What's new

Pakistan, Turkey friendship rooted in history: Ayaz

No I sound like the voice which exposes west and their pets in here in Muslim world the liberals who are only good at two things one is backstabbing second is lying

Pets of the West ?? You mean those Mullahs (and their followers) who have taken Dollars from the west for waging Jihad in Afghanistan and elsewhere ?? ... Backstabbing?? .... you mean those Mullahs (and their followers) who take money from the US, India, Israel etc. to wage war against the State of Pakistan ? .... Lying ? Well, Mullahs are known liars and hypocrites


... لعنت اللہ الا لکازبین المنافقین
 
.
Pets of the West ?? You mean those Mullahs (and their followers) who have taken Dollars from the west for waging Jihad in Afghanistan and elsewhere ?? ... Backstabbing?? .... you mean those Mullahs (and their followers) who take money from the US, India, Israel etc. to wage war against the State of Pakistan ? .... Lying ? Well, Mullahs are known liars and hypocrites


... لعنت اللہ الا لکازبین المنافقین
It's liberals who are on payroll of west not Mullahs. We all know from where these traitor liberals and their NGOs are getting money from daddy USA and Europe and some from India
 
.
.
.
Yes this Lanat goes on all those liberals and traitors and puppets of west who take funds from USA and Europe and talk crap against Islam and Pakistan. But don't worry soon operation Zarbe Azb will be extended to these liberal traitors and their masters

Yes, that Lanat goes on all Liars and Hypocrites, esp. the Deen Farosh Mullahs and their followers

... لعنت اللہ الا لکازبین المنافقین
---------------


Operation Zarb e Azb is against your ilk

And hopefully it will be extended to the Keyboard Jihadis soon.

Till then, you can keep posting .....
 
Last edited:
.
Yes, that Lanat goes on all Liars and Hypocrites, esp. the Deen Farosh Mullahs and their followers

... لعنت اللہ الا لکازبین المنافقین
---------------


Operation Zarb e Azb is against your ilk

And hopefully it will be extended to the Keyboard Jihadis soon.

Till then, you can keep posting .....
Operation Zarb e Azb is against all enemies of Islam and Pakistan started from TTP and now BLA and MQM and after that western paid liberals and pervaizis will be taken to task
 
.
It's liberals who are on payroll of west not Mullahs. We all know from where these traitor liberals and their NGOs are getting money from daddy USA and Europe and some from India

given the damage some of the mullahs have done to the Islamic world i wonder if some of them were paid CIA agents. i sometimes wonder the same about socialists in India.
 
.
Maududi's first demand (Feb 1948):

The sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.

First clause of Objectives Resolution (March 1949):


Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.




Mere coincidence ?? I don't think so. Many, including the ex-deputy speaker of Sindh Assembly, had concluded (after researching the topic) that Maulana Maududi was the actual author of Objectives Resolution. And you are unwilling to accept that the author(s) of The Objectives Resolution were influenced by Maulana Maududi ??


Still don't believe it ? Here is what Jamat e Islami website has to say:

... It was due to the efforts of Maulana Maududi and his Jamaat that the Objectives Resolution was passed on March 12, 1949..

http://punjabjamaat.org.pk/about-maududi/


Shabir Ahmed Usmani and Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, quite understandably, were the main proponents of the resolution in the constituent assembly.

However, One may wonder why did a non-practicing Muslim like Liaquat Ali Khan (who had a remarkable ability to consume alcoholic drinks without losing sobriety) support such a resolution ? .. Perhaps for political reasons .... Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the man who declared Islam as the state religion of Pakistan in 1973 and banned alcohol, too was a sharaabi ... Maybe Mullahs are not the only hypocrites around

As for the other names you have mentioned, Begum Shaista Ikramullah was one saner voice among them who, in deed, spoiled the party.... She said:

“What exactly have we achieved? I do not think that for a State where the majority of the population is Muslim, it is such a tremendous achievement to have declared that the sovereignty of this universe belongs to God alone… I do not think mere declaration of it is such a great achievement justifies and orgy of praise we have been giving to ourselves.”





What matters is Maududi opposed Jinnah and Pakistan movement. We are not interested in knowing the reasons behind his opposition. And we don't have any problem with his opposition either. But we do have problem with his hypocrisy ... He quickly became the protector of ideology of the country whose creation he had unsuccessfully opposed, and whose creation was described as "Birth of the Beast" by him ..





Before Leading him to the gallows ?? Maududi was sentenced to death in 1953 (but he was released later), Ayub Khan became the President of Pakistan in 1958 and his book was first published in 1967 ... What are you on about ?

As far as "American Friends" are concerned, let me remind you that it's Maududi and his Jamat who are criticized for Dollar Jihad ...





He left because he knew there was no hope.

Even Jinnah himself had lost hope. He told Dr. Bash in Aug 1948: "I wanted to live. Now, However it does not matter whether I live", he had tears in eyes. He died like a helpless refugee in a broken down Ambulance a few weeks later.

Maududi's first demand (Feb 1948):

The sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.

First clause of Objectives Resolution (March 1949):


Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.




Mere coincidence ?? I don't think so. Many, including the ex-deputy speaker of Sindh Assembly, had concluded (after researching the topic) that Maulana Maududi was the actual author of Objectives Resolution. And you are unwilling to accept that the author(s) of The Objectives Resolution were influenced by Maulana Maududi ??

The statement above from Maududi, wasnt really anything new nor it was something he pulled up from himself . In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content on vesting sovereignty more or less the same words .
Hell, even the christian states had similar constitutions where they used to vest sovereignty in God and Prince or the King.
Probably such a statement is pretty alien for you therefore you ruled out it to be a conicedence. Its not even about coincidence its more about one of JInnahs speeches where he makes Medina state a model for Pakistan to follow and it was the document of misaq-e-madina which has way more similarities with the objective resolution than the Maududi-connection you tried to exibit.
Please read this.
http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/12/quaid-e-azam-ma-jinnahs-vision-of.html

From Misaq-madina
When you differ on anything the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).


He had also been referring to "Misaq-e-Madina" in this connection in
order to reinforce his commitment. Prof Sharif ul Mujahid has rightly
observed that Jinnah's "national framework, comprising both Muslims
and non-Muslims as equal citizens of a political unit, has a hallowed
Islamic precedent," because Misaq-e-Madina (622/23), described as the
first written constitution of the world by Dr Hamidullah, accorded
equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens
of the state. The Quaid had exactly the same principle in mind which
has been mis-interpreted as secularism by some writers. "Equality in
terms of rights, privileges and responsibilities in a polity is today
considered a secular value but long before this principle was
discovered as a secular value, it was enshrined as an Islamic value in
the Misaq and that by the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) himself."
http://www.nihcr.edu.pk/Latest_English_Journal/pjhc 35-1, (2014) Final 22.6.15/1 Jinnah final, Dr safdar.pdf


Further into the "Misaq" document, it says: "No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help."

Now you are telling me JInnah got influenced by Maududi .Why would he? why not by Mesaq-e-Madina.. as already proven above.


Still don't believe it ? Here is what Jamat e Islami website has to say:

... It was due to the efforts of Maulana Maududi and his Jamaat that the Objectives Resolution was passed on March 12, 1949..

http://punjabjamaat.org.pk/about-maududi/

Sir i want to tell you that JUI makes similar claims, and so do the barelvies ..They are in competition taking the credit for Objective resolution to become the so-called flag bearer of Islam in the country..Did Maududi ever say this himself? or is it just his fanboys claiming this trophee?
Until there is 'substantive proof' of Maududis involvement your argument stays flawed.Even if Jinnah promised JUI/JI/Barelvis something how does it mean Jinnah was ;influenced by them and not Misaq-e-Madina.

Shabir Ahmed Usmani and Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, quite understandably, were the main proponents of the resolution in the constituent assembly.

However, One may wonder why did a non-practicing Muslim like Liaquat Ali Khan (who had a remarkable ability to consume alcoholic drinks without losing sobriety) support such a resolution ? .. Perhaps for political reasons .... Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the man who declared Islam as the state religion of Pakistan in 1973 and banned alcohol, too was a sharaabi ... Maybe Mullahs are not the only hypocrites around

As for the other names you have mentioned, Begum Shaista Ikramullah was one saner voice among them who, in deed, spoiled the party.... She said:

Deaar it doesnt really matter whether LIaquat Ali khan was a sharabi or what his partners were doing in their private rooms.Can you really judge my personal life considering im here defending the objective resolution document?
And frankly it doesnt even matter who really influenced them because they themselves are solely responsible for the action of passing the resolution for your original argument .Did anyone take name Maududi and his role while passing the resolution?Nop.

What matters is Maududi opposed Jinnah and Pakistan movement. We are not interested in knowing the reasons behind his opposition. And we don't have any problem with his opposition either. But we do have problem with his hypocrisy ... He quickly became the protector of ideology of the country whose creation he had unsuccessfully opposed, and whose creation was described as "Birth of the Beast" by him ..


What matters to me is you havent been able to prove a single thing about Maududi "influencing" the Objective resolution. All you presented so far are half baked theories and they are all connected to maududi and not jinnah or the constituent assembly. See the disconnect?

Before Leading him to the gallows ?? Maududi was sentenced to death in 1953 (but he was released later), Ayub Khan became the President of Pakistan in 1958 and his book was first published in 1967 ... What are you on about ?

As far as "American Friends" are concerned, let me remind you that it's Maududi and his Jamat who are criticized for Dollar Jihad ...


Dude he was sent to jail again in 64 and 67 ,kindly do some research before hitting me and the instance im referring to was the point where he was put next to a noose and asked to give up on his demands on ayubs constitution.
Im not sure how you consider me defending maududi here. The only thing im defending here is Pakistan and Jinnah.

"I wanted to live. Now, However it does not matter whether I live", he had tears in eyes. He died like a helpless refugee in a broken down Ambulance a few weeks later.
I see where does it say he was upset on the the new constution? My advise for you is to stop carving every quote to serve your purpose. There can be a deeper and more personal thing behind it.Also I saw you using quotes from different people about Jinnah to justify your point.Kindly always prefer direct quote and rational relativity over word of mouth.Like there are quotes that might make you believe that the word "Pakistan" was borrowed from some far off no mans land in Uzbekistan..
















.
 
Last edited:
.
if have no logic then dont keep carry on posting on and on ..i really respect some of indian posters in this forum because they make logic when they post .. but some ....

Seriously, you are not making any sense! Perhaps if you could be clearer?
 
.
given the damage some of the mullahs have done to the Islamic world i wonder if some of them were paid CIA agents. i sometimes wonder the same about socialists in India.

If you have the time please watch these documentaries and videos, it would be an insightful experience.


 
.
The statement above from Maududi, wasnt really anything new nor it was something he pulled up from himself . In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content on vesting sovereignty more or less the same words .
Hell, even the christian states had similar constitutions where they used to vest sovereignty in God and Prince or the King.
Probably such a statement is pretty alien for you therefore you ruled out it to be a conicedence. Its not even about coincidence its more about one of JInnahs speeches where he makes Medina state a model for Pakistan to follow and it was the document of misaq-e-madina which has way more similarities with the objective resolution than the Maududi-connection you tried to exibit.
Please read this.
http://www.riazhaq.com/2013/12/quaid-e-azam-ma-jinnahs-vision-of.html

From Misaq-madina
When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).


He had also been referring to "Misaq-e-Madina" in this connection in
order to reinforce his commitment. Prof Sharif ul Mujahid has rightly
observed that Jinnah's "national framework, comprising both Muslims
and non-Muslims as equal citizens of a political unit, has a hallowed
Islamic precedent," because Misaq-e-Madina (622/23), described as the
first written constitution of the world by Dr Hamidullah, accorded
equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens
of the state. The Quaid had exactly the same principle in mind which
has been mis-interpreted as secularism by some writers. "Equality in
terms of rights, privileges and responsibilities in a polity is today
considered a secular value but long before this principle was
discovered as a secular value, it was enshrined as an Islamic value in
the Misaq and that by the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) himself."
http://www.nihcr.edu.pk/Latest_English_Journal/pjhc 35-1, (2014) Final 22.6.15/1 Jinnah final, Dr safdar.pdf


Further into the "Misaq" document, it says: "No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help."

Now you are telling me JInnah got influenced by Maududi .Why would he? why not by Mesaq-e-Madina.. as already proven above.



It was not a random statement by Maududi, it was a demand put forward by him. The government conceded to his demand.

As for your claim that In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content, I would ask you to quote a few examples here.


And as for Misaq e Medina, you have copy/pasted stuff from someone's blog without realizing that Misaq e Medina was probably the first ever constitution/covenant describing a pluralistic society. It described Muslims, Jews and Non Muslims living in Medina as a single Ummah. It granted freedom of religion to all. This Islamic-Secular and Pluralistic covenant/doctrine is an antithesis to Maududi's political theory which demanded a second-class citizen (dhimmi) status for Pakistani Non Muslims..


And that is exactly what I had said in my posts (#101, #175 and then in #179). That's why I had been asking you to read carefully what had been posted on the thread alteady. Anyway, thanks for proving me right .... In your post (#183) you said "... you say Pakistan was not about Western secularism but it's own version of secularism.. seems you are confused on this one." .. Now read what you yourself have posted/pasted here (#233)... Hope that clears up YOUR confusion




misaq-e-madina has way more similarities with the objective resolution than the Maududi-connection you tried to exibit.

Wrong again .... I suggest you read both documents.


Misaq e Medina did not mention that Sovereignty over the entire universe belonged to Allah alone. It accorded equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens of the state.

The Objectives Resolution, on the other hand, attempted to establish nationhood in Pakistan through religious conformity. This meant that the laws and regulations would be framed in accordance with Islam, exposing the vulnerable communities of the new state to religious exploitation. It did not accord equal rights to all. It was inline with Maududi's political theory, and it completely ignored Jinnah's Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind ..




Deaar it doesnt really matter whether LIaquat Ali khan was a sharabi or what his partners were doing in their private rooms.Can you really judge my personal life considering im here defending the objective resolution document?


Yes, it DOES matter. Whatever anyone does in his private life is no one else's concern, but when a politician enacts Islamic laws in a country for political reasons only when there is nothing Islamic about him or his lifestyle, it does make him a hypocrite. We don't have a problem with Islam, "Prostitution of Islam to meet political ends" is something else


What matters to me is you havent been able to prove a single thing about Maududi "influencing" the Objective resolution. All you presented so far are half baked theories and they are all connected to maududi and not jinnah or the constituent assembly. See the disconnect?


I have posted enough on this topic already. And it's there for everyone to see. So, let's leave it to the readers to decide. No point in going round in circles now.


Dude he was sent to jail again in 64 and 67 ,kindly do some research before hitting me and the instance im referring to was the point where he was put next to a noose and asked to give up on his demands on ayubs constitution.


You should have been more clear then. You said "before sending him to gallows" and AFAIK, he was sentenced to death (later commuted) in 1953 only. Correct me if I am wrong.





I see where does it say he was upset on the the new constution? My advise for you is to stop carving every quote to serve your purpose. ...... Also I saw you using quotes from different people about Jinnah to justify your point.


And when did I say he was upset on the new constitution ?? (which was enacted 8 years after his death anyway)

Jinnah had lost hope towards the end of his life. I quoted his doctor and his official biographer.

My advice for you is to carefully read/follow the discussion before quoting/replying.

Thank You
 
Last edited:
. . .
It was not a random statement by Maududi, it was a demand put forward by him. The government conceded to his demand.

As for your claim that In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content, I would ask you to quote a few examples here.


And as for Misaq e Medina, you have copy/pasted stuff from someone's blog without realizing that Misaq e Medina was probably the first ever constitution/covenant describing a pluralistic society. It described Muslims, Jews and Non Muslims living in Medina as a single Ummah. It granted freedom of religion to all. This Islamic-Secular and Pluralistic covenant/doctrine is an antithesis to Maududi's political theory which demanded a second-class citizen (dhimmi) status for Pakistani Non Muslims..


And that is exactly what I had said in my posts (#101, #175 and then in #179). That's why I had been asking you to read carefully what had been posted on the thread alteady. Anyway, thanks for proving me right .... In your post (#183) you said "... you say Pakistan was not about Western secularism but it's own version of secularism.. seems you are confused on this one." .. Now read what you yourself have posted/pasted here (#233)... Hope that clears up YOUR confusion






Wrong again .... I suggest you read both documents.


Misaq e Medina did not mention that Sovereignty over the entire universe belonged to Allah alone. It accorded equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens of the state.

The Objectives Resolution, on the other hand, attempted to establish nationhood in Pakistan through religious conformity. This meant that the laws and regulations would be framed in accordance with Islam, exposing the vulnerable communities of the new state to religious exploitation. It did not accord equal rights to all. It was inline with Maududi's political theory, and it completely ignored Jinnah's Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind ..







Yes, it DOES matter. Whatever anyone does in his private life is no one else's concern, but when a politician enacts Islamic laws in a country for political reasons only when there is nothing Islamic about him or his lifestyle, it does make him a hypocrite. We don't have a problem with Islam, "Prostitution of Islam to meet political ends" is something else





I have posted enough on this topic already. And it's there for everyone to see. So, let's leave it to the readers to decide. No point in going round in circles now.





You should have been more clear then. You said "before sending him to gallows" and AFAIK, he was sentenced to death (later commuted) in 1953 only. Correct me if I am wrong.








And when did I say he was upset on the new constitution ?? (which was enacted 8 years after his death anyway)

Jinnah had lost hope towards the end of his life. I quoted his doctor and his official biographer.

My advice for you is to carefully read/follow the discussion before quoting/replying.

Thank You


As for your claim that In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content, I would ask you to quote a few examples here.

A sovereign power has 'absolute' sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control.
Prior to written constitutionalism, it was Islamic law/Quran which had historically existed as a kind of natural, higher law “constitution” that constrained and limited temporal authority (of caliph) in different times of Muslim world esp. during Ummayads an Abbasids time , when they were bound to consult Quran in case of a conflict So they themselves were never absolutely sovereign but it was the shariah law that could supersede all the secondary legislation for governance.
For muslim world the debate was always between divine sovereignty (aristocracy to west)and the kings sovereignty. The peoples sovereignty was only discussed much later after 'the renaissance' yet the the first modern time written constitution of Muslim world in 1876 ignored the popular sovereignty on the apex.Throughout the Ottoman empire the overriding law of the empire was the Shariia which as the divine law of Islam and was outside of the Sultan's powers to change so the islamic law always had the supremacy in their case call it absolute sovereignty of Allah or Islam or Quran/Shariia they are all in essence the same thing.

Misaq e Medina did not mention that Sovereignty over the entire universe belonged to Allah alone. It accorded equal rights to all, including religious minorities, as equal citizens of the state.

And similarly i quoted in my last post about misaq-e-madina where it asks the ruler to consult quran and hadith in matters of conflict and i had put that in bold but i guess you missed that.BTW I have not just merely copy/pasted, i have give a reference as well.
The Objectives Resolution, on the other hand, attempted to establish nationhood in Pakistan through religious conformity. This meant that the laws and regulations would be framed in accordance with Islam, exposing the vulnerable communities of the new state to religious exploitation. It did not accord equal rights to all. It was inline with Maududi's political theory, and it completely ignored Jinnah's Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind ..
Correction..Laws and regulations against Islam wont be enacted for legislature.
-.Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed. They include equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality. (Muslim/ Non Muslim alike)
-Adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes.
-Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely progress and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
Jinnah's Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind.


Your "claim" that Objective Resolution reiterates what Maududi asked for.
Perhaps you missed that Muadudi asked for complete sovereignty of Pakistan (only) to be vested in Allah.
Whereas the Objective Resolution very cleverly puts it as "absolute soverignty over the entire universe", ofcourse they could have put it as " whole world " instead but they didnt want to make it sound like we were born to conquer the world. Maududi thought otherwise ofcourse.
Also thats not the only thing Muadudi asked to include.There were three other points.

1.
That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in Allah Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign‟s Will.
2.
That Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.
3.
That all existing or future legislation contravene, whether in letter or in spirit the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of constitution.
4.
That the power of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of Islamic Sariaih alone

May i ask if Maududi was really a darling why the other three points werent added to the Objective resolution?


And that is exactly what I had said in my posts (#101, #175 and then in #179). That's why I had been asking you to read carefully what had been posted on the thread alteady. Anyway, thanks for proving me right .... In your post (#183) you said "... you say Pakistan was not about Western secularism but it's own version of secularism.. seems you are confused on this one." .. Now read what you yourself have posted/pasted here (#233)... Hope that clears up YOUR confusion

Proving you right? how? you have been advocating the western notion of secularism( zero interference of religion in state ) and not exactly the absence of clergy in decision making.
While those discussing it back then in the assembly had an idea there would be confused minds that need to understand that a particular aspect of secularism is being adopted .
Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi further while debating the resolution in Assembly: Since Islam admits of no priest craft, and since the dictionary meaning of the term "secular" is non-monastic -- that is, "anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests,"Islamic democracy, far from being theocracy, could in a sense be characterized as being"secular." However, he believed that if the word "secular" means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then, I am afraid,...that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan."
Yes, it DOES matter. Whatever anyone does in his private life is no one else's concern, but when a politician enacts Islamic laws in a country for political reasons only when there is nothing Islamic about him or his lifestyle, it does make him a hypocrite. We don't have a problem with Islam, "Prostitution of Islam to meet political ends" is something else
Well thats your conclusion for Liaquat Ali Khan or others with him that they were not following Religion.Maybe God forgives his sins for some other good deed you dont even know about. How exactly will you conclude they are momineen enough to pass a resolution Islamic in nature? this shouldnt even be debated considering we dont really know the degree of truth in it.
Liaquat Ali Khan while debating in assembly: "the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission (and that) the other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind."
"Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remindthe house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings onthis matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation inunmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today.

@ Topic
Pakistan-Turkey relationship was there way before the first world war.
For those interested please read this resource.
https://www.academia.edu/6380410/Ottoman-Mughal_Political_Relations_circa_1500-1923
 
.
A sovereign power has 'absolute' sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control.
Prior to written constitutionalism, it was Islamic law/Quran which had historically existed as a kind of natural, higher law “constitution” that constrained and limited temporal authority (of caliph) in different times of Muslim world esp. during Ummayads an Abbasids time , when they were bound to consult Quran in case of a conflict So they themselves were never absolutely sovereign but it was the shariah law that could supersede all the secondary legislation for governance.
For muslim world the debate was always between divine sovereignty (aristocracy to west)and the kings sovereignty. The peoples sovereignty was only discussed much later after 'the renaissance' yet the the first modern time written constitution of Muslim world in 1876 ignored the popular sovereignty on the apex.Throughout the Ottoman empire the overriding law of the empire was the Shariia which as the divine law of Islam and was outside of the Sultan's powers to change so the islamic law always had the supremacy in their case call it absolute sovereignty of Allah or Islam or Quran/Shariia they are all in essence the same thing.

You made a claim that "In last 1400 years every Muslim kingdom, khilaafat /malukiat had constitutions with similar content", I asked you to quote a few examples here, and you have failed to provide any .... Beating around the bush now ??




And similarly i quoted in my last post about misaq-e-madina where it asks the ruler to consult quran and hadith in matters of conflict and i had put that in bold but i guess you missed that.

I didn't miss anything. I only pointed it out to you that Misaq e Madina, unlike the Objectives Resolution, did not mention that Sovereignty over the entire Universe belonged to Allah alone...

And nowhere does it mention "Hadith" as a source of Law ... Who are you trying to deceive here ?




Correction..Laws and regulations against Islam wont be enacted for legislature.
-.Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed. They include equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality. (Muslim/ Non Muslim alike)
-Adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes.
-Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely progress and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
Jinnah's Islamic Ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind.


Your "claim" that Objective Resolution reiterates what Maududi asked for.
Perhaps you missed that Muadudi asked for complete sovereignty of Pakistan (only) to be vested in Allah.
Whereas the Objective Resolution very cleverly puts it as "absolute soverignty over the entire universe", ofcourse they could have put it as " whole world " instead but they didnt want to make it sound like we were born to conquer the world. Maududi thought otherwise ofcourse.
Also thats not the only thing Muadudi asked to include.There were three other points.



1.
That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in Allah Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign‟s Will.
2.
That Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.
3.
That all existing or future legislation contravene, whether in letter or in spirit the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of constitution.
4.
That the power of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of Islamic Sariaih alone

May i ask if Maududi was really a darling why the other three points werent added to the Objective resolution?


Let me repeat myself:

I have posted enough on this topic already. And it's there for everyone to see. So, let's leave it to the readers to decide. No point in going round in circles now.


And The Objectives Resolution was not a constitution, it was a "resolution" passed by the Constituent Assembly. It contained those objectives on which the future constitution was to be based... Unfortunately, Maududi was alive when the subsequent constitution(s) were enacted in the country. I suggest you read those constitutions (and amendments) carefully to understand that how is it "Maududi's Islamic Pakistan" (and not Jinnah's Pakistan)





Proving you right? how? you have been advocating the western notion of secularism


You don't have to resort to lying to prove your point. What I have been advocating is there for everyone to see.

Here is what I wrote in my previous post (that you deliberately ignored):

And that is exactly what I had said in my posts (#101, #175 and then in #179). That's why I had been asking you to read carefully what had been posted on the thread alteady. Anyway, thanks for proving me right .... In your post (#183) you said "... you say Pakistan was not about Western secularism but it's own version of secularism.. seems you are confused on this one." .. Now read what you yourself have posted/pasted here (#233)... Hope that clears up YOUR confusion




In fact, I have discussed this before with those posters here who are far more mature and knowledgeable on this subject than you, and who possess a level of erudition about the birth and development of Pakistan You can't hope to match . And even they had failed to "refute" my position ... You are just a beginner .. Here is one such post (from 2014) where I referred to Misaq e Medina as the basis of Jinnah's Islamic-Secular Pakistan:

https://defence.pk/threads/best-way-to-implement-sharia-in-pakistan.321881/page-29#post-5879009

And here is another one (from 2014):

Now Anyone with a little knowledge of Islamic history would not agree with Jinnah . Never in Islamic history, minorities (Non Muslims) had equal rights with the majority (Muslims) ... But the fact is that there is a little window ... and that is "Misaaq e Madina" .. !! There was a time when Muslims and Non Muslims were one nation (Ummah) with equal rights for everyone , in Medina , during the lifetime of prophet (pbuh) ... And any "Ijtehad" that legitimizes "secularism" (once again) is acceptable to Iqbal ... that is why he says about secularism "No doubt , the religio-political structure in Islam does permit such a view" .. !! and that is what he preaches "return to the original simplicity and universality of Islam" .... The biggest hurdle in this path of "return" (or "renaissance" more properly ) is the static shariah law derived from sources other than Quran ...

https://defence.pk/threads/best-way-to-implement-sharia-in-pakistan.321881/page-33#post-5900325


Adios ...
 
Last edited:
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom