Where is Islam in Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

[Tin Man]

If the prophet (pbuh) came back now and in pakistan- he would never be allowed to do anything by the mullahs. They wouldn't be able to bear watching someone toppling their power.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

^^ I think he would rid the country of all the mullahs and bulldoze almost all the mosques. I have pointed out why I believe this to be the case in my posts above.

How would the daily social life be?
Would we be allowed MTV? Fashion Shows, Poondi, parties?
How would the economic & banking system be?
How would the domestic and foreign policy be?

Mullahs? Was he not the biggest mullah? I mean, he challenged thousands years old way of life and told them they cannot "eat, drink & be merry". Unless we think that based on non compulsion theory he will uphold" Laissez-Faire".................

 

[TechLahore]

Was he not the biggest mullah?

No. He was the ultimate antithesis of the mullah. His message was one that stressed man's direct relationship with God. He did not allow or condone firqawariat. And he did not pressurize people to convert, much less use force against them to further "religion".

 

[Tin Man]

How would the daily social life be?
Would we be allowed MTV? Fashion Shows, Poondi, parties?
How would the economic & banking system be?
How would the domestic and foreign policy be?

Mullahs? Was he not the biggest mullah? I mean, he challenged thousands years old way of life and told them they cannot "eat, drink & be merry". Unless we think that based on non compulsion theory he will uphold" Laissez-Faire".................

The prophet would be a revolutionary compared to the mullahs we have now. Nowhere else is the religious principles grossly misinterpreted and diversified according to need. And to be honest islamic banking is really an awesome system.
It works like a charm in the middle east.

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

No. He was the ultimate antithesis of the mullah. His message was one that stressed man's direct relationship with God. He did not allow or condone firqawariat. And he did not pressurize people to convert, much less use force against them to further "religion".

assalam alaikum

Brother u didnot answer while he destroy 90% of the masjeds and killing all the mullahs will he let mtv , riba system and cat walks or no etc ? or destroy them as the mulla try to stop them?

common bhai, about the bolded part what firqawariat in his times? how can somebody has more say in his time and he is present there?

TARIQ

 

[TechLahore]

assalam alaikum

Brother u didnot answer while he destroy 90% of the masjeds and killing all the mullahs will he let mtv , riba system and cat walks or no etc ? or destroy them as the mulla try to stop them?

common bhai, about the bolded part what firqawariat in his times? how can somebody has more say in his time and he is present there?

TARIQ

Are you not familiar with the incident of masjid-e-zarrar? Even in the presence of Prophets, those who seek to divide will do their thing. What other lesson do you learn from the story of Samirri and Moses?

In asking me about cat walks etc., you are assuming two things. First, that somehow these issues of personal morality are even close to the top of the priority list. And secondly, that the Prophet would suddenly launch a bid to take over government. Far from it. The Prophet and his family did not desire government. They are a moral example of perfection, not Kings or rulers. If the Prophet rules, he does so only because the people want him to.

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

TechLahore

But the Prophet ( PBUH) ruled and we take guidance from him we do like what he did yes i know about zarrar masjed this is what i told u there is no one who can build his own masjid during his day they would be broght down.

Anyhow i like ur writing but now u came down to the firqa wariat end of discussion to me

TARIQ

 

[American Eagle]

Sir we would be greatful if "indians' refrain from posting in this thread as i have made it clear.
FOR PAKISTANIS ONLY.

There are many more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. And India was the home of what is now Paksitan, it's origination point if you will.

I knew Jinnah's younger sister (thanks to Ahmad for correcting my previous mistatement describing Ms. Jinnah as the daughter, faulty memory, as she was much younger), Fatimah in Karachi during my tour of duty with the US Embassy there. She was a good Muslim, as was Mr. Jinnah, but they did not advocate a theocratic nation but a nation within which ALL faiths would practice freely and openly their differing systems, but Islam would of course be the majority religion, that was a given.

The creation of Pakistan, remember, was largely by Lord Mountbatten, not by a religiously divine guidance system.

 

[Jigs]

"Where is Islam in Islamic Republic of Pakistan"

In the hearts and minds of those who embrace it and that is where it needs to stay. The extension into the whole state having a Islamic system destroys the minority rights and because of its billion interpretations and non regulation the crazies start coming out of the wood work. Then it becomes a tool rather then a way of life for the people who embrace it and hell for those that don't

 

[EjazR]

See these people doesn't even reply on these types of threads..

I posted this and see the response?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...ing-killer-blasphemer-ghazi-ilm-deen-r-h.html

This what we call revisionist history. This is a grave problem in the subcontinent. In Pakistan, there is a section of people adamant in making Jinnah have a beard and compleately flasifying historical accounts. This is wrong espicially if its done in the name of Islam.

There is a similar problem in India where everything in History is given some sort of Hindu nationalist (or pseudo-nationalist) twist by a section of the people.



Here is a more nuanced version of the same story please read:
The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah by Yasser Latif Hamdani | GE Columns.com

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would

In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

There are many more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. And India was the home of what is now Paksitan, it's origination point if you will.

I knew Jinnah's daughter, Fatimah in Karachi during my tour of duty with the US Embassy there. She was a good Muslim, as was Mr. Jinnah, but they did not advocate a theocratic nation but a nation within which ALL faiths would practice freely and openly their differing systems, but Islam would of course be the majority religion, that was a given.

The creation of Pakistan, remember, was largely by Lord Mountbatten, not by a religiously divine guidance system.

Hello

fatimah was his sister not daughter a little correction. American Eagle and all of the non muslims it is very hard to make u understand that we we can differ with any one and anyone can make a mistake in a good faith but only the Prophet (PBUH) is the one who doesnot make a mistake and as a muslims we feel he is our ideal and we wanna copy him or walk in his footstep, we can agree with jinah or any other persone on some issues and differ too but not with the Prophet (PBUH) this is our faith.
All faiths were practiced freely when muslims ruled very vast land this is how the minorities still exists.

Pakistan became to be coz muslims of india decided to have a state for muslims.

TARIQ

 

[Omar1984]

There are many more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. And India was the home of what is now Paksitan, it's origination point if you will.

That is incorrect. Pakistan's population has grown in these past 10 years. There are 184 million people in Pakistan now (97% of the population is Muslim). There are 1.2 billion people in India now (13.5% of the population is Muslim). You do the math. And the region that is now Pakistan was also parts of various Middle Eastern empires throughout history. The land of Pakistan has a different history than most of what is today's India.

I knew Jinnah's daughter, Fatimah in Karachi during my tour of duty with the US Embassy there. She was a good Muslim, as was Mr. Jinnah, but they did not advocate a theocratic nation but a nation within which ALL faiths would practice freely and openly their differing systems, but Islam would of course be the majority religion, that was a given.

Fatima Jinnah was the sister of Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

She was an old woman during the creation of Pakistan, I can't believe you mistake her for being Mohammad Ali Jinnah's daughter.

This is her standing next to her famous brother:

The creation of Pakistan, remember, was largely by Lord Mountbatten, not by a religiously divine guidance system.

Are you saying that Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslims of Pakistan had no hand in the creation of Pakistan? Then why did millions of Muslims sacrafice their lives for Pakistan in 1947? Why did millions of Muslims travel so far risking their lives knowing they can be killed on the way by angry hindu/sikh mobs?

Mountbatten wanted to destroy Pakistan by granting Muslim majority districts in Punjab (that was easily accessible to Kashmir) to india. Millions of Punjabi Muslims were forced to migrate to Pakistan and many were killed and raped in the way. He was india's first governor general, he was working for india's interests not Pakistan's. We Pakistanis dont have a favorable view of Mountbatten.

 

[FreekiN]

assalam alaikum

Eventhough we can argue that pakistan was for islam , but i take ur bolded text if it was made for muslims, then they can adopt islam anytime. There r many countries used to be religous and they r no more, Why the muslims of pakistan cant have islam as way of life and protected by the constitution ?

TARIQ

Because that is not what we need. We do not need to change our governmental view on religion. Pakistan is semi-secular even if it has a "Islamic Republic" attached in its name. We allow minority religions to take part in most prominent positions in politics, military and media.

Implementing Sharia would become way too messy for this 'qaum' to handle.

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

Because that is not what we need. We do not need to change our governmental view on religion. Pakistan is semi-secular even if it has a "Islamic Republic" attached in its name. We allow minority religions to take part in most prominent positions in politics, military and media.

Implementing Sharia would become way too messy for this 'qaum' to handle.

assalam alaikum

There is no secularism in pakistan ( only few ) yes there r not many practicing muslims but their love for islam and effection is clear from the yesterday's shutter down strike and if ppl like u still dont understand it, we always will be debating with each other and not progress.

Minorities should be free to perform their activities

TARIQ

 

[Tin Man]

=====DELETED=====