Two Opposing Terms: Islamic and Republic

[FaujHistorian]

Nor is Islamic Communism of Pakistan for that matter....

Sheesh. that is the topic of next thread.

Please do not give it away too soon

 

[Chronos]

He is not alone... there are many people out there, but they have no right to impose their ideology on others.
Problem starts when non believers, come out to humiliate belief of religious people, irony is that same people will start crying victims, when you talk back in even coin.
If today i post the scientific proofs of existence of Allah, they would still not believe it.
While, I have no problem living and debating with them.... i have listened to non believers a lot. Its interesting to listen and i have no issues with it.

Now to the topic, In Islam all systems of life and rights are given in Quran.

If a man believe in resurrection than he definitely behave in this world, but if he believes only on this world, than he is free to spread evil.

@BATMAN I have noticed this with Atheists in Muslim countries. I think their confrontational nature is due to the milieu in which they find themselves.

In New Zealand, where irreligious people are the majority, Atheists are not that confrontational.

In Muslim atheists feel like they are nder siege. In many places they will be killed.

In India too, atheists fell threatened. So they either reveal nothing or are confrontational.

Their reaction is tantamount to a minority that has a mindset that feels they are besieged.

@FaujHistorian rationalists in India too have been attacked by Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Guess us Atheists are not well liked in these parts huh?

I am not against religion for the simple fact that I believe the same freedom that allows me to be an Atheist should be extended to the religious.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@BATMAN I have noticed this with Atheists in Muslim countries. I think their confrontational nature is due to the milieu in which they find themselves.

In New Zealand, where irreligious people are the majority, Atheists are not that confrontational.

In Muslim atheists feel like they are nder siege. In many places they will be killed.

In India too, atheists fell threatened. So they either reveal nothing or are confrontational.

Their reaction is tantamount to a minority that has a mindset that feels they are besieged.

@FaujHistorian rationalists in India too have been attacked by Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Guess us Atheists are not well liked in these parts huh?

In Pakistan, the term atheists is used for anyone who says that Islam should not be abused by the state or the Mullahs.


When they do say this, Islamists start shouting at them as athiests atiests kaafir kaafir Maro salay ko.

 

[freelancer93]

Maybe this video will help u to understand about Pakistani people and ur wrong concept about Jinnah being a secularist too @ FaujiHistorian

or maybe not...

The reality is, some so called 'liberals' just borrow buzz words from western world being heavily influenced by some unknown attachments and of course ignorance of realties,culture and historical research do play vital role in it. Islam, by default got full protection of minorities rights, so in a Islamic country there is no need for any other "ism" except Islamic socialism. (Quaid's words..not mine)

 

[FaujHistorian]

Maybe this video will help u to understand about Pakistani people and ur wrong concept about Jinnah being a secularist too @ FaujiHistorian

or maybe not...

The reality is, some so called 'liberals' just borrow buzz words from western world being heavily influenced by some unknown attachments and of course ignorance of realties,culture and historical research do play vital role in it. Islam, by default got full protection of minorities rights, so in a Islamic country there is no need for any other "ism" except Islamic socialism. (Quaid's words..not mine)

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in August 1947:

Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this [religious divisions in the region]. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan


Then he goes on to say


As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

 

[freelancer93]

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in August 1947:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan

You forgot to bold the first part "You may belong to any" <-- that has nothing to do with the business of the state , why ? because for an Islamic state every citizen has equal rights.

Again, you missed the video? did not you? or u just ignored it ? and please do mention all of his speeches about 'Islamic economic system' and 'Islamic state' as well.

 

[Chronos]

In Pakistan, the term atheists is used for anyone who says that Islam should not be abused by the state or the Mullahs.


When they do say this, Islamists start shouting at them as athiests atiests kaafir kaafir Maro salay ko.

One thing I am glad of in kerala. One of the dominant parties is Atheistic leaning.

You don't know the number of well educated, upper crust Indians follow superstition and defend it with fervor

 

[FaujHistorian]

You forgot to bold the first part "You may belong to any" <-- that has nothing to do with the business of the state , why ? because for an Islamic state every citizen has equal rights.

Again, you missed the video? did not you? or u just ignored it ? and please do mention all of his speeches about 'Islamic economic system' and 'Islamic state' as well.

No Islamic state ever gave equal rights to non-Muslims.

Not even during the rule of the Just Khalifah Umer-2 (Umer bin Abdelaziz).

Why?

because in Islamism, there is no concept of citizenship of a country.
No concept that every citizen is equal regardless of their race or religion.


So what they say in Godfather movies. FO-GEDDA-bout it.

 

[Chronos]

@FaujHistorian

That is not what Jinnah said at all.

Read this article. It will reveal the truth.

Hidden hands unhidden - DAWN.COM

Read it Carefully

=D

 

[RangerPK]

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in August 1947:
Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this [religious divisions in the region]. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

This is according to ISLAM. In Islam, you can belong to any religion, and go to your mosques, temples, synagagous and belong to any creed or caste.

Where in Islam does it say, the Non Muslims in a Muslim state would not go to their temples, churchs, synagogues?

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian

That is not what Jinnah said at all.

Read this article. It will reveal the truth.

Hidden hands unhidden - DAWN.COM

Read it Carefully

=D

Don't go to news papers and read the speech itself.

That is NFP's top notch satire. haahahahahahahaha.

Will you now start quoting satire as historical fact? hahahahah


please no more jokes.

This is according to ISLAM. In Islam, you can belong to any religion, and go to your mosques, temples, synagagous and belong to any creed or caste.

Where in Islam does it say, the Non Muslims in Muslim state would not go to their temples, churchs, synagogues?

Go over the history of Islam, with honest and open mind.

When you bring in religion, the concept of citizenship goes out of the window.


Temple shemple okay wokay.

The curse of Dhimmi concept and jizya is the deal breaker and also the breaker of your OWN argument.


peace

 

[RangerPK]

No Islamic state ever gave equal rights to non-Muslims.

Not even during the rule of the Just Khalifah Umer-2 (Umer bin Abdelaziz).

Why?

because in Islamism, there is no concept of citizenship of a country.
No concept that every citizen is equal regardless of their race or religion.


So what they say in Godfather movies. FO-GEDDA-bout it.

Now I am seriously beginning to think this is a troll thread. It is not my responsibility to untroll the troll.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Now I am seriously beginning to think this is a troll thread. It is not my responsibility to untroll the troll.

Show me which Muslim leader setup citizenship concept for non-Muslims?



Oh bhai,

citizenship is a Greek concept, that was refined by Romans.

Arabs (Muslims or non-Muslims) never had the concept of citizenship.

Sunnah Sharia etc. are not even aware of the concept of citizenship.

And you keep on repeating 4th grade Mutalae Pakistan book.


How sad

 

[qamar1990]

Ready for some education? Now don't run away crying blasphemy. Promise?

FYI. Islamists don't have a concept of institutions. Let me tell you something.

The biggest issue (among many) of not having institutions was to figure out the succession and peaceful transfer of power and the limit of Khalifa's term. Khalifa's were rulers for life just like kings and emperors of their day. No difference.

For Khalifah 1, there was no set rules for transfer of power, that modern democracies take for granted.

So Ali's supporters and Abu bakar's supporters clashed and quibbled. Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, but Abu bakers supporter followed friends line of succession.

Once the matter was about to get out of hand, Umer stepped in with sword and forced Ali's supports to shut up and quiet down.


This is how our first Khalifa was chosen.

No institutions at the end of his rule

So Ali's supporters and Umer's supporters clashed and quibbled. Again Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, while Umer's supporter followed friends line of succession.

Umer's sword was stronger so he won


Still no institutions for making laws and peaceful transfer of power.


So when Umer was assassinated

Ali's supporters again clahed and quibbled, But Usman's money/tribal power won. Again Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, while anti-Ali supporter followed friends line of succession.

So

Usman became Khalifa

Still no term limit, no instiutions for peaceful transfer of power. Again Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, while Usman's supporter followed friends line of succession.

This time Ali's supporters have had it. So Usman was murdered while one of Ali's son was guarding Usman's house. Yeah there are stories of how assissns jumped the back wall.


When Usman got assassinated


Ali's supporters who always strictly followed blood line for succession, finally got a chance.


Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.

So Aysha jumped into the fray as per family line of succession instead of blood lines.

Thus there was war

1000s of Sahabis died


Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.


When Ali was assassinated

Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.

So the battle ensued between Ali's blood line and Moawia

That continued through blood lines of Moawia (Yazeed) and Ali's blood lines.


Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.



I hope I have given you enough examples.

I hope you are willing to understand the value of institutions and the impact of the absence of such institutions in the Rashid Khilafat.


peace


p.s. Read Shibli Nomani's excellent book Al-Farooq to learn the true history.

damn lol
when i started reading your reply i thought you were really going to teach me lesson but as i read further i realized that its just another disappointment.

ok now lets break this down
making institutions is the job of the people, the khalifa rules them is up to them, they need to lay out the rules and laws themselves. islam doesn't have no problem with how long a khalifa gets to rule or what powers he has, thats all up to the people to make. logic and commonsense aren't your strong side i understand now.
anything you said is irrelevant and doesn't prove your points.
an islamic republic is just a republic inspired by the muslim way of life its up to the people of that nation what rules and powers they to make or give to their rulers.

 

[RangerPK]

Go over the history of Islam, with honest and open mind.

When you bring in religion, the concept of citizenship goes out of the window.


Temple shemple okay wokay.

The curse of Dhimmi concept and jizya is the deal breaker and also the breaker of your OWN argument.


peace

Mr Jinnah, spoke about about freedom of non muslims going to the places of worship of their choice.Which is according to Islam.

No where in that statement he disapproved or approved the idea of Dhimmi or Jizya. Did he?

So Mr Jinnah said nothing contradictory against Islam. keeping those facts in mind?


Also, the concept of "History of Islam" is also controversial. Islam started from Prophet Adam and was completed at Prophet Muhammad (SAW). This is the history of Islam, beyond that, it is Muslim History.