Pakistan: Redefining Nationhood and concept of 'Citizen'

[El Sidd]

You had your rant boy. Now go register and pay your tax ..... be halal citizen !

Awww did UK alien force teach you this?

 

[Kabira]

2. "someone who has recent ancestors that came from Pakistan"

This is also vague because what does "recent" mean? How recent?

3-4th gen Pakistanis can easily get Pakistan citizenship if they want.

 

[Hamza913]

But people's definitions, whether most or not, are bound to change.

If tomorrow most people think Narendra Modi is the definition of a Pakistani, judging from what you have stated you'd be okay with that.

If being from a certain country suddenly took on a particular meaning that somehow included Narendra Modi as being a Pakistani, then yes I'd be okay with that so long as people don't mean it in the same sense as me or you being Pakistani, and let's be honest, this will never happen.

This whole definitions game is a silly one, so perhaps it's best to only consider Pakistanis as people with Pakistani citizenship. The question then becomes, who should be eligible to receive this citizenship? In my opinion, it would be anyone who passes the process of becoming a citizen, which should include paperwork and interviews, along with some kind of act to show their devotion to the community (the individual should be able to choose which act they'd like to commit from a given selection, they should not be forced to commit a single particular act).

ight, and the fact that the Muhajir in your example made the treacherous journey knowing full well that there is a chance he will lose his life for a country who's future you admit was uncertain and from which there was no material gain proves that this person was committed to the idea of Pakistan its founding forces and thus a worthy citizen.

The same argument could be made for refugees, and before you say they only left because they were in a war-zone, you should remember that many Muhajirs were also heavily persecuted in Hindustan.

Based on what do you say this?

History, we've had everyone from Greeks to Mongolians migrating into Pakistan.

Based on what do you say this? And lets suppose that is true, that's still a weak argument for why we shouldn't have a well grounded Pakistani identity and define what it means to be a Pakistani.

The Pakistani identity is a simple one, Pakistanis are simply people who come from what is the Republic of Pakistan. That's exactly the same identity as any citizen of any other nation would have.

And that's what i stated, because if we were so different from each other (which you claim) then trust me every province of Pakistan would have gotten independence already, either by bullet or ballet.

Agreed, I'm not saying the differences are insurmountable, but I am saying that they are larger than you may think.

So you would be okay if Chinese Atheists completely altered the nature of Pakistan from an Islamic country to one where God's existence is denied and religion is forbidden in public spaces including public schools where children are taught religion is just a fairy tale? You would be completely okay with raising your children in that environment because you believe all it takes to be a Pakistani is to be born on its soil?

Like I said, I wouldn't be okay with it, but I wouldn't resort to saying these people are not Pakistani (provided they actually were Pakistanis).

Well, you're arguing the same argument that certain religious scholars made against Pakistan's formation because "it divided the Ummah" which in the Indo-Pak context is Muslims of South Asia.

Apples and oranges, Pakistan separated from a majority non-Muslim land, not a majority Muslim one.

Also, AFAIK, no one here, certainly not me, stated that Ummah as a concept does not exist. See my previous post in reply to @django

I never said you did.

you're opposed to Nations which Allah (SWTA) Himself stated he created?

Allah Azza Wa Jal doesn't really give these nations much recognition, all we are obliged to do in Islam is obey the law of the land provided it doesn't contradict Islam (in the case that it does, you either leave or, if you can, try to establish your rights).

Also, the Muslim world was never a single continuous entity in its history from Senegal in West Africa to Indonesia, from Yemen to Uzbekistan. So historically speaking my argument already has precedence.

No, but for quite a while it was one entity unified under a Khilafah, and even when the Abbasids broke into little pieces, many Muslims still considered those who ruled the remains of it in the Arab world to be the supreme leaders of the Islamic world (hence why people such as Ghaznavi called themselves Sultans rather than Khilifah's).

I disagree because this is an open public forum and not restricted to a certain type of people like soldiers or anyone serving in the military. We have a wide range of Pakistani membership. It is the best indicator because there is no other alternative as you even admitted.

The Pakistanis who use this forum are not your average Pakistanis, they are mostly people who are proud Pakistanis to the core, and as a result will obviously value Pakistan over their host country.

That's not how they worded it. I addressed the four common arguments i observed being made and that was one of them. If you don't believe it that's fine too.

I'm a little sceptical since I'm yet to see that, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[XDescendantX]

And what if the Pakistani spouse is abusive? Do you think Pakistan doesnt have assholes?

At least those a$$holes aren't doing suicide bombings like the Afghan refugees! At least those a$$holes aren't spreading hate propaganda like the present Afghan & Bangladesh puppet-governments!

Diversity doesn't work. The U.S. is a prime example of this. If the U.S. went bankrupt tomorrow, within a decade the 50 states would become, "the 50 countries."

Why should we allow more Afghans in? So when they grow in numbers, they can form an independent movement? It already happened to East Pakistan, they tried to do it in Balochistan, and you can bet when the Afghans get into government positions they will cry the Durand Line is illegal!

If anyone want's Pak-citizenship they must assimilate & mix-breed or gtfo!

 

[Dubious]

At least those a$$holes aren't doing suicide bombings like the Afghan refugees! At least those a$$holes aren't spreading hate propaganda like the present Afghan & Bangladesh puppet-governments!

So it is ok women get beaten and trapped with a psycho as long as that psycho isnt a terrorizing your insecure self but can terrorize her for life and she cant leave him coz fear of losing her self of belonging as well? Really how much more inhumane can you get? Your mentality seems to fall in the same category as the terrorist ...It ends at the same it is ok to terrorize as long as it is a Pakistani (for them as long as it is an Afghani) doing it?

Have you sought professional help for such kinds of thoughts that you seem to justify?

Diversity doesn't work. The U.S. is a prime example of this. If the U.S. went bankrupt tomorrow, within a decade the 50 states would become, "the 50 countries."

Diversity does work if you dont have blind hatred trying to split it! If DIVERSITY wasnt to work ONLY ARABS would be Muslims....And why diversify into South Asian Muslims? They arent Arabs

Why should we allow more Afghans in? So when they grow in numbers, they can form an independent movement? It already happened to East Pakistan, they tried to do it in Balochistan, and you can bet when the Afghans get into government positions they will cry the Durand Line is illegal!

Do you hear yourself, it is insecurity talking...WHEN you bag and tag them as citizens you can do something about them...When they are not your citizens you can just say the ghost is attacking you! When they are your citizens you own them, they need to respect the law or you can do away with them...When they are not your citizens they dont need to follow your laws...coz they are not your citizens...Like you dont need to follow Australian law while sitting in Pakistan! Nor do you need to follow indian law just coz they are your neighbours!

When they are your citizens you can regulate them...but if they arent your citizens you cant do nothing with them without appearing like a tyrant!

IF your law and order is in place...Since that is on the market to the highest bidder I understand your insecurities!

If anyone want's Pak-citizenship they must assimilate & mix-breed or gtfo!

That is cheap! Really cheap! Its like saying come sleep with my lady to get citizenship! WHY MAKE SUCH loopholes and that too using your women? Very low very low indeed!

And how sure are you mix breed are better? What proof do you have mix breed are better?

 

[baapu]

In light of the recent statement by IK of granting citizenship to illegal Bangladeshi migrants and Afghan refugees and the ensuing discussions and debates that took place (on this very forum included) one cannot help but notice that in the minds of many Pakistanis there is a vague and questionable idea of what it means to be a Nation, because what it means to be a Pakistani has not been defined properly. There are only vague definitions, mostly copy-pasted from Western Liberal conceptions of Nationhood and citizenship because apparently by simply being born on its soil one can become a Pakistani citizen if one so chooses, or another ludicrous example is that all it takes to qualify for being a Pakistani citizen is to be a Muslim because Pakistan was "founded on Islam", as if religion is the sole basis of Nationhood. The arguments presented in favor of this conception need to be addressed.

But first we must clarify what it means to be a Nation.

Nation Defined​

A Nation is not simply an aggregate of individuals living in the present. A Nation includes all of those who have passed away (its founders) and all of those who have yet to come. The former group, which includes heroes, martyrs, leaders, thinkers, men of culture (poets, writers etc.), etc., is the one which has contributed to the cultural, traditional and thus spiritual development of the Nation, its National consciousness, and thus its unique identity which bonds all members of the Nation together, giving it not only an understanding of its past but also an understanding of its destiny. All succeeding generations must not only cherish this heritage but must also contribute to it's growth and pass it down to those generations succeeding them.

In addition to the above, a Nation is forged through struggle in times of hardship, for it is these trials and tribulations which test the driving idea behind its inception, its unity, and should this Nation withstand and overcome the challenges facing it then it has proven its internal vitality, thus becoming worthy of the title, and out forth will come new heroes and positive role models for succeeding generations, in addition to the ones already known, and thus as a result further increase in cultural vitality and strengthening of the National consciousness of its members.

One can argue that Pakistan is currently comprised of various ethnic groups which are nations in themselves, which is true if one were to single out the individual ethnic groups and focus solely on that fact, however due to the thousands of years of coexistence in close proximity of each other and shared historical experiences, e.g. wars and conquests against a common enemy in the East, being descendants of the many original inhabitants of the Indus region, etc. the differences have been long since reconciled.

This is why, for example, when Pakistan gained its independence in 1947, during the First Kashmir war, Pashtun tribesmen volunteered to go and liberate Kashmir without hesitation or second thought, on the command of Quaid e Azam who was not even an ethnic Pashtun. There was no economic incentive for them to join Pakistan, which according to many wouldn't last long. This particular experience proved the loyalty of Pashtuns to the idea of Pakistan as a Nation for the Muslims of North Indian-Subcontinent and their willingness to commit to its further development.

Same is true for the original Muhajirs from territories in today's India, who left behind all property and familial relations and risked life and limb to make the journey which they were not guaranteed to survive, indeed which many did not survive. What motivated them was their belief not only in their religion but in the idea of a Pakistani Nationhood.

Anyone can immigrate in times of peace and claim citizenship. But it is hardship which is the true test of faith.

On the other hand, Bangladeshis did not identify with the idea of Pakistan and decided to opt out of the union because of their ethnic, geographic and cultural differences with the ethnic groups comprising modern Pakistan. However despite these differences they were lumped with Pakistan because of a misperceived notion that a shared religious faith was sufficient enough to qualify being included within this union and to hold it together. History proved this notion to be incorrect in 1971. Religion alone is not sufficient. Common historical origins, history, struggle, culture, traditions and a common goal etc. are just as important, if not more.

In Pakistan's case it's moments of truth were 1947 and 1971 when those who were devoted to the idea of Pakistan were distinguished from those who doubted it through the sacrifices they were willing to make, first towards its inception at a time when many doubted its existence and then later in 1971 when again it's founding idea was put to the test. It was during these two decisive moments that National unity triumphed over purely religious unity, particularly in 1971 when Bangla Muslims opted out of the union, viewing themselves as a distinct nation incompatible in a union with the Muslims of then West Pakistan.

In light of the above clarification of what a Nation is as holistically understood, let us now tackle the issue of citizenship and the arguments put forth by those favoring Imran Khan's position.

The Four Arguments Presented​

Below are the four arguments pertaining to citizenship presented by those in favor of IK's suggestion :


1. Jus Soli argument

First one is the Jus Soli argument (the magic soil theory, that if someone moves to, or is born on a particular parcel of dirt within a given country they magically begin to think and act like the people of that nation and become its loyal citizens, and this is all it takes to qualify for citizenship).

This law exists within Pakistan however as @Nilgiri pointed out it is only valid for those who enter the country legally.

However the obvious problem with this concept is that most people migrate to a given nation (legally or illegally) for economic purposes and not out of love for the cultural, historical or ethnic makeup of that particular Nation. An obvious example of this is people who migrate to Western countries. They don't migrate to the West to study the Magna Carta, or to write a scholarly dissertation on Thomas Jefferson's life. They move to the West for its material benefits. Now of course there might be a very small minority of people who might leave their down trodden village in a third world country to move to America or Britain purely to study the Magna Carta or write a scholarly dissertation on Thomas Jefferson's life, but these people are exceptions to the rule and the exception does not define the rule.

Loyalty to material interests does not translate to loyalty to a Nation. To test this theory just ask any Pakistani in the West that in the hypothetical event that their host country goes to war with Pakistan, who's side will they choose? Will they choose the host nation which provides them material comfort? Or will they choose the homeland in which their forefathers are burried and with which they have a historical, cultural and ethnic connection? For most of us the answer is obvious.

In the case of refugees they migrate to flee danger and seek personal safety, and not to become a part of their host nation out of any genuine interest in the historical forces involved in it's inception or love or admiration for its founding fathers, culture, etc...

Therefore based on the above observable reality Jus Soli is not a valid basis for qualifying for citizenship and should be discarded.


2. The Ummah/religion based argument

The second argument being made was one based on some vague humanist/Ummah sentiment that does not really exist in real life because of its naivety and impracticability, especially considering the well-known historical event pertaining to the creation of Bangladesh as a separate country through a bloody divorce with Pakistan, founded on Bangla Nationalism. If being Muslim alone qualified for being a citizen of Pakistan then Bangladesh would have never separated. But that it did separate goes to show the importance of ethnicity, culture, common history, traditions, etc... Therefore a Nigerian cannot become a Pakistani purely on the basis of his faith when his ethnic/racial, cultural and historical identity lies with Nigeria, just as Bangladeshis strongly identified with Bangla Nationalism and not united Pakistan or its various ethnic groups which historically, ethnically and culturally have more in common with each other than they do with a Bangladeshi or a Nigerian.


3. The "they have been here for three generations" argument:

"They have been here for three generations! Pakistan is the only country they ever knew. Surely by now they must be integrated within Pakistani society?"

They were in Bangladesh for hundreds of generations, yet that didn't stop them from leaving their homeland for economic incentives and coming to Pakistan AFTER 1971, (particularly in the 70's & 80's when Pakistan's economy was league's ahead of that of Bangladesh) whether to stay here or to go further abroad to the West. Three generations is supposed to make them loyal to Pakistan? The same Pakistan which the ethnic government of their motherland taught them raped and killed 3 million of their ethnic kinsmen?

The fact remains these people are Bangladeshis and arrived here for economic incentives, and as long as Bangladesh exists as a symbol of Bangla Nationalism, in the back of their minds they will always identify with Bangla Nationalism because that is their ethnic homeland (land of their heroes, poets, etc.), whereas Pakistanis will always be alien to them and remain the nation which oppressed their people.


4. When all else fails

The last and final argument was nothing but emotional blackmail: "since Pakistanis immigrate to the West and would not like it if the West began to deport and deny citizenships to Muslims & Pakistanis therefore we should shut up and continue to take in the spawns of Sheikh Hasina and Ashraf Ghani."

What other nations do with their internal immigration policy is not our concern. We should be making these important decisions based on what is in the best interest of the Pakistani Nation (Nation in the truest sense of the meaning, as defined above). The fact that this even needs to be explained shows why foreigners have taken our country for a ride for so long and are still doing so as we speak.

Revolutionary Conception of Citizen​

It is not enough to point out a problem if one cannot propose a solution or guide in that general direction at the least.

Of the four arguments presented by those in favor of IK's proposal, the Jus Soli argument was the strongest but its obvious flaws have been pointed out above and therefore it is not a viable option.

So logically one would assume that the only other alternative is the concept of Jus Sanguinis, citizenship conferred upon an individual based on the fact that either one or both parents are citizens of that particular state. However this concept too is flawed for the very reason that being born to parent(s) who are already citizens doesn't necessarily mean that one will be loyal to his/her Nation. As Pakistanis we know this better than anyone considering that we have no shortage of disloyal individuals in positions of power despite them being born within this nation to citizen parents.


Citizens, Subjects & Foreigners

In place of the above two conceptions, both of which are flawed in one way or another, we offer a radically different conception of the citizen based on a hierarchical order of the inhabitants of society into three categories: citizens, subjects and foreigners.

NOTE: As an important side note, this concept of citizen, subject and foreigner is not originally my own idea. I have gotten this from another source who's name i cannot remember at this moment. Within this essay i have added a few of my own modifications here and there to the original concept in my attempt to tailor it to the unique requirements of the Pakistani Nation.

The subject is anyone born to parents who are either subjects themselves or are citizens of the state.

The foreigner is anyone who is a subject or subject equivalent of a foreign state (tourists, foreign diplomats, dignitaries, etc.).

What differentiates the subject from the citizen is that the former does not possess the privilege of participating in major decision making processes on the political level nor can they hold any public office.

In order for a subject to transition to the status of a citizen they would have to go through several phases which includes an obligatory patriotic education teaching them the importance of their heritage and National identity along with virtues like honesty, commitment, persistence, discipline, in addition to the regular subjects like math, science, and language along with physical education pertaining to fitness and physical health. The subject of history should be a patriotic National history. World history should only be optional for those who wish to pursue further studies in this field.

For the male subject, the final phase to go through in order to obtain the status of citizen is voluntary military service. Because it is voluntary it will naturally weed out those who are truly committed to the well-being of the nation, and thus are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, from those who are not.

The military in this regard will play a very important role because unlike civilian institutions, especially of the Liberal type, a military will always be patriotic because by its nature it must be, otherwise it would be nothing but a glorified police organization (current German Bundeswehr is an example).

Unlike Democratic civilian institutions which are full of humanitarians and blind sentimentalists, the military cannot spare the resources of its own troops to armies of adversaries. Whereas a Democrat will welcome the very enemies of his nation into his arms, an officer of the military cannot open his barracks to enemy troops, if he does he is considered a traitor (need i mention the fate of traitors in all militaries?). The lines are drawn and the distinctions are made. A soldier thinks for the long term (necessary for formulating strategies and tactics) whereas a Democrat only thinks for the next election cycle.

The hard life of a soldier will further inculcate necessary virtues within the subject which are unique to the military 'culture'; discipline, loyalty, obedience to authority, importance of hierarchy, merit, individual initiative in service of ones unit etc. Without these no military worth its salt can exist.

Image courtesy of: Source​

Once the male subject has completed his voluntary military service he has now obtained the right of citizenship and can now return to civilian life.

For the female subject in order to transition to the status of a citizen she must get married and have at least one child with her husband with three being the maximum recommended limit. If the female subject happens to divorce her husband she loses her citizenship status. This is the case because women who are married and have at least one child think and make decisions for the long term because their children's well-being is intertwined with the Nations well-being since they now have a steak in it's future, whereas single women and single mothers vote differently. There are studies that indicate this and which can be searched on google.

The status of citizen comes with privileges but also obligations. The individual without honor or character, the common criminal, the traitor to the Nation, whether man or woman, will be deprived of their citizenship status and thus again becomes a subject.


Special Cases

But what of those who are born of a parent, either citizen or subject of the state, and a foreign national, say for example a Pakistani father and a Indian mother (or Pakistani mother and Indian father)? In that case such a person can never become a citizen of the state due to questionable loyalties, particularly within the Indo-Pak context, and the parent, should they be a citizen, will be deprived of their citizenship status. Such unions would be discouraged to begin with through the educational process as well as the phase of obtaining citizenship.

And what of those who are born of a parent, either citizen or subject of the state, and a foreign national not from the subcontinent, say for example a Nigerian? In that case too such a person can never become a citizen due to the identity issues that bi-racial persons experience which causes resentment towards those who have a coherent & mono-racial identity, and thus will not be able to make decisions in the interests of the Nation with whom they cannot relate with due to the incoherence of their own personal identity.


Quality Population over Quantity

So earlier i mentioned children being one of the pre-conditions for a female subject to qualify for the status of citizenship. I'm aware that currently there is an overpopulation crises in Pakistan and family planning is necessary. For this reason a quality population is preferred over a quantity population. Thus the maximum recommended limit for children will be three and not more which is enough to cover replacement levels for aging population while also maintaining a surplus young population to prevent an aging crises like the one faced by the Chinese as a result of their One Child policy. Also should a war break out a surplus young population is necessary.


Concluding Thoughts

Defining the concept of Nation and what it means to be the members (citizens) of this Nation is an issue of national importance and thus must be confronted with the best of interests at heart for the Nation and its future well-being. This is just my suggestion. Obviously theory on paper and theory in practice are two different things. Perhaps some things might need to be modified. I am open to productive criticism and counter suggestions.

@Psychic @Indus Pakistan @Taimur Khurram @Maarkhoor

​

This is the sort of thinking is how a Fascist country explains itself to the world.

 

[TMA]

This is the sort of thinking is how a Fascist country explains itself to the world.

In your opinion of course....

 

[XDescendantX]

Very low very low indeed!

Not as low as your IQ & understanding of how past history affects the future. You ignored all of my main points and indirectly answered my comments by changing the subject.

So it is ok women get beaten and trapped with a psycho as long as that psycho isnt a terrorizing your insecure self but can terrorize her for life and she cant leave him coz fear of losing her self of belonging as well? Really how much more inhumane can you get? Your mentality seems to fall in the same category as the terrorist ...It ends at the same it is ok to terrorize as long as it is a Pakistani (for them as long as it is an Afghani) doing it?

Have you sought professional help for such kinds of thoughts that you seem to justify?

Until an Afghan refugee terrorist blows up one of your loved ones you could never understand. Your mentality is in the same category as Native Americans when whites first came to their shores and we all know where that got them. Even professional help could never help someone with the same level of ignorance that you have developed.

Diversity does work if you dont have blind hatred trying to split it! If DIVERSITY wasnt to work ONLY ARABS would be Muslims....And why diversify into South Asian Muslims? They arent Arabs

You changed the subject again. I was talking about DIVERSITY "within" a country not in several other countries.

Do you hear yourself, it is insecurity talking...WHEN you bag and tag them as citizens you can do something about them...When they are not your citizens you can just say the ghost is attacking you! When they are your citizens you own them, they need to respect the law or you can do away with them...When they are not your citizens they dont need to follow your laws...coz they are not your citizens...Like you dont need to follow Australian law while sitting in Pakistan! Nor do you need to follow indian law just coz they are your neighbours!

When they are your citizens you can regulate them...but if they arent your citizens you cant do nothing with them without appearing like a tyrant!

IF your law and order is in place...Since that is on the market to the highest bidder I understand your insecurities!

Again you completely ignored the points I was making. I'll admit you did make some good points other than all the name calling directed towards me. But do you know the biggest advantage of all Pakistan has, as long as non-citizens don't have citizenship? If they act up we can kick them the fook out!

That is cheap! Really cheap! Its like saying come sleep with my lady to get citizenship! WHY MAKE SUCH loopholes and that too using your women? Very low very low indeed!

And how sure are you mix breed are better? What proof do you have mix breed are better?

Who said anything about them sleeping with our women? I was talking about their men & women getting MARRIED with Pakistanis and having kids. Then their mixed-kids will marry Pakistanis when they grow up. That way in two generations they'll be more Pakistani then Afghan/Bengali. So if they ever question their own loyalty they'll be like, "well i'm 2/3 Pakistan and 1/3 Afghan/Bengali so I guess I'm with Pakistan."

 

[Desert Fox]

If being from a certain country suddenly took on a particular meaning that somehow included Narendra Modi as being a Pakistani, then yes I'd be okay with that

So then you'd have no problem if Pakistan became majority Hindu for which you stated it separated from India in the first place?

"A Pakistani is anyone born in Pakistan"

Millions of Hindus can migrate to Pakistan and give birth to children who can thus become its citizens, and a Hindu doesn't necessarily have to be a Indian hindu.

so long as people don't mean it in the same sense as me or you being Pakistani

So NOW you want to define Pakistani beyond a piece of paper?

But you literally stated above that a piece of paper is enough to be a Pakistani based on being born in its soil.

You are inconsistent in your stance and continue to contradict yourself.

and let's be honest, this will never happen.

Why wouldn't it? Aren't you the one advocating simply being born on a soil as a precondition to becoming a Pakistani citizen?

so perhaps it's best to only consider Pakistanis as people with Pakistani citizenship.

But your Islamic scholars disagree with your concept of "citizenship". It is bida according to them.

The Pakistani identity is a simple one, Pakistanis are simply people who come from what is the Republic of Pakistan. That's exactly the same identity as any citizen of any other nation would have.

Republic? Citizen (by birthright)? But your Islamic "scholars" have decreed these as Bida (innovation). You are a salafi, right?

Shouldn't Ummah (one religion) be enough to be a "citizen" of Pakistan? That's what your scholars think.

Again, contradictory stances.

Agreed, I'm not saying the differences are insurmountable, but I am saying that they are larger than you may think.

But yet not enough to cause a repeat of 1971, which is my point. Do you agree or not?

Like I said, I wouldn't be okay with it, but I wouldn't resort to saying these people are not Pakistani (provided they actually were Pakistanis).

What's "actually"? Are you now saying that there is more to being a Pakistani than simply being born on its soil (which is what I have been saying)?

But didnt you say before that all one needed was a piece of paper saying they are a Pakistani as a result if being born in its soil?

Once again, you are being inconsistent.

Apples and oranges,

Nope. You are using the EXACT same argument that certain "scholars" used against Pakistan's formation; that it divided the Muslims of the subcontinent.

Pakistan separated from a majority non-Muslim land, not a majority Muslim one.

But why would that matter when you clearly stated that all it takes to be a Pakistani is to be born on its soil? Are you now implying that being a Muslim majority nation is now a precondition for Pakistani Nationhood?

Here again you are not consistent with your previous statements.

all we are obliged to do in Islam is obey the law of the land provided it doesn't contradict Islam (in the case that it does, you either leave or, if you can, try to establish your rights).

So what are you doing to abolish Pakistan's status as a Republic (un-Islamic according to your scholars), it's man made borders (also un-Islamic according to your scholars) and it's immigration laws (also un-Islamic according to your scholars)?

On the contrary you are advocating Liberal Western citizenship method while also posting about Islamic rulings on prohibiting man-made concepts.

Your stance is self-contradictory. It is like being Ataturk and Anjem Chaudhry in the same breath.

No, but for quite a while it was one entity unified under a Khilafah, and even when the Abbasids broke into little pieces, many Muslims still considered those who ruled the remains of it in the Arab world to be the supreme leaders of the Islamic world (hence why people such as Ghaznavi called themselves Sultans rather than Khilifah's).

This is historically false.

It is like saying "the pope is the spiritual leader of all Catholics, therefore Ireland and Mexico are one Nation because these people follow Catholicism".

Sure, they are spiritually adherents of the same religious faith, but they're not the same nation, otherwise Mexico would have declared itself a part of Ireland already.

Also, I can give you plenty of example where other Muslim sultanates waged war against Khalifa's and sometimes there were more than one Khalifa's at one time (like during Salahuddin' s (RA) time.

Never once in Islamic history did a single unified political entity exist from Senegal in West Africa to Indonesia, from Yemen to Uzbekistan. Prove me wrong.

This whole definitions game is a silly one, so perhaps it's best to only consider Pakistanis as people with Pakistani citizenship.

So NOW a fellow Ummah member cannot be a Pakistani without Pakistani citizenship?

Are you now contradicting your own Islamic scholars?

the individual should be able to choose which act they'd like to commit from a given selection, they should not be forced to commit a single particular act

I never mentioned anything about force. I take it that you did not read my post?

The Pakistanis who use this forum are not your average Pakistanis, they are mostly people who are proud Pakistanis to the core, and as a result will obviously value Pakistan over their host country.

How can you speak for people, unless you have mind reading powers?

I take it that you know your claim is not true therefore you are avoiding testing it.

I'm a little sceptical since I'm yet to see that, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

Tbqh you yourself are an example by advocating Ummah concept. I never advocated Ummah in my conversation with you, you did.

And based on your inconsistency and self-contradicting stances I take it that you don't actually have a position and you're just arguing for the sake of it.

This whole subject is expose of the root cause of Pakistan's problems. I know PM places corruption as No 1 cause of Pakistan's malaise but I place this simple identity issue [which is deeply informed by concept of nationhood] the numer uno problem in Pakistan. At the very basic foundational level it lacks logical or intellectual integrity and like a flawed blueprint it has wreaked havoc on Pakistan. After 70 years we are still rootless and lost. It is the cause behind why brand Pakistan has zero value in the world - indeed quite the opposite it is a minus value.

And the saddest part about it all is that some Pakistani just don't want us to get out if this predicament and to continue to fester in it.

How can we find our place among the Nations of the world if we cannot define who we are? We will remain confused and directionless.

Iran, Saudis, Turks, etc know their own National identities, but delusional people among us want Pakistanis to remain without one in the name of some vague belief in Ummah which they themselves cannot even define, let alone citizenship laws and what it means to be a Pakistani.

@Psychic @TMA

@django

 

[Hamza913]

Republic? Citizen (by birthright)? But your Islamic "scholars" have decreed these as Bida (innovation). You are a salafi, right?

Shouldn't Ummah (one religion) be enough to be a "citizen" of Pakistan? That's what your scholars think.

No, most Islamic scholars simply think that the existence of these nations is wrong and that all Muslims should be under one nation, and I don't disagree. I'm speaking about what we do until then.

But yet not enough to cause a repeat of 1971, which is my point. Do you agree or not?

Agreed, but 1971 wouldn't have happened if Hindustan wasn't stuck in the middle between us and Bangladesh. We would have kept ruling over them if this were not the case.

you are being inconsistent.

No I'm not, I clearly changed my stance to saying that in order to be Pakistani, you need Pakistani citizenship.

But why would that matter when you clearly stated that all it takes to be a Pakistani is to be born on its soil? Are you now implying that being a Muslim majority nation is now a precondition for Pakistani Nationhood?

Once again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. You mentioned that I was using the same argument as some so called Islamic scholars when speaking out against Pakistan's creation, but I clearly said that the argument doesn't work in this instance.

Your stance is self-contradictory. It is like being Ataturk and Anjem Chaudhry in the same breath.

No, you're just not able to understand it. Read it again, and this time thoroughly.

Prove me wrong.

I don't need to, that's not my point. Just because it never happened doesn't mean it shouldn't be a thing.

o NOW a fellow Ummah member cannot be a Pakistani without Pakistani citizenship?

Are you now contradicting your own Islamic scholars?

I don't think you understand what Islamic scholars say, please stop using them as part of your arguments because it just looks strange.

I never mentioned anything about force. I take it that you did not read my post?

You said that men had to mandatory military service if they expected to receive citizenship. You are forcing them to either commit a particular act or jog on.

I take it that you know your claim is not true therefore you are avoiding testing it.

No, I'm not testing it because this forum doesn't meet the requirements to give a fair test.

I take it that you don't actually have a position and you're just arguing for the sake of it.

My position is this, if you have Pakistani citizenship, you are a Pakistani, and all these nations Muslim countries have are only short term things and should be viewed as such. For the long term, we should be trying to establish one country for all Muslims to live under.

 

[Desert Fox]

1971 wouldn't have happened if Hindustan wasn't stuck in the middle

Which is what I stated when I said geographic differences. Again, shows you did not read my post before firing off.

I clearly changed my stance

Right, that's inconsistency.

You mentioned that I was using the same argument as some so called Islamic scholars when speaking out against Pakistan's creation, but I clearly said that the argument doesn't work in this instance.

So you get to decide when and where the Ummah argument works and where not?

Who are you to decide and why should I take you seriously?

Just because it never happened doesn't mean it shouldn't be a thing.

Sure, fairy tales have never happened either but doesn't mean they can't be a thing.

PS Communists believe in a Utopia too, FYI.

I don't think you understand what Islamic scholars say,

I don't think I understand what you are saying because you have no position.

You're going from being a secularist to an islamist.

What's next? Are you going to advocate a Hindu position too?

please stop using them as part of your arguments because it just looks strange.

You brought them into the conversation, so I'm pointing out your contradictions. Don't blame me for your contradictions.

You said that men had to mandatory military service

Nope, never sad anything about mandatory or force. Read my post again and thoroughly this time.

I'm not testing it because this forum doesn't meet the requirements to give a fair test.

Again, who are you to decide this? Did you conduct preliminary samples and arrive to this conclusion?

Only one post ago you claimed there is no other method to survey, so why are you afraid to do it on this forum?

My position is this, if you have Pakistani citizenship, you are a Pakistani, and all these nations Muslim countries have are only short term things and should be viewed as such. For the long term, we should be trying to establish one country for all Muslims to live under.

Okay, well then I wish you the best in your pursuits.

Meanwhile I will continue to offer practical real world solutions for real world problem, for which there already exists historical presedence.

I'm speaking about what we do until then.

So until then we should continue to advocate for secular concepts like giving Pakistani citizenship to non-Muslims simply because they're born on its soil?

And if we get enough non-Muslim citizens we will finally have an Islamic Ummah populated with kafirs? That's an interesting Ummah concept I've heard for the first time.

"A Pakistani is anyone born in Pakistan"

 

[Dubious]

Not as low as your IQ & understanding of how past history affects the future. You ignored all of my main points and indirectly answered my comments by changing the subject.

Getting personal? I think you dont even know the meaning of getting low...It is a phrase meaning getting dirty! But you went on to my IQ without even knowing me! That kind of shows ALOT about you and justifies what I wrote...That you are low...

Cant even be bothered to read the rest of the post...Low people dont deserve my time

 

[Desert Fox]

You ignored all of my main points and indirectly answered my comments by changing the subject.

Putting words in people's mouths is @Dubious 's specialty. Don't waste your time on her retarded rants.

 

[Dubious]

Putting words in people's mouths is @Dubious 's specialty. Don't waste your time on her retarded rants.

And being as low as possible seems like yours thank you for proving me right

 

[Hamza913]

Which is what I stated when I said geographic differences. Again, shows you did not read my post before firing off.

I read your post, I just assumed you were referring to something else when mentioning geographical differences and that it was not the factor you viewed with the most importance.

Right, that's inconsistency.

No, it would be inconsistent if I did not clearly state that I changed my stance.

So you get to decide when and where the Ummah argument works and where not?

No, if you actually understood the argument you'd know it doesn't apply in this case. It's hard to take you seriously if you cannot grasp such basic ideas.

Sure, fairy tales have never happened either but doesn't mean they can't be a thing.

PS Communists believe in a Utopia too, FYI.

If you want to argue why Muslims should be not be unified under one nation, be my guest, but that's a separate topic entirely and from an Islamic perspective, your view has no basis.

don't think I understand what you are saying

No, it's clearly you who doesn't understand.

I'm pointing out your contradictions.

No, you're pointing out what you THINK are contradictions because you don't understand what I've written.

Nope, never sad anything about mandatory

Yes you did:

For the male subject, the final phase to go through in order to obtain the status of citizen is voluntary military service. Because it is voluntary it will naturally weed out those who are truly committed to the well-being of the nation, and thus are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, from those who are not.

You did not mention another way for foreigners to become citizens of Pakistan, so yes, you have made it mandatory.

so why are you afraid to do it on this forum

I'm not afraid, I just recognise it as a waste of time.

Meanwhile I will continue to offer practical real world solutions for real world problem, for which there already exists historical presedence.

I could literally say the exact same thing about creating a unified Muslim nation.

So until then we should continue to advocate for secular concepts like giving Pakistani citizenship to non-Muslims simply because they're born on its soil?

And if we get enough non-Muslim citizens we will finally have an Islamic Ummah populated with kafirs? That's an interesting Ummah concept I've heard for the first time.

"A Pakistani is anyone born in Pakistan"

Stop acting as if my previous stance is the same as my current one, my current stance is anyone with Pakistani citizenship is a Pakistani.