Where is Islam in Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

That comment is clear in that in seeking to impose 'Islamic Law' you are looking at the Sunni interpretation alone. 'Accommodating all Muslims' means that the rest will be reduced to second class citizen status, whose opinions will not be taken into consideration in implementing such a system.

That is an unfair judgement... Let me clarify this for you...

Shia and Sunni agree on thousands of issues my dear sir... You wont find a single Shia who believes that Riba should be permitted... If you think we do not have any sort of consensus on certain issues you are very wrong...

My comment about using Sunni texts has a different dimension... We are openly inviting people to work for the Caliphate, however we cannot force someone to join us... If a Shia thinks that such work is not for him because his collection of Hadith do not mention anything about the work for Caliphate, then do you propose we force him to join our cause?? Although as I pointed out, there have been Shia who have worked for this cause and have agreed to the need for having an Islamic State... its as simple as that... I do not see how you bring up the second class citizens argument into this... You have to tell me the exact concerns in a more tangible form than such a vague assertion!!!

In addition, I will assume based on your comment on 'minorities have the same rights as majority in an Islamic System' that the Ahmadis will have the draconian restrictions placed upon them (cannot call themselves what they wish, cannot call their places of worship what they wish) removed, and the 'minorities' will be eligible to run for any public office, including President/Caliph.[/QUOTE]


The Ahmedis are non Muslims... The "Islamic" State has to have a "Muslim" as its leader... Its common sense yaar... You cant have a Pakistani as the President of the United States of America either

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

2. Why remove a Caliph and place another one...

If the Caliph is doing a good job... people are satisfied and happy with him... why remove him and waste money on another elections...

Because the best way to properly determine whether the people are happy with the Caliph or not is to hold elections and have the people vote.

A court cannot reflect the wishes of 180 million people - even a small group of people can raise objections to a particular ruler, and if the ruler has not committed a crime or there does not exist enough evidence to convict the ruler of a crime, the court will have to let the ruler continue. But whether a ruler has committed no crime and is honest is not the same as a ruler being popular with the people. Policies proposed by different people will be different, and people may want a change in policy after a few years of seeing how a particular 'Caliph' has run the country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That comment is clear in that in seeking to impose 'Islamic Law' you are looking at the Sunni interpretation alone. 'Accommodating all Muslims' means that the rest will be reduced to second class citizen status, whose opinions will not be taken into consideration in implementing such a system.

That is an unfair judgement... Let me clarify this for you...

Shia and Sunni agree on thousands of issues my dear sir... You wont find a single Shia who believes that Riba should be permitted... If you think we do not have any sort of consensus on certain issues you are very wrong...

My comment about using Sunni texts has a different dimension... We are openly inviting people to work for the Caliphate, however we cannot force someone to join us... If a Shia thinks that such work is not for him because his collection of Hadith do not mention anything about the work for Caliphate, then do you propose we force him to join our cause?? Although as I pointed out, there have been Shia who have worked for this cause and have agreed to the need for having an Islamic State... its as simple as that... I do not see how you bring up the second class citizens argument into this... You have to tell me the exact concerns in a more tangible form than such a vague assertion!!!

If the Shia (or any other) groups determine that they do not want to join the cause for an Islamic System of caliphate, then he process has to be stalled until a consensus on moving forward is obtained, by tweaking the proposals or engaging in discourse with the groups that are unconvinced.

Moving ahead with the plans to impose any system without consensus from all groups is to treat those groups as second class citizens, since you are disregarding their opinions on the issue of reform, and imposing your own.

In addition, I will assume based on your comment on 'minorities have the same rights as majority in an Islamic System' that the Ahmadis will have the draconian restrictions placed upon them (cannot call themselves what they wish, cannot call their places of worship what they wish) removed, and the 'minorities' will be eligible to run for any public office, including President/Caliph.


The Ahmedis are non Muslims... The "Islamic" State has to have a "Muslim" as its leader... Its common sense yaar... You cant have a Pakistani as the President of the United States of America either

Right there you have reduced the Ahmadis to second class citizens, by declaring them 'non-Muslim' a determination that only Allah can make. When you refuse to even let them call themselves what they wish and accept them as a faith with whose ideology you have strong disagreements, you are reducing them to second class citizens.

And your analogy of a 'Pakistani as President of the US' with a 'non-Muslim as President of Pakistan' is completely flawed since being an American is a nationality, as is being a Pakistani. A Muslim can become a legislator and President in the US, provided he/she was born in the US and is a citizen.

Minorities are citizens of Pakistan, and as you said, they are to be treated equally, so you cannot exclude them from participating in elections for higher office - otherwise you are treating them as second class citizens without the rights enjoyed by the majority.

There is a reason why many Muslims look at the US constitution and argue that is is the closes to a proper Islamic constitution in existence in the world - since it truly offers freedom and equal rights to all in theory, even though elected American Governments have not always followed the constitution, in terms of equal rights, in practice.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Because the best way to properly determine whether the people are happy with the Caliph or not is to hold elections and have the people vote.

A court cannot reflect the wishes of 180 million people - even a small group of people can raise objections to a particular ruler, and if the ruler has not committed a crime or there does not exist enough evidence to convict the ruler of a crime, the court will have to let the ruler continue. But whether a ruler has committed no crime and is honest is not the same as a ruler being popular with the people. Policies proposed by different people will be different, and people may want a change in policy after a few years of seeing how a particular 'Caliph' has run the country.

You cannot make everyone happy sir... If your candidate wins and mine loses, I should not be a sore loser... I only have to see if your candidate as the Caliph is doing his job or not... If not then I take him to court... If there is no evidence of him doing something wrong then I keep my mouth shut... why waste everyone's time and energy in a full blown election...

As for change in policy... they dont need to change the Caliph... There is a council of Ummah in place and public are allowed to raise their concerns there also with the help of their local representatives... In some matters of policy whatever the council of Ummah suggests to Caliph, it becomes binding on him... so they can get a change in policy from that route...

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

If the Shia (or any other) groups determine that they do not want to join the cause for an Islamic System of caliphate, then he process has to be stalled until a consensus on moving forward is obtained, by tweaking the proposals or engaging in discourse with the groups that are unconvinced.

Moving ahead with the plans to impose any system without consensus from all groups is to treat those groups as second class citizens, since you are disregarding their opinions on the issue of reform, and imposing your own.

Many do not want the current system running in Pakistan, yet that does not change the fact that there is a system running with a government, judiciary etc... Rules and laws are passed by majority vote, does nt mean that those who oppose a certain rule or law become second class citizens automatically... If the Shia are unhappy in our "imposition" then they can work for change of that system with a clear plan on what they want to change politically (like the way we are doing)...

Right there you have reduced the Ahmadis to second class citizens, by declaring them 'non-Muslim' a determination that only Allah can make. When you refuse to even let them call themselves what they wish and accept them as a faith with whose ideology you have strong disagreements, you are reducing them to second class citizens.


If you truly believe this then this is the end of our discussion dear sir... Have a good day to you too

 

[Sinnerman108]

Right there you have reduced the Ahmadis to second class citizens, by declaring them 'non-Muslim' a determination that only Allah can make. When you refuse to even let them call themselves what they wish and accept them as a faith with whose ideology you have strong disagreements, you are reducing them to second class citizens.

Two questions here

1. Why and what does QADYANI / AHMEDI have to do with this ?
2. Is there any doubt as to them not being muslim?

You are free not to answer the second question,
There is a thread here on that purpose, not sure if that agrees with forum rules or not.

In the best interest of this thread, and the thread starter's initiative,
lets keep Qadyani/ Ahmedi away.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You cannot make everyone happy sir... If your candidate wins and mine loses, I should not be a sore loser... I only have to see if your candidate as the Caliph is doing his job or not... If not then I take him to court... If there is no evidence of him doing something wrong then I keep my mouth shut... why waste everyone's time and energy in a full blown election...

Because people may not like the economic policies proposed by the candidate once they are being implemented. They may not like structural changes being out in place in the government. None of that would necessarily be 'illegal', and would be in keeping with the promises made by the candidate when running for election, but proposing a policy and implementing it and seeing the results of implementation are two different things. People might like a policy when it is proposed, but may not like the results once it is implemented, and the only surefire way of ensuring that a ruler either change his polices or step down to reflect the will of the masses is to hold periodic elections.

As for change in policy... they dont need to change the Caliph... There is a council of Ummah in place and public are allowed to raise their concerns there also with the help of their local representatives... In some matters of policy whatever the council of Ummah suggests to Caliph, it becomes binding on him... so they can get a change in policy from that route...

There is a need to change the Caliph - by resorting to the 'legislators' to put pressure on the Caliph, you are stepping away from the Presidential system back into the parliamentary system. Elections for one individual are not astronomical in expense - one every five years for the Caliph, and separate ones for the legislature are essential to keep the leadership honest and continue to reflect the will of the people.

'Caliph for life' is too much power to give to one man.

 

[Ahmad]

Are we talking about Khalifa for paksitan only or for the muslim world? as per my understanding the Khalifa is for the whole muslim world.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If the Shia (or any other) groups determine that they do not want to join the cause for an Islamic System of caliphate, then he process has to be stalled until a consensus on moving forward is obtained, by tweaking the proposals or engaging in discourse with the groups that are unconvinced.

Moving ahead with the plans to impose any system without consensus from all groups is to treat those groups as second class citizens, since you are disregarding their opinions on the issue of reform, and imposing your own.

Many do not want the current system running in Pakistan, yet that does not change the fact that there is a system running with a government, judiciary etc... Rules and laws are passed by majority vote, does nt mean that those who oppose a certain rule or law become second class citizens automatically... If the Shia are unhappy in our "imposition" then they can work for change of that system with a clear plan on what they want to change politically (like the way we are doing)...

Many may not want the current system, but the current constitution was agreed to in a consensus by almost all parties. Therefore it is reasonable that a new proposed system also have the support of all existing parties before implementation. Perhaps down the line even that system will lose support, but the initial implementation must be done with consensus to avoid ethnic and sectarian tensions that could result in a situation like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right there you have reduced the Ahmadis to second class citizens, by declaring them 'non-Muslim' a determination that only Allah can make. When you refuse to even let them call themselves what they wish and accept them as a faith with whose ideology you have strong disagreements, you are reducing them to second class citizens.


If you truly believe this then this is the end of our discussion dear sir... Have a good day to you too

So your claims of 'equal citizens and equal rights' stand exposed for the shameless lies they are.

No wonder so many in the West call Muslims 'hypocrites'.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Many may not want the current system, but the current constitution was agreed to in a consensus by almost all parties. Therefore it is reasonable that a new proposed system also have the support of all existing parties before implementation. Perhaps down the line even that system will lose support, but the initial implementation must be done with consensus to avoid ethnic and sectarian tensions that could result in a situation like Iraq and Afghanistan.

So your claims of 'equal citizens and equal rights' stand exposed for the shameless lies they are.

No wonder so many in the West call Muslims 'hypocrites'.

No need to act all macho and insulting here mate... Get a life and stop acting like an idiot

 

[absmonarch]

Allah gave his message in Holy Quran. Ahmedis go against Quran. How can you call them muslim?

It is simple question with simple answer.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Are we talking about Khalifa for paksitan only or for the muslim world? as per my understanding the Khalifa is for the whole muslim world.

IIRC, the HuT philosophy (WRT Pakistan) revolves around imposing Khilafat incrementally.

HuT would like to see Khilafat implemented successfully in Pakistan, and then gradually seek to being other Muslim nations and peoples under its banner.

But again, with a project such as that, seeking to bring together so many diverse cultures, peoples and sects under one 'Khilafat', they are going to doom it to failure if they do not understand that imposing such a system without consensus from all sects and ethnic and national groups will lead to sectarian and ethnic strife.

In Pakistan, after sixty plus years we have only now come up with a compromise formula on resource sharing and provincial autonomy that is acceptable to all provinces and ethnic groups. To propose a system without considering such issues and proposing solutions to them that are acceptable to all groups is a recipe for disaster.

 

[absmonarch]

Ahmedis are Hindus. Because only Hindus say 'One god, Many paths'. Ahmedis choose their own path, but Hindus can accept it. So they are Hindus in reality.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Allah gave his message in Holy Quran. Ahmedis go against Quran. How can you call them muslim?

It is simple question with simple answer.

The funny thing is he is even mentioning the constitution where supposedly everyone and all parties have agreed upon...

Oh wait... The constitutions second amendment declares Ahmedis as non Muslims...

What a joke!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No need to act all macho and insulting here mate... Get a life and stop acting like an idiot

How am I being 'Macho and insulting'?

You yourself claimed 'equal rights for minorities' and right after that refused to grant 'equal rights' to Ahmadis or other non-Muslim minorities in terms of election to public office.

So your claims of 'equal rights for all' are either lies, or at best you are a hypocrite for advocating 'equal rights' for those groups that are acceptable to you, and denying equal rights to those groups that are unacceptable to you.

Hypocrisy and/or lies - plain and simple.