The fiction of the Ideology of Pakistan: YLH

[Psychic]

What the hell is this guy even talking about?

Pakistan WAS founded for the Muslims of north India, therefore it was never intended to be a "secular" "liberal" or "progressive" state (whatever the hell that even means, even these people don't know).

If Jinnah was advocating for secularism then of all the places he could have formed his secular state he chose a Muslim majority region for the cause of Muslims to have their own state free from the intervention of the Hindu majority? Contradictory much?

A secular state does not care which religion becomes the majority, whether hindu, Christian, Muslim or even Atheism.

But because Pakistan was founded as a state for the Muslims of North India then by default it was never a secular state to begin with because its founding fathers made a preference for a certain religious group.

The day Pakistan becomes a "secular" state is the day it will cease to exist because to do so would undermine its very foundation.

PS next time someone advocates for turning Pakistan secular, just remember who else desires the same:

https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...army-chief-bipin-rawat/videoshow/66879787.cms

@Psychic @LeGenD @Metanoia @OsmanAli98
@django

One must be really daft to think that someone like Iqbal would have dreamed of a secular liberal Pakistan.
All of that is nothing more than propaganda that Pakistan was "meant to be secular". Show me a single place where Iqbal or even Jinnah used the word "secular". For one of his 11 August speech, there are tens of others where he talked about Islamic laws, Islamic banking system etc( matters of state eh?)---yet to many, he wanted religion to have no bussiness in the matters of state ---They entirely (and deliberately with mischievous intent according to Jinnah himself) post the misinterpretation of his 11 August speech ---BTW he never said those exact words(religion has no business in state).

And all of the "pak was meant to be secular" somehow implies that the founding fathers cheated the masses who chanted slogans Pakistan ka matlab kiya....and who died for Pakistan...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In an Islamic country, minorities would be treated with justice.

Pakistan claims to be an Islamic Republic, so what is the issue here?

The issue is the likes of TLP, Lal Masjid, inability to reform blasphemy laws, restrictions, hatred, violence & discrimination against Ahmadis - all of that points to a State where religion has been distorted to abuse and persecute those whose beliefs do not fit with the majority.

The problem with an 'Islamic State' (or any theocratic State), is that religion is open to interpretation. We have Mullah's who claim Islam refuses women to work or drive and that women are essentially baby producing machines. We have Mullah's who claim that Shia are kaafir, we have Mullah's that want to ban music, TV & film, we have Mullahs that want to ban 'designer beards'.

A theocratic State simply cannot function consistently because anytime you get rulers in place who interpret religion differently they'll impose restrictions or change the laws claiming 'our religion says so'. And if it isn't the ruler's opinion, religious organizations, like the TLP, will resort to violence and intimidation to force the government to back down. This is why the PTI governments actions against TLP leadership are a test case to see whether the State can change it's track record of bowing down to extremists. We already have an example of Mullah Burqa Aunty from Lal Masjid living and preaching freely despite what should have been an open and shut case of terrorism against him and his followers.

 

[TMA]

Another perspective:

Jinnah believed that in a Hindu majority India, Muslims might not be able to practice their religion freely. So, he demanded that Muslims should be given fixed representation in the central legislature to make sure that the Hindu majority is unable to impose their will on Muslim minority through legislation. The Indian Congress did not accept Jinnah's demands and India got partitioned consequently.


In Pakistan, the Muslim majority after the death of Jinnah, treated the Non Muslim minorities exactly the same way Jinnah had feared Muslim minority would be treated in a Hindu majority India .... India has proven itself better than Pakistan as it's Constitution does not discriminate against Muslims (or any other minority for that matter) ... Jinnah had a vision, he had a dream, but we failed him ...




Prose over poetry of course as poetry can be interpreted in many different ways
So, his English works/lectures in this case


As for 'reconciliation', Iqbal believed that although what Turkey did (i.e declared itself secular by separating state and church) was allowed in Islam, but looking at western countries and how Nationalism and Secularism caused great destruction (i.e. WW1), it was undesirable..

Or how about his English works were for his international audience and colonial Lords and his Hindi and Dari works were for his people....???

Here is a work which is critical of Allama Iqbal's work...

http://www.imranhosein.org/articles...bl-and-pakistans-moment-of-truth.html?start=4

"There are two Pakistans

This essay directs attention to two divergent dimensions in Iqbāl’s thought, and goes on to suggest that as a consequence, Pakistan has two divergent faces. Islamic scholarship has an obligation to explain this disturbing duality in order that Pakistani Muslims might better be able to recognize the inadequacy of a policy of clinging to Iqbal for theoretical guidance with which to respond to the specific challenges of the moment."

"There is duality in Iqbāl’s thought

There was that knowledge which Iqbāl imparted to his native people – Indian Muslims who were subjected to brutal and humiliating anti-Muslim and anti-Islam British colonial rule. It touched their very souls and fired them with a scorching reaffirmation of commitment to Islam the religion as well as to indigenous Muslim political culture. It was communicated in verse in their native languages – Urdu and Persian. Had it been communicated in English prose, the European world of scholarship that was waging relentless war on Islam would have rejected it, sneered at it, and viciously opposed it. Iqbāl would have suffered irreparable loss of prestige amongst his Judeo-Christian European peers. He would eventually have been castigated by the west, as well as by those who worship the west, as obscurantist, fundamentalist, jihadist, terrorist, and all the rest of such pathetic epithets. He would never have become Sir Muhammad Iqbal."

"We believe that Iqbāl was not, himself, immune from the negative influence of the very Western epistemology of which he warned so strongly. His poetry, which came directly from the heart, witnessed the unsurpassed use of the Sufi epistemology and was uncluttered by any Western logical or epistemological restraints. The same cannot always be said of his thought when expressed in English. Our purpose in this paper is to direct attention to a subject which, more than any other, illustrates Iqbāl’s duality of thought. That subject is the end of history."

 

[MultaniGuy]

The issue is the likes of TLP, Lal Masjid, inability to reform blasphemy laws, restrictions, hatred, violence & discrimination against Ahmadis - all of that points to a State where religion has been distorted to abuse and persecute those whose beliefs do not fit with the majority.

The problem with an 'Islamic State' (or any theocratic State), is that religion is open to interpretation. We have Mullah's who claim Islam refuses women to work or drive and that women are essentially baby producing machines. We have Mullah's who claim that Shia are kaafir, we have Mullah's that want to ban music, TV & film, we have Mullahs that want to ban 'designer beards'.

A theocratic State simply cannot function consistently because anytime you get rulers in place who interpret religion differently they'll impose restrictions or change the laws claiming 'our religion says so'. And if it isn't the ruler's opinion, religious organizations, like the TLP, will resort to violence and intimidation to force the government to back down. This is why the PTI governments actions against TLP leadership are a test case to see whether the State can change it's track record of bowing down to extremists. We already have an example of Mullah Burqa Aunty from Lal Masjid living and preaching freely despite what should have been an open and shut case of terrorism against him and his followers.

I have yet to see an Sunni Imam declare Shias (Ithna Ashari community) as Kafir. That is a huge claim to make to declare someone Kafir.

Sunnis may not agree with all of Shia's interpretation (Ithna Ashari community), but Shias of the Ithna Ashari community are still Muslims.

This is what I have heard.

However Shia Muslims are not mainstream Muslims.

Anyone who says that a woman should not work is stupid.

Women must work in this competitive day and age. Otherwise how will the economy work.

Who said women should not drive cars?

Where are you getting this information from?

Even in Saudi Arabia women were recently allowed to drive vehicles.

So thats that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have yet to see an Sunni Imam declare Shias (Ithna Ashari community) as Kafir. That is a huge claim to make to declare someone Kafir.

Sunnis may not agree with all of Shia's interpretation (Ithna Ashari community), but Shias of the Ithna Ashari community are still Muslims.

This is what I have heard.

However Shia Muslims are not mainstream Muslims.

Anyone who says that a woman should not work is stupid.

Women must work in this competitive day and age. Otherwise how will the economy work.

Who said women should not drive cars?

Where are you getting this information from?

Even in Saudi Arabia women were recently allowed to drive vehicles.

So thats that.

Saudi religious scholars only RECENTLY agreed to remove the ban on women driving, and did so with restrictions, requiring women to obtain the agreement of men, basically still reducing them to second class citizens and the property of men.

The support of the powerful clerics, who hold influence in the judiciary and education sectors, throws out years of religious edicts from the country's Islamic thinkers and risks giving the impression the clerics answer blindly to the rulers.

The former Grand Mufti Abdel Aziz bin Baz had argued that lifting the ban would corrupt society with promiscuity and sin.
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/n...men-driving-contradicting-years-of-opposition​

This is the problem I pointed out - a theocratic state is at the whims and mercy of whatever the latest interpretation of religion is. If down the line a new set of religious scholars in Saudi Arabia declare that driving for women is Haram, then that will cause things to regress once again.

You also supported my point when you said that the Sunni and Shia have disagreements over their respective interpretations - whose interpretation will be imposed in a theocratic State? And what is to stop some future set of Mullahs declaring the Shia interpretations Haram and imposing restrictions upon them like there are on Ahmadis?

Religious basis for a State's laws is a recipe for disaster and turmoil.

Jinnah had it correct - Pakistan was a country where Muslims (and other minorities) could live without fear of persecution by the Hindu majority (fears that the current India is proving correct), but a country for Muslims to live freely is not the same thing as having an Islamic State.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Saudi religious scholars only RECENTLY agreed to remove the ban on women driving, and did so with restrictions, requiring women to obtain the agreement of men, basically still reducing them to second class citizens and the property of men.

The support of the powerful clerics, who hold influence in the judiciary and education sectors, throws out years of religious edicts from the country's Islamic thinkers and risks giving the impression the clerics answer blindly to the rulers.

The former Grand Mufti Abdel Aziz bin Baz had argued that lifting the ban would corrupt society with promiscuity and sin.
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/n...men-driving-contradicting-years-of-opposition​

This is the problem I pointed out - a theocratic state is at the whims and mercy of whatever the latest interpretation of religion is. If down the line a new set of religious scholars in Saudi Arabia declare that driving for women is Haram, then that will cause things to regress once again.

You also supported my point when you said that the Sunni and Shia have disagreements over their respective interpretations - whose interpretation will be imposed in a theocratic State? And what is to stop some future set of Mullahs declaring the Shia interpretations Haram and imposing restrictions upon them like there are on Ahmadis?

Religious basis for a State's laws is a recipe for disaster and turmoil.

Jinnah had it correct - Pakistan was a country where Muslims (and other minorities) could live without fear of persecution by the Hindu majority (fears that the current India is proving correct), but a country for Muslims to live freely is not the same thing as having an Islamic State.

I would have to disagree with you.

Then follow the correct interpretation which we all know what that is.

But I do not want to create a storm in a tea cup in this forum.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would have to disagree with you.

Then follow the correct interpretation which we all know what that is.

But I do not want to create a storm in a tea cup in this forum.

What is the correct interpretation? According to whom? Why?

 

[MultaniGuy]

Saudi religious scholars only RECENTLY agreed to remove the ban on women driving, and did so with restrictions, requiring women to obtain the agreement of men, basically still reducing them to second class citizens and the property of men.

The support of the powerful clerics, who hold influence in the judiciary and education sectors, throws out years of religious edicts from the country's Islamic thinkers and risks giving the impression the clerics answer blindly to the rulers.

The former Grand Mufti Abdel Aziz bin Baz had argued that lifting the ban would corrupt society with promiscuity and sin.
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/n...men-driving-contradicting-years-of-opposition​

This is the problem I pointed out - a theocratic state is at the whims and mercy of whatever the latest interpretation of religion is. If down the line a new set of religious scholars in Saudi Arabia declare that driving for women is Haram, then that will cause things to regress once again.

You also supported my point when you said that the Sunni and Shia have disagreements over their respective interpretations - whose interpretation will be imposed in a theocratic State? And what is to stop some future set of Mullahs declaring the Shia interpretations Haram and imposing restrictions upon them like there are on Ahmadis?

Religious basis for a State's laws is a recipe for disaster and turmoil.

Jinnah had it correct - Pakistan was a country where Muslims (and other minorities) could live without fear of persecution by the Hindu majority (fears that the current India is proving correct), but a country for Muslims to live freely is not the same thing as having an Islamic State.

About Saudi Arabia, what you quoted is just a blog. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I take the Arab News seriously.

What is the correct interpretation? According to whom? Why?

Okay, Follow the Qur'an and Sunnah then, what is said in Pakistan's constitution.

I have read the blog you posted, and to be frank it is not reliable.

It says women driving a car will hurt their fertility. I have yet to see a qualified Islamic scholar say that.

They didn't even mention the scholar's name. The blog is flawed.

I will be back with you later.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, Follow the Qur'an and Sunnah then,

That's the problem, different Mullah's interpret the Quran and Sunnah differently. Daesh claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, Al Qaeda claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, TTP claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claims to follow Quran and Sunnah.

Despite multiple fatwa's and statements against groups such as the above by 'moderate' Islamic scholars, these groups continue to claim to follow 'Quran and Sunnah' and declare those opposed to them as 'not following Quran and Sunnah'. That is the problem with a theocratic state - religion is open to interpretation. Some Saudi Mullahs declare women to be second class and property of men and 'lacking a brain', while some others, apparently under the influence of the royal family, allow women to finally drive with conditions.

If the next Saudi ruler is backward and doesn't agree with the rights of women, he'll find some Mullahs to roll back progress. Religion is easily manipulated as a tool to advance agendas, which is why a State's constitution shouldn't use religion as its basis, rather only use basic principles of equality, justice and rights for ALL citizens, regardless of faith.

 

[VCheng]

Okay, Follow the Qur'an and Sunnah then, what is said in Pakistan's constitution.

No problem, as long as I get to decide the interpretation for myself.

That's the problem, different Mullah's interpret the Quran and Sunnah differently.

Please see the simple solution above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No problem, as long as I get to decide the interpretation for myself.

Please see the simple solution above.

Ergo, the State should stay out of religion, allowing the individual to practice their faith as they see fit, provided the practice of faith does not impose tangible harm or inconvenience upon others.

 

[VCheng]

Ergo, the State should stay out of religion, allowing the individual to practice their faith as they see fit, provided the practice of faith does not impose tangible harm or inconvenience upon others.

However, the presence of the Objectives Resolution and the entire edifice built over that foundation makes the above impossible.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

However, the presence of the Objectives Resolution and the entire edifice built over that foundation makes the above impossible.

In Pakistan's case, the constitution is going to have to be tweaked over the long run, via Supreme Court rulings more than likely (and possibly some subsequent legislative cover) providing greater specificity & restrictions on interpretation, expanding rights for all Pakistanis.

There will also need to be accompanying movement (by the government) against groups such as the TLP when they agitate illegally in support of regressive and discriminatory interpretations of the religion based constitution.

It's going to be a long term, multi-faceted and incremental process.

 

[VCheng]

In Pakistan's case, the constitution is going to have to be tweaked over the long run, via Supreme Court rulings more than likely (and possibly some subsequent legislative cover) providing greater specificity & restrictions on interpretation, expanding rights for all Pakistanis.

There will also need to be accompanying movement (by the government) against groups such as the TLP when they agitate illegally in support of regressive and discriminatory interpretations of the religion based constitution.

It's going to be a long term, multi-faceted and incremental process.

If it happens at all, your description above may be the avenue. However, I realistically do not see that desire for change be effective for a long long long time yet.

 

[MultaniGuy]

That's the problem, different Mullah's interpret the Quran and Sunnah differently. Daesh claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, Al Qaeda claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, TTP claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claims to follow Quran and Sunnah.

Despite multiple fatwa's and statements against groups such as the above by 'moderate' Islamic scholars, these groups continue to claim to follow 'Quran and Sunnah' and declare those opposed to them as 'not following Quran and Sunnah'. That is the problem with a theocratic state - religion is open to interpretation. Some Saudi Mullahs declare women to be second class and property of men and 'lacking a brain', while some others, apparently under the influence of the royal family, allow women to finally drive with conditions.

If the next Saudi ruler is backward and doesn't agree with the rights of women, he'll find some Mullahs to roll back progress. Religion is easily manipulated as a tool to advance agendas, which is why a State's constitution shouldn't use religion as its basis, rather only use basic principles of equality, justice and rights for ALL citizens, regardless of faith.

Go to the Islamic scholars who interpret the Qur'an and the Hadith correctly.

Don't go to internet sites for Islamic information.

I have yet to see a Saudi Islamic scholar say that women are second class citizens and that are property of men.

That goes against the whole spirit of justice or equity in Islam.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia for 18 years. In fact I grew up there. They say the reason women could not drive was because society was not ready for it. But now the society is ready for it.

They have cinemas now in Saudi Arabia.


Islam gave women their rights according to justice and moral principles.

Anyone who denies women their rights are bloody idiots.

No problem, as long as I get to decide the interpretation for myself.



Please see the simple solution above.

Wrong answer. There is a correct way to interpret the Qur'an and Hadith.

You cannot understand the Qur'an in some willy-nilly way.

That's the problem, different Mullah's interpret the Quran and Sunnah differently. Daesh claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, Al Qaeda claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, TTP claims to follow Quran and Sunnah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claims to follow Quran and Sunnah.

Despite multiple fatwa's and statements against groups such as the above by 'moderate' Islamic scholars, these groups continue to claim to follow 'Quran and Sunnah' and declare those opposed to them as 'not following Quran and Sunnah'. That is the problem with a theocratic state - religion is open to interpretation. Some Saudi Mullahs declare women to be second class and property of men and 'lacking a brain', while some others, apparently under the influence of the royal family, allow women to finally drive with conditions.

If the next Saudi ruler is backward and doesn't agree with the rights of women, he'll find some Mullahs to roll back progress. Religion is easily manipulated as a tool to advance agendas, which is why a State's constitution shouldn't use religion as its basis, rather only use basic principles of equality, justice and rights for ALL citizens, regardless of faith.

Why are you bringing ISIS and Al Qaeda? Islamic scholars have denounced them.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are terrorists.

Okay what is your opinion on Dr. Israr Ahmed and Maududi?

There are people who would die for Maududi.