SC ponders over whether Pakistan can be declared a secular state

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

@Azad-Kashmiri After reading your resume I must take take a step back and accept that your knowledge on Islam exceeds mine. I think it is fair to assume we have differant perspective but I am think we both have Pakistan's progress in our minds. So on that score I don't want to wear out our energy on each other. I noticed you were doing a sterling job on countering the Indian's. This includes the hidous crimes being commited by the despicable Indian Army of occupation. We have a greater enemy to worry about then our petty differances. So I leave the field to you .....

Very important point here. We support Kashmiris because they are muslims, if Pakistan becomes a Republic out of Islamic Republic, the cause will have no value.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Very important point here. We support Kashmiris because they are muslims, if Pakistan becomes a Republic out of Islamic Republic, the cause will have no value.

No. Do you support the Kashmiri's in occupied Kashmir? Yes? Officially they live in a secular state. You support the people. The people are Muslim. Who do you support between Turkey and Greece? I support Turkey yet it is secular. The reason is people are Muslim.

The only country that slapped Isreali PM in his face was Turkish PM Erdogan. Yet Turkey is secular. Anyway I need to avoid this thread.Do you know how any differant interpretations there are? Which school of thought do you follow? So do excuse me.

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

No. Do you support the Kashmiri's in occupied Kashmir? Yes? Officially they live in a secular state. You support the people. The people are Muslim. Who do you support between Turkey and Greece? I support Turkey yet it is secular. The reason is people are Muslim.

The only country that slapped Isreali PM in his face was Turkish PM Erdogan. Yet Turkey is secular. Anyway I need to avoid this thread.Do you know how any differant interpretations there are? Which school of thought do you follow? So do excuse me.

The point is not about our support to them, the point is about their trust on us.

The argument is Pakistan remains confused even after 70 years of Independence and hence their faith on us can go down to drain. Indians will not sit quietly either they are far better than us in instigating, and they have almost equal population of Muslims as in Pakistan.
And I am afraid , we might become a laughing stock among the countries, hence losing Kashmir for ever.

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

@Azad-Kashmiri After reading your resume I must take take a step back and accept that your knowledge on Islam exceeds mine. I think it is fair to assume we have differant perspective but I am think we both have Pakistan's progress in our minds. So on that score I don't want to wear out our energy on each other. I noticed you were doing a sterling job on countering the Indian's. This includes the hidous crimes being commited by the despicable Indian Army of occupation. We have a greater enemy to worry about then our petty differances. So I leave the field to you .....

I've removed my ''CV'' post. That was not my intention to promote myself. However, you are correct that we both want a strong Pakistan, but we differ on the methodology.

 

[scorpionx]

Theideology of Pakistanstems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but also two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confined to the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years, they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different. Sir Syed Ahmad KhanThe ideology of Pakistan took shape through an evolutionary process. Historical experience provided the base; with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan began the period of Muslim self-awakening; Allama Iqbal provided the philosophical explanation; Quaid-i-Azam translated it into a political reality; and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, by passing Objectives Resolution in March 1949, gave it legal sanction. It was due to the realization of Muslims of South Asia that they are different from the Hindus that they demanded separate electorates. When they realized that their future in a 'Democratic India' dominated by Hindu majority was not safe; they put forward their demand for a separate state.The Muslims of South Asia believe that they are a nation in the modern sense of the word. The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, racial, linguistic nor ethnic; rather they are a nation because they belong to the same faith, Islam. On this basis they consider it their fundamental right to be entitled to self-determination. They demanded that areas where they were in majority should be constituted into a sovereign state, wherein they would be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.). They further want their state to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The flag of PakistanAs early as in the beginning of the 11th century, Al-Biruni observed that Hindus differed from the Muslims in all matters and habits. He further elaborated his argument by writing that the Hindus considered Muslims "Mlachha", or impure. And they forbid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any other bond of relationship. They even avoid sitting, eating and drinking with them, because they feel "polluted". The speech made by Quaid-i-Azam at Minto Park, Lahore on March 22, 1940 was very similar to Al-Biruni's thesis in theme and tone. In this speech, he stated that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, with different social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor eat together, and indeed belong to two different civilizations whose very foundations are based on conflicting ideas and concepts. Their outlook on life and of life is different. He emphasized that in spite of the passage of about 1,000 years the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not attain the level of cordiality. The only difference between the writing of Al-Biruni and the speech of Quaid-i-Azam was that Al-Biruni made calculated predictions, while Quaid-i-Azam had history behind him to support his argument.

This is indeed a great post, though there are some inherent flaws and misconceptions but overall the post precisely explains the 'supposedly' generic reasons behind the creation of Pakistan. But the notion that eating habits, architecture, script, music, language and dresses are very much distinguishable between the two communities and hence the need for a separate nation is not correct. By this logic itself, Pakistan is itself a collection of at least two or may be three different nations. And why this logic is inapplicable in case of undivided India was, culturally people of the North West historically differed from those in the East, not by religion but the social customs, general daily habits and civilian codes. For example, a Punjabi Hindu hardly matches any similarity with a Bengali or Tamil Hindu, for the geographic and climatic influences. On the other hand, a Bengali or Tamil Muslim is hardly distinguishable from his/her Hindu neighbour, by any socio-cultural parameters except the religious one. This is why the need for a separate nation on the basis of the supposed differences between North West and South East had a vital logical deficiency.

The argument about architecture does not stand at all. The ‘Islamic’ architecture itself was heavily influenced by Roman and Parthian styles, not exclusive from Arabian Peninsula. Classical Indian Islamic architecture, although borrowed its design and styles from Central Asia more heavily during Mughal period it was an extraordinary melting pot of Iranian, Trans-oxian and Indian style. The very ‘Islamic’ structures all over India were actually a synthesis of foreign style mixed with the styles belonging to older Delhi Sultanate, indigenous Bengali, Rajsthani,Gujarati and Malwa styles.So what is supposed to be an exclusively Islamic in India was actually mixture of multiple traditions.

Language and script are two interesting parameters that weakly defend the cause of Pakistan if not horribly ruining it. Bangladesh, a predominantly Muslim majority region chose to separate itself away from another Muslim majority region on the basis of language itself; the common cause of religion hardly played its part.

Lastly, as you mentioned about Md. Ali Jinnah, it will be unfair to judge a great man and political figure like him with last five or six years of his life. He was a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity right from the beginning of his career in Muslim League. His Idea of an Independent nation was consistent on a fixed principle which was not acceptable to factions within Muslim League, Congress and the sleeper cell of Hindu Mahasabha working within Congress. Most importantly, the cause of Pakistan did not garner much support in the North western and Eastern part of the subcontinent where Muslims were a clear majority.Pakistan might have many reasons to separate itself from British India and the fear of Hindu dominance (quite rightly so in my personal opinion) was certainly plausible given the political obstinacy from both Congress and ML but other arguments such a socio-cultural, architecture, food habits were not much compelling in my opinion.

 

[Neutron]

This is indeed a great post, though there are some inherent flaws and misconceptions but overall the post precisely explains the 'supposedly' generic reasons behind the creation of Pakistan. But the notion that eating habits, architecture, script, music, language and dresses are very much distinguishable between the two communities and hence the need for a separate nation is not correct. By this logic itself, Pakistan is itself a collection of at least two or may be three different nations. And why this logic is inapplicable in case of undivided India was, culturally people of the North West historically differed from those in the East, not by religion but the social customs, general daily habits and civilian codes. For example, a Punjabi Hindu hardly matches any similarity with a Bengali or Tamil Hindu, for the geographic and climatic influences. On the other hand, a Bengali or Tamil Muslim is hardly distinguishable from his/her Hindu neighbour, by any socio-cultural parameters except the religious one. This is why the need for a separate nation on the basis of the supposed differences between North West and South East had a vital logical deficiency.

The argument about architecture does not stand at all. The ‘Islamic’ architecture itself was heavily influenced by Roman and Parthian styles, not exclusive from Arabian Peninsula. Classical Indian Islamic architecture, although borrowed its design and styles from Central Asia more heavily during Mughal period it was an extraordinary melting pot of Iranian, Trans-oxian and Indian style. The very ‘Islamic’ structures all over India were actually a synthesis of foreign style mixed with the styles belonging to older Delhi Sultanate, indigenous Bengali, Rajsthani,Gujarati and Malwa styles.So what is supposed to be an exclusively Islamic in India was actually mixture of multiple traditions.

Language and script are two interesting parameters that weakly defend the cause of Pakistan if not horribly ruining it. Bangladesh, a predominantly Muslim majority region chose to separate itself away from another Muslim majority region on the basis of language itself; the common cause of religion hardly played its part.

Lastly, as you mentioned about Md. Ali Jinnah, it will be unfair to judge a great man and political figure like him with last five or six years of his life. He was a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity right from the beginning of his career in Muslim League. His Idea of an Independent nation was consistent on a fixed principle which was not acceptable to factions within Muslim League, Congress and the sleeper cell of Hindu Mahasabha working within Congress. Most importantly, the cause of Pakistan did not garner much support in the North western and Eastern part of the subcontinent where Muslims were a clear majority.Pakistan might have many reasons to separate itself from British India and the fear of Hindu dominance (quite rightly so in my personal opinion) was certainly plausible given the political obstinacy from both Congress and ML but other arguments such a socio-cultural, architecture, food habits were not much compelling in my opinion.

Thank you very much for your compliments.

There can be some inherent flaws and misconceptions and I welcome your intellectual input. Human error is the constant factor applicable to every human being.


Eating habits, architecture, music , culture was not the basic reason for the need of the separate homeland of the muslims
Of the subcontinent. However difference of faith and culture played vital role. We slaughter cows and it is religious obligation as well in Islam ( Eid ul Azha). But it is a crime with refrence to hindu religion. So there is conflict of religion as far as Hindus and Muslims are concerned. If both are living at same place one will have to compromise his/her religious values for other. This point of conflict on the basis of religion evolved into two nation theory and resultantly into ideology of Pakistan.

He was champion of Hindu muslim unity right from the beginning of his career in Muslim League. It is the most important fact that socio cultural and religious conflict of the Hibdus and Muslim , moreover ambition of Hindus to dominate muslim of the subcontinent transformed advocate Jinnah to Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

 

[nForce]

Read my post as I asked you, Indians claim to be the largest democracy in World, why don't you allow IOK to determine their fate through the ballot box? Simple and direct question, asked upteen times!

Why don't you put Balochistan for sale first ? I have answered your question multiple times already. Can't comprehend, not my problem.

Bengalis are my Muslim brothers. 94% are Muslims. A time will come when a real Muslims leader from Pakistan will go to our Brothers and reslove whatever differences or injustices and deal with them according to what Allah and his Messenger (as'salaathu was'salaam). They are MY brothers. Iqwana filla

Obvisiouly, the Mushrikoon and Hypocrites detest Muslims being one! My friend from Kotli is married to a Muslim sister from Bangladesh My sisters fila

Where did you get those figures ? Forgot West-Bengal ?

Now to expose Hindu Rapiests in IOK. I have already put up links in other threads but will do it again. The information is readily available on the net and from your media.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF

Rape in Kashmir - The Forgotten War Crime | Rita Pal


“More than 7,000 Kashmiri women have been gang raped in homes, streets and army camps by Indian army men since 1989 in Kashmir valley,” Dr Angana P Chatterji, human rights activists and anthropologists, alleged during a one day seminar held here on Sunday, April 5, on ‘Experience of Detainees.’

Quoting the ‘Human Rights Watch’ report, Chatterji said as many as 63 interrogation centers are located in Kashmir valley, 26 of which are in Srinagar district with 19 in Srinagar city alone.

“There have been more than 75,000 deaths in Kashmir and over 8,000 cases of disappearances which shows that there is a continuous genocide of Kashmiris,” she said, adding, she would raise the issue at international forums and demand commissioning of an international committee to look into the levels and number of tortures committed by Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir.

Speaking on the occasion, Gautam Naulakha, noted Indian civil society activist, said he is ashamed of being an Indian and feels disgraced to belong to a nation, which is “committing war crimes on Kashmiris for their demand to right to self-determination.”

He said, “It is believed that more than 60,000 Kashmiris have been tortured in prisons and interrogation centres by Indian Army and the levels of torture committed on Kashmiris have no match in the entire world.”

Naulakha said that there is a need to document these tortures and file them in the court on test basis to see the outcome of the judiciary. The documentation will internationalize the issue of tortures, which have not been reported over the last 18 years, he added.

Zahir-ud- din, Kashmiri journalist and human rights activist, blamed International Crescent Red Cross Society and Amnesty International for their failure to highlight the issue of human Rights violation in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pervez Imroz, another rights activist, said: “There is a need to expose Indian military might at the international level for their war crimes in Kashmir and the only way to do that is to document these tortures and extra judicial killings.”

List goes on...!

What you quote are mere accusations and they don't mean anything. Whatever genuine cases are there, they are dealt with by the Indian Judiciary.
The Indian Judiciary has quite effectively handled the situation of crime and violence in Kashmir, where the Pakistanis have no business in first place.
Had there been an ounce of truth in the picture that you try to portray, then there would have been mass uprisings and it would have taken only days for entire Kashmir to separate from India. But that thing happened with East-Pakistan and not Kashmir. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Are you suggesting the soldiers from Secular states have nothing to fight for ? !!

... and they dont win wars & create new nations ?

Many of our Soldiers join because they think serving in the military is a religious duty.

 

[nForce]

No. Do you support the Kashmiri's in occupied Kashmir? Yes? Officially they live in a secular state. You support the people. The people are Muslim. Who do you support between Turkey and Greece? I support Turkey yet it is secular. The reason is people are Muslim.

The only country that slapped Isreali PM in his face was Turkish PM Erdogan. Yet Turkey is secular. Anyway I need to avoid this thread.Do you know how any differant interpretations there are? Which school of thought do you follow? So do excuse me.

You support someone because of his religion ? Not because of rectitude ? I just want to confirm this.

Many of our Soldiers join because they think serving in the military is a religious duty.

That it so because that's what the society has been conditioned.

Every nation needs something to bond the people together. Pakistan happens to be the only country in the World which was created for Islam, there is no other. So, it it quite obvious that Islam has great importance in Pakistan, in day-to-day life as well as in national policies.
Islam is a big binding factor in Pakistan, along with, perhaps, being anti-India, I don't know which one takes precedence.
This binding factor is used by Pakistani army to encourage the people for recruitment.

 

[Retd. Irshad Hassan]

Other pressing matter in hands of court, such as terrorism and corruption

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You support someone because of his religion ? Not because of rectitude ? I just want to confirm this.

This is PDF. Post 1970 religion has become the language of discourse.

That it so because that's what the society has been conditioned.Every nation needs something to bond the people together. Pakistan happens to be the only country in the World which was created for Islam, there is no other. So, it it quite obvious that Islam has great importance in Pakistan, in day-to-day life as well as in national policies.
Islam is a big binding factor in Pakistan, along with, perhaps, being anti-India, I don't know which one takes precedence.
This binding factor is used by Pakistani army to encourage the people for recruitment.

God forbid how did the British managed to raise of the largest volunteer armies in the world mostly from the Pashtun-Punjab belt along Peshawar to Lahore belt.

I wonder what happened to the "binding factor" in 1971? That blew that contrived, contradictory, disjointed philosophical and intellectuely dishonest bubble up.

 

[nForce]

This is PDF. Post 1970 religion has become the language of discourse.

Just wow ... Likes of you are going to give IS a field day.

 

[Wolfhound]

Just wow ... Likes of you are going to give IS a field day.

Instead of changing pakistan in to a secular state we should make it more like iran. In its current state pakistan is neither secular nor Islamic, while we are stuck between the two nothing can be done to help the nation.

 

[nForce]

Instead of changing pakistan in to a secular state we should make it more like iran. In its current state pakistan is neither secular nor Islamic, while we are stuck between the two nothing can be done to help the nation.

Okay.. this is interesting. You will also have to explain what features of Iran you would like to introduce to you nation.

This is PDF. Post 1970 religion has become the language of discourse.

God forbid how did the British managed to raise of the largest volunteer armies in the world mostly from the Pashtun-Punjab belt along Peshawar to Lahore belt.

The idea always revolves around giving a lollipop to suck, making somebody believe that he is going to be a part of a greater cause if he joins the armed forces. The better the pitch is, the more motivated the soldier is.

The common trend I have noticed there, the British not usually recruited directly, but taken the help of a local landlord/war lord to transfer troops to the Army. Morale, of course used to be low, and mutinies were high, much higher than other regions. This is probably the only region in the Indian subcontinent where the British had to use air force to fight the rebels.

I'm going to study this particular topic to further details.

I wonder what happened to the "binding factor" in 1971? That blew that contrived, contradictory, disjointed philosophical and intellectuely dishonest bubble up.

What happens when you harp on a string a bit too much ? That happened. You start killing people in scores, along with other atrocities, take a nation hostage almost overnight and people start loosing the illusion of religion and become more concerned about more basic instincts, survival.
You will notice, the newly formed Bangladesh is secular at it s constitution.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Okay.. this is interesting. You will also have to explain what features of Iran you would like to introduce to you nation.

No comment

The idea always revolves around giving a lollipop to suck, making somebody believe that he is going to be a part of a greater cause if he joins the armed forces. The better the pitch is, the more motivated the soldier is.

The common trend I have noticed there, the British not usually recruited directly, but taken the help of a local landlord/war lord to transfer troops to the Army. Morale, of course used to be low, and mutinies were high, much higher than other regions. This is probably the only region in the Indian subcontinent where the British had to use air force to fight the rebels. I'm going to study this particular topic to further details

Wrong. I have done lot of study of this subject. The largest volunteer army in WW2 was the British Indian Army of which almost 45% was recruited from a tiny corner of British India. What is now Northern Pakistan primarily the upper Punjab and upper Pashtun heartlands the Peshawar/Islamabad-Pindi/Lahore Axis which went over into Sikh Punjab as well.

Today the Pakistan Army continues to keep the British tradition alive by recruiting disproportionaly from these Punjabi/Pashtun groups and I believe India has also continued to do the same as I notice Punjabi Sikh's figure rather often in Indian Army despite their population being below 2% in India.

Read this which a study into this subject and very detailed: http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/48674/WP24_Shaheed_Hussain.pdf

For the Kings Shilling men like Sepoy Ali Haider risked themselves to win Victoria Cross the highest award in the British military for bravery.

* Ali Haidar (military) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Khudadad Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and there is more.

What happens when you harp on a string a bit too much ? That happened. You start killing people in scores, along with other atrocities, take a nation hostage almost overnight and people start loosing the illusion of religion and become more concerned about more basic instincts, survival.
You will notice, the newly formed Bangladesh is secular at it s constitution

Wrong. If Islam alone was ahad sufficient gravity and magnetic force alone then in theory from Morroco to Eygpt, to Jordan, to Turkey, to Iran, to Saudia, to Afghanistan, to Bangladesh, to Malaysia, to Indonesia would be one huge country. Clearly to hold a country togather the rope has to be woven out of more than one thread. Or else it wil snap very easily.