What's new

Umayyad invasion of Sindh and the arrival of Islam

point is Sikhs don't have a marriage act yet right? Pakistanis do. hence sikhs have more rights under muslim rulers which is not the case under their HINDU master.

Sikh 's can't get their marriages registered! hence divorce,inheritence & adoption are not framed the sikh religious way.

under the curreent law DIVORCE is not acceptable.
 
point is Sikhs don't have a marriage act yet right? Pakistanis do. hence sikhs have more rights under muslim rulers which is not the case under their HINDU master.

Sikh 's can't get their marriages registered! hence divorce,inheritence & adoption are not framed the sikh religious way.

under the curreent law DIVORCE is not acceptable.

First of all, according to our religions, registering marriages is outside the scope of our religions, it is the rituals that matters most for us.

And how can a Islamic Constitution which is disowned by non-Muslims for being biased and discriminatory toward non-Muslims from its core can talk of framing laws for minorities. Sounds like a big joke. :woot:
 
First of all, according to our religions, registering marriages is outside the scope of our religions, it is the rituals that matters most for us.

And how can a Islamic Constitution which is disowned by non-Muslims for being biased and discriminatory toward non-Muslims from its core can talk of framing laws for minorities. Sounds like a big joke. :woot:

What kind of nonsense are you people spouting now?
How is an Islamic constitution discriminatory?
Elaborate.
I get the feeling once again that an Indian is talking out of his @ss, which you people seem to do alot.
 
First of all, according to our religions, registering marriages is outside the scope of our religions, it is the rituals that matters most for us.

And how can a Islamic Constitution which is disowned by non-Muslims for being biased and discriminatory toward non-Muslims from its core can talk of framing laws for minorities. Sounds like a big joke. :woot:

:blink: please read before ranting! the SIKH marriage law was made according to sikh religion not islamic! so what are you ranting about???

and islam being discriminatory :lol::wave:
 
:azn:Nice job!

Letting the mods know that Lisa1 = a bot.
 
What kind of nonsense are you people spouting now?
How is an Islamic constitution discriminatory?
Elaborate.
I get the feeling once again that an Indian is talking out of his @ss, which you people seem to do alot.

Blasphemy law in PakistanThe Pakistan Penal Code prohibits blasphemy against any recognised religion, providing penalties ranging from a fine to death. However, in practice, it is only applied to Islam. An accusation of blasphemy commonly subjects the accused, police, lawyers, and judges to harassment, threats, and attacks. An accusation is sometimes the prelude to vigilantism and rioting.
Calls for change in the blasphemy laws have been strongly resisted by Islamic parties.
Prominent figures like Salman Taseer (the former governor of Punjab) and Shahbaz Bhatti (the Federal Minister for Minorities) have been assassinated for their opposition to the blasphemy laws.


On 12 December 2011, a teacher Shahid Nadeem in the missionary school of Faisalabad accused by Qari Muhammad Afzal (who is a member of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which is a banned organisation) registered FIR on 28 December 2011 in the local police station and said that culprit had deliberately torn the pages of Quran and later burn these pages.
On 2 March 2011 Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs (a Roman Catholic member of the National Assembly), was killed by gunmen in Islamabad as he was travelling to work, a few weeks after he had vowed to defy death threats over his efforts to reform Pakistan's blasphemy laws.[16]
In November 2010, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging on a charge of blasphemy; the case that has yet to be upheld by the Lahore High Court has sparked international reactions. Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was shot dead by his security guard for supporting Asia Bibi. Salman Taseer had visited Asia Bibi in Jail and had held a press conference with her. [17] He had told media that Asia Bibi will be released soon and the President of Pakistan will soon annul her death sentence. This triggered mass protests in Pakistan with many imams of local mosques claiming that Salman Taseer had defied Mohammed and should be sentenced to death for it. Taseer was later assassinated in early 2011.
In July 2010, a trader in Faisalabad complained that one of his employees had been handed a pamphlet which contained disrespectful remarks about Muhammad. According to the police, the pamphlet appeared to have the signatures and addresses of Pastor Rashid Emmanuel and his brother Sajid, who were Christians. The brothers were shot and killed while being escorted by the police from a district court. Both had denied the charge of blasphemy.[18] Allama Ahmed Mian Hammadi, a Pakistani Muslim cleric, claimed that Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minorities, had himself committed blasphemy by branding the murdered Christian brothers as victims of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
On 9 July 2009, a FIR was registered against two teenager brothers, complainant falsely accusing them that they had spoke against Prophet Mohammad and this family had to left the country for their safety. On 30 July 2009, hundreds of members of Sipah-e-Sahaba and International Khatm-e-Nabuwat 'IKNM' the banned Muslim organisations, torched the Christian homes and killed Christians in the Punjabi city of Gojra Faisalabad and in the nearby village of Korian, District Faisalabad. The professed reason for the violence was that a Christian had defiled and spoke against Prophet Mohammad.Quran.[19][20][21]
On 22 January 2009, Hector Aleem a Christian Human Rights Activist in Pakistan was arrested on a blasphemy charge. According to the FIR, someone sent a blasphemous text message to the leader of Sunni Tehreek. Hector Aleem was arrested because the sender had once contacted him. Hector Aleem, the Chairman of Peace Worldwide, had been working for a church in Islamabad which was demolished by the CDA (Capital Development Authority) for having been built illegally. When Hector Aleem objected to the destruction of the church he was faced with several threats and lawsuits ranging from fraud to criminal charges. He fought all of them in the courts and proved his innocence. He also faced several assassination attempts. Hector Aleem was eventually arrested on the charge of blasphemy.
In February 2008, Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Human Rights Council reminded Pakistan's representative of the matter regarding Raja Fiaz, Muhammad Bilal, Nazar Zakir Hussain, Qazi Farooq, Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Saddique and Ghulam Hussain. According to the allegations received, the men were members of the Mehdi Foundation International (MFI), a multi-faith institution utilising the name of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. They were arrested on 23 December 2005 in Wapda Town. The police confiscated posters on which Gohar Shahi was shown as "Imam Mehdi." On 13 July 2006, the Anti-Terrorism Court No. 1 in Lahore sentenced each accused to five years of imprisonment, inter alia, under § 295-A for having outraged others' religious feelings. Since 27 August 2006, the seven men have been detained in Sahiwal Jail, Punjab, where they were forced to parade naked, and were suspended from the ceiling and beaten. For this reason, they were constantly threatened and intimidated by prison staff as well as by other detainees.
Christians and Muslims in Pakistan condemned Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code as blasphemous. On 3 June 2006, Pakistan banned the film. Culture Minister Ghulam Jamal said: "Islam teaches us to respect all the prophets of God Almighty and degradation of any prophet is tantamount to defamation of the rest."[22]
On 11 August 2005, Judge Arshad Noor Khan of the Anti-Terrorist Court found Younus Shaikh guilty of defiling a copy of the Quran, outraging religious feelings, and propagating religious hatred among society.[23] Shaikh's conviction occurred because he wrote a book: Shaitan Maulvi (Satanic Cleric). The book said stoning to death (Rajam) as a punishment for adultery was not mentioned in the Quran. The book said also that four historical imams (religious leaders) were Jews.[24] The judge imposed upon Shaikh a fine of 100,000 rupees, and sentenced him to spend his life in jail.[25]
In October 2000, Pakistani authorities charged Dr. M. Younus Shaikh M.D., a physician, with blasphemy on account of remarks that students claimed he made during a lecture. The students alleged that, inter alia, Shaikh had said Muhammad's parents were non-Muslims because they died before Islam existed. A judge ordered that Shaikh pay a fine of 100,000 rupees, and that he be hanged.[26] On 20 November 2003, a court retried the matter and acquitted Shaikh, who fled Pakistan for Switzerland soon thereafter.[27]
The police arrested Ayub Masih, a Pakistani Christian bricklayer for blasphemy on 14 October 1996 and jailed him for violation of § 295-C. Muhammad Akram, a Muslim neighbour to Masih, complained to the police that Masih had said Christianity was right, and Masih had recommended that Akram read Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.[9][28] The same day that Masih was arrested, Muslim villagers forced the entire Christian population of Masih's village (fourteen families) to leave the village. Masih's family had applied under a government program that gave housing plots to landless people. Local landlords resented Masih's application because the landlords had been able to oblige landless Christians to work in the fields in exchange for a place to live. Masih's application gave him a way out of his subservience to the landlords.[10] Upon Masih's arrest, the authorities gave Masih's plot to Akram.[9] Akram shot and injured Masih in the halls of the Session Court at Sahiwal on 6 November 1997. Four assailants attacked Masih in jail. The authorities took no action against Akram or against the other assailants.[9] On 20 April 1998, Judge Abdul Khan sentenced Masih to death and levied a fine of 100,000 rupees. Two judges of the Lahore High Court heard Masih's appeal on 24 July 2001. Shortly thereafter, the judges affirmed the judgment of the trial court.[9] On 16 August 2002, the Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the judgment of the lower courts. The Supreme Court noted Akram's acquisition of Masih's property and concluded the case had been fabricated for personal gain. The court also noted other breaches in the law of due process


THIS IS THE REAL FACE OF PAKISTANS CONSTITUTION

Electoral process for non-Muslims

In 1980s Zia ul-Haq introduced a system under which non-Muslims could vote for only candidates of their own religion. Seats were reserved for minorities in the national and provincial assemblies. Government officials stated that the separate electorates system is a form of affirmative action designed to ensure minority representation, and that efforts are underway to achieve a consensus among religious minorities on this issue. But critics argue that under this system Muslim candidates no longer had any incentive to pay attention to the minorities. Pakistan's separate electoral system for different religions has been described as 'political Apartheid'. Hindu community leader Sudham Chand protested against the system but was murdered. In 1999, Pakistan abolished this system.[6]
On June 28, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that non-Muslims may vote for any candidate at the Union Council level for seats reserved for mayor, deputy mayor, laborers, farmers, and women. However, non-Muslims still are barred from voting for Muslim candidates who run for general seats. Three of the five rounds of elections already had occurred prior to this ruling. Few non-Muslims are active in the country's mainstream political parties. Christian and Hindu leaders conducted a boycott to protest against the system of separate electorates during the local elections. In October 2000, a coalition of Christian non-governmental organizations sent a petition to Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, requesting a dialogue between the government and minority religious leaders on the controversy. The government did not acknowledge receipt of this petition

Electoral process for non-Muslims

In 1980s Zia ul-Haq introduced a system under which non-Muslims could vote for only candidates of their own religion. Seats were reserved for minorities in the national and provincial assemblies. Government officials stated that the separate electorates system is a form of affirmative action designed to ensure minority representation, and that efforts are underway to achieve a consensus among religious minorities on this issue. But critics argue that under this system Muslim candidates no longer had any incentive to pay attention to the minorities. Pakistan's separate electoral system for different religions has been described as 'political Apartheid'. Hindu community leader Sudham Chand protested against the system but was murdered. In 1999, Pakistan abolished this system.[6]
On June 28, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that non-Muslims may vote for any candidate at the Union Council level for seats reserved for mayor, deputy mayor, laborers, farmers, and women. However, non-Muslims still are barred from voting for Muslim candidates who run for general seats. Three of the five rounds of elections already had occurred prior to this ruling. Few non-Muslims are active in the country's mainstream political parties. Christian and Hindu leaders conducted a boycott to protest against the system of separate electorates during the local elections. In October 2000, a coalition of Christian non-governmental organizations sent a petition to Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, requesting a dialogue between the government and minority religious leaders on the controversy. The government did not acknowledge receipt of this petition

SEEMS ANYONE WHO PROTESTS IS DEEMED TO GET MURDERED IN PAKISTAN
 
:blink: please read before ranting! the SIKH marriage law was made according to sikh religion not islamic! so what are you ranting about???

and islam being discriminatory :lol::wave:

I said adding religion to a constitution make it discriminatory from its core. So, a discriminatory constitution 100% meant for Muslims making law for Sikhs sounds like a joke. :agree:

What kind of nonsense are you people spouting now?
How is an Islamic constitution discriminatory?
Elaborate.
I get the feeling once again that an Indian is talking out of his @ss, which you people seem to do alot.

The day you added religion with your constitution, it became discriminatory for every non-Muslims that why a multi-religion nation opt for secularizing constitution. Your constitution try to enforce Islamic values on a non-Muslim when he don't believe in that religion. I have read wording in Pakistani constitution which are un-desirable for a non-Muslim.
Your constitution is meant 100% for Muslims and all non-Muslims are second class citizens according to that.
 
I said adding religion to a constitution make it discriminatory from its core. So, a discriminatory constitution 100% meant for Muslims making law for Sikhs sounds like a joke. :agree:



The day you added religion with your constitution, it became discriminatory for every non-Muslims that why a multi-religion nation opt for secularizing constitution. Your constitution try to enforce Islamic values on a non-Muslim when he don't believe in that religion. I have read wording in Pakistani constitution which are un-desirable for a non-Muslim.
Your constitution is meant 100% for Muslims and all non-Muslims are second class citizens according to that.

ignoring your RANT! firstly we are a MUSLIM nation & believe no law is better than the law of islam!


& infact us passing a bill for SIKHS is a bigger issue then say a so called self proclaimed secular nation india! because we are NOT EXPECTED to do so and yet WE DID. while your india keeps ignoring SIKH rights & makes all sikh children born OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE!

so yes our constituion might be meant for muslims but isn't it shows how ENLIGHTENED we are to have a law for the minority sikh religion. which your indian government loves to kill in golden temple & then deny them the right to marry and divorce according to their religion.
 
ignoring your RANT! firstly we are a MUSLIM nation & believe no law is better than the law of islam!


& infact us passing a bill for SIKHS is a bigger issue then say a so called self proclaimed secular nation india! because we are NOT EXPECTED to do so and yet WE DID. while your india keeps ignoring SIKH rights & makes all sikh children born OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE!

so yes our constituion might be meant for muslims but isn't it shows how ENLIGHTENED we are to have a law for the minority sikh religion. which your indian government loves to kill in golden temple & then deny them the right to marry and divorce according to their religion.

Forcing your religious beliefs on others through constitution is discrimination. So, stop claiming giving full rights for minorities because your constitution defines second grade status for every non-Muslim. I have even saw the wordings of the oath of Office in Pakistan, which is undesirable for non-Muslims. Pakistan caring minorities rights is just a joke.
 
Forcing your religious beliefs on others through constitution is discrimination. So, stop claiming giving full rights for minorities because your constitution defines second grade status for every non-Muslim. I have even saw the wordings of the oath of Office in Pakistan, which is undesirable for non-Muslims. Pakistan caring minorities rights is just a joke.

you might call it a "joke" however, we have minority represntation in parliment along with a sepearte marriage act for SIKHS these are FACTS so the joke is on you now! clearly we are an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC and never claimed to be secular and yet give alot of rights to non muslims definetly more than expected. but your self proclaimed secular nation ensures that every sikh child born in india is considered of "illegal birth" :bad:
 
you might call it a "joke" however, we have minority represntation in parliment along with a sepearte marriage act for SIKHS these are FACTS so the joke is on you now! clearly we are an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC and never claimed to be secular and yet give alot of rights to non muslims definetly more than expected. but your self proclaimed secular nation ensures that every sikh child born in india is considered of "illegal birth" :bad:

repeating one point does not make's it strong enough for people to overlook other things that the Indian government is doing for the minorities.

but there is no use of mentioning it here.
 
repeating one point does not make's it strong enough for people to overlook other things that the Indian government is doing for the minorities.

but there is no use of mentioning it here.

what is the indian government doing for minorties? please elaborate! golden temple,gujrat,orissa & babri masjid are what comes to mind!

in mumbai when your SRK is banned from the stadium BAL THACKREY says ban him forever!

and narinder modi is walking free & running for government! VARUN gandhi is having fun with the BJP ticket!

so do tell me what does india do for minorities? the SELF PROCLAIMED SECULAR NATION!
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom