathers but in no way do any one man or should any one man define an entire nation. At the end of the day jinnah would have wanted what is best for the state even if it meant just protecting the muslims ratger thn making it an islamic state.

I was going to point out the same. You dont need to do what jinnah wanted, you need to do what you think is right for you.

yes I agree with it and while you are at it, why don't you stop calling him father of the nation, I mean how can a mere human being father a nation. Give the masses what they really yearn for.

same way gandhiji is father of our nation..

 

[ranjeet]

same way gandhiji is father of our nation..

Ofcourse he is the only reason why we are still indebted to his extended family !!!!

 

[livingdead]

Ofcourse he is the only reason why we are still indebted to his extended family !!!!

oh..come on, its just some words showing gratitude.. we did not do what gandhiji wanted after independence .. thankfully due to nehru.... better sense prevailed..

 

[ranjeet]

oh..come on, its just some words showing gratitude.. we did not do what gandhiji wanted after independence .. thankfully due to nehru.... better sense prevailed..

All i know is birth place of Gandhi ji's is a dry state. So I wouldn't have much to agree with him anyway. I don't like him but yeah kuch baat thi bande mein and Salute to him for being a flag bearer for independence !!!!!