Religious scholars vows to resist liberalisation of pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its you who is a traitor, constitutionally speaking you are supposed to bow your head to Allah almighty, not Army-generals

"Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;....."

'Constitutionally speaking' the authority is exercised by the people of Pakistan, as in by elected representatives elected by the people of Pakistan as called for in the constitution.
The constitution of Pakistan itself makes this argument, which means it is Pakistan and her constitution that comes first, not your extremist religious interpretations.

You can't quote the constitution of Pakistan without recognising that loyalty to that constitution, and therefore to Pakidtan, comes above all else.

Refrain from Army-parasti, dont compare status of Police, Army, Railways, WAPDA etc with status of Allah and his Rasool

Refrain from introducing Allah and his Rasool into the government and forcing your religious views on others and complete violation of Allah's command.

@AgNoStiC MuSliM Now do you see why the Objectives Resolution is the true root of the problem?

No, because these people don't believe in the constitution or the parliamentary democracy it has created . How else do you think they plan on achieving a 'peaceful change of power into the hands of Mullahs'?

The constitution is merely just another thing for religious extremists to distort and misinterpret like the Quran, and if the Quran isn't safe from these degenerates, the constitution stands no chance, regardless of whether the OR is part of it or not.

 

[Samandri]

'Constitutionally speaking' the authority is exercised by the people of Pakistan, as in by elected representatives elected by the people of Pakistan as called for in the constitution.
The constitution of Pakistan itself makes this argument, which means it is Pakistan and her constitution that comes first, not your extremist religious interpretations.

The Constitution of Pakistan says that sovereignty belongs to Allah, not WAPDA, Police, Army, cricket board, Municipal committee........


Refrain from Kufr.

 

[Desert Fox]

Pakistan was founded on the basis that the MUSLIMS of India could live without the fear of the Hindu majority of the subcontinent imposing it's cultural and political will upon the Muslims.

Otherwise, what was the purpose of Pakistan’s creation if not for Islam and Muslims?? Pakistan certainly wasn't created in the name of liberalism, atheism, or western secularism.

 

[Winchester]

All this because our bholay badshah nihari eating businessman Prime Minister talked about liberalizing the economy

@Azad-Kashmiri

Who are these Ulema Karams that you keep referring to and who in your view are capable of running the country???

Name 5 of them....

You can't just away with that bold statement without at least providing the background of these individuals

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Constitution of Pakistan says that sovereignty belongs to Allah, not WAPDA, Police, Army, cricket board, Municipal committee........


Refrain from Kufr.

The constitution makes that declaration, therefore the constitution is Supreme, which means that when it comes to a Pakistani citizens loyalty, Pakistan is supreme.

Refrain from treason, extremism and terrorism. If you dont hold loyalty to Pakistan and her constitution supreme, feel free to travel to Syria & Iraq and die with your fellow ISIS dogs.

Pakistan was founded on the basis that the MUSLIMS of India could live without the fear of the Hindu majority of the subcontinent imposing it's cultural and political will upon the Muslims.

Otherwise, what was the purpose of Pakistan’s creation if not for Islam and Muslims?? Pakistan certainly wasn't created in the name of liberalism, atheism, or western secularism.

A country formed for Muslims to govern themselves is not the same thing as a Theocratic Islamic State run by Mullahs or the perverted and distorted views of Mullahs.

In other words, a Nation for, of and by Muslims is not the same thing as an Islamic State.

 

[Samandri]

The constitution makes that declaration, therefore the constitution is Supreme, which means that when it comes to a Pakistani citizens loyalty, Pakistan is supreme.

Refrain from treason, extremism and terrorism. If you dont hold loyalty to Pakistan and her constitution supreme, feel free to travel to Syria & Iraq and die with your fellow ISIS dogs.

ISIS are Khwarij. It is very clear that the very word "Allah and his Rasool" irritates you, its useless to argue with a bigot like you.

 

[Hyperion]

What they're actually saying is, don't take away the right of Allah-u-Akbar and bombing the innocents away from them. Disease of Saudization will take at least three more generations to get rid of in ernest.

 

[Desert Fox]

A country formed for Muslims to govern themselves

Here is the answer. A country formed for MUSLIMS to govern themselves.

But why should MUSLIMS have sought separation from India, a secular state, if the creation of Pakistan was not for Islamic purpose but for secularism?

"Oh, we want to separate from secular India to form our own secular country because we feel like it."

The whole theocratic islamic state thing is completely irrelevant as that's not what I'm suggesting. A country that was formed in the name of Islam for Muslims certainly has to take into consideration the Islamic principles based on the Quran and Sunnah, the two sacred references for MUSLIMS.

Otherwise we might as well have just stuck with India as they have more Muslims than Pakistan, not to mention India is a secular country.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Dunya chand par pohach gai, Mars par janay ki tiyarian ho rahi hay aur idhar Mullah Pakistan to pechey dekhalnay ki puri koshish kar rahain hain.

Saray Molvion ko aik chat ke nechey jama karkay aik aik karkay phasi lagai jaye.

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

All this because our bholay badshah nihari eating businessman Prime Minister talked about liberalizing the economy

@Azad-Kashmiri

Who are these Ulema Karams that you keep referring to and who in your view are capable of running the country???

Name 5 of them....

You can't just away with that bold statement without at least providing the background of these individuals

'Ulima are inheritors of the Prophets.' This is a hadith sharif. In light of this hadith sharif I am not going to put names on here so those who have hatred for Islam can ridicule them. If i would have mentioned Mufti Naieemi saab (Shaheed insha;Allah) was alive who gave a fatwa against TTP and was killed for it; these deviants would have mocked him. I only mention him because he is dead to make a point.

Giving names is easy as I can give names from the madrasa, but why would anyone who respects them put their names to be defamed. You can gauge the caliber of the people on here; vile and disgusting, deviants have not spared Islam on here and do you think these weshi would show respect to the rightly guided.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

ISIS are Khwarij. It is very clear that the very word "Allah and his Rasool" irritates you, its useless to argue with a bigot like you.

It's obvious that you simply can't even state, let alone commit to, the basic requirement expected from the citizen of any State, that as a Pakistani Citizen you pledge loyalty to Pakistan and Pakistan's constitution above all else.

When people don't have any loyalty to their State, that's when we get 'Khwarij' under the guise of 'oh, I only have loyalty to Allah and his Rasool' - the 'loyalty to Allah and Rasool' argument is nothing more than an excuse to avoid pledging loyalty to the State and justifying terrorism and unconstitutional acts against the State.

Here is the answer. A country formed for MUSLIMS to govern themselves.

But why should MUSLIMS have sought separation from India, a secular state, if the creation of Pakistan was not for Islamic purpose but for secularism?

"Oh, we want to separate from secular India to form our own secular country because we feel like it."

The whole theocratic islamic state thing is completely irrelevant as that's not what I'm suggesting. A country that was formed in the name of Islam for Muslims certainly has to take into consideration the Islamic principles based on the Quran and Sunnah, the two sacred references for MUSLIMS.

Otherwise we might as well have just stuck with India as they have more Muslims than Pakistan, not to mention India is a secular country.

Whether India is a secular country or not has no bearing on Pakistan and being a secular country does not prevent repression by the majority, as can be seen under the BJP and Modi currently, and as was seen in Gujrat, and in the Princely State of Hyderabad soon after Independence.

The goal behind Pakistan was and is to allow the people of Pakistan to run their country and their government as they see fit, without fear of repression from a majority. And by the way, a 'secular' state (like the US) is in fact more in line with Islamic requirements of equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, security and economic prosperity than any other so called Islamic State in the world.

 

[Winchester]

'Ulima are inheritors of the Prophets.' This is a hadith sharif. In light of this hadith sharif I am not going to put names on here so those who have hatred for Islam can ridicule them. If i would have mentioned Mufti Naieemi saab (Shaheed insha;Allah) was alive who gave a fatwa against TTP and was killed for it; these deviants would have mocked him. I only mention him because he is dead to make a point.

Giving names is easy as I can give names from the madrasa, but why would anyone who respects them put their names to be defamed. You can gauge the caliber of the people on here; vile and disgusting, deviants have not spared Islam on here and do you think these weshi would show respect to the rightly guided.

We are a diverse country of 200 million

Any group that claims they can run the country better than anyone else will have to face scrutiny

Even the Gernail after he seizes power is not spared

Unless you put a face(or faces) to your claim about these rightly guided individuals, your point of view cannot be taken seriously

 

[Desert Fox]

Whether India is a secular country or not has no bearing on Pakistan

Infact it does because Pakistan separated from India for a reason, and that reason wasn't secularism or liberalism.

The goal behind Pakistan was and is to allow the people of Pakistan to run their country and their government as they see fit, without fear of repression from a majority.

But why the "people" of Pakistan? Are indians not people too? Why did you leave out the part that those "people" of Pakistan were MUSLIMS who wanted a separate nation for religious reasons.

The "people" of Pakistan wanted to separate from the people of india because the people of Pakistan were MUSLIMS who wanted a homeland of their own.

The goal behind Pakistan was to allow the MUSLIMS of India to have a homeland of their own. Not the liberals of india, not the secularists of india, but the MUSLIMS of india. Please don't intentionally try to leave out this key historical detail.

And by the way, a 'secular' state (like the US) is in fact more in line with Islamic requirements of equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, security and economic prosperity than any other so called Islamic State in the world.

This is completely irrelevant as our discussion is solely about Pakistan. There are corrupt secular and atheist states out there so this argument doesn't hold any weight.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Infact it does because Pakistan separated from India for a reason, and that reason wasn't secularism or liberalism.

I have you the reason, but you chose to ignore that part of my post.

But why the "people" of Pakistan? Are indians not people too? Why did you leave out the part that those "people" of Pakistan were MUSLIMS who wanted a separate nation for religious reasons.

All the people of the world are humans, theoretically we should all live as one, but that's not going to happen because we tend to not see ourselves as one, even if we all practice secularism.

The goal behind Pakistan was to allow the MUSLIMS of India to have a homeland of their own. Not the liberals of india, not the secularists of india, but the MUSLIMS of india. Please don't intentionally try to leave out this key historical detail.

Pakistani Muslims also include those who wish to live independent of India in a country that has a secular or liberal form of government - don't leave out this key detail either.

This is completely irrelevant as our discussion is solely about Pakistan. There are corrupt secular and atheist states out there so this argument doesn't hold any weight.

It is completely relevant, because you and some others are suggesting that the US style of government, that separates religion from government affairs, is un-Islamic

 

[Desert Fox]

I have you the reason, but you chose to ignore that part of my post.

You're reason was that BJP like parties will repress the Muslims, but BJP hasn't nor is always going to be in power. The same argument can be made about any secular country where intolerant racist or xenophobic politicians and parties can come to power.

All the people of the world are humans, theoretically we should all live as one, but that's not going to happen because we tend to not see ourselves as one, even if we all practice secularism.

But we're not talking about all of the world here, we're only talking about Pakistan, a nation that was formed in the MUSLIM dominated territories of british india because the MUSLIMS of this region wanted to separate from india for religious reasons.

Pakistani Muslims also include those who wish to live independent of India in a country that has a secular or liberal form of government - don't leave out this key detail either.

Well then those Pakistanis are free to move to a liberal country where that particular nation was founded on secular and liberal ideals, if they have such an issue with the inclusion of religious principles in Pakistan's government..

Ask yourself this, if Pakistan was made not on a religious basis, but a secular basis, then why did Pakistan's founding fathers forget to include all of india's non-Muslim populations? Why did they confine Pakistan's boundaries to Muslim dominated territories only? A secular nation built on secularism should not confine itself to a specific religious demography because that defeats the purpose of secularism.

It is completely relevant, because you and some others are suggesting that the US style of government, that separates religion from government affairs, is un-Islamic

Lets focus on Pakistan. And being secular doesn't mean a nation is a paradise as there's plenty of secular nations that are corrupt and dysfunctional.