What's new

Zakir Naik rejects Two Nation Thoery

2. Again your assumption! You did not the fact that GUJRAT was the last straw, in developing India. The -ve publicity it gave, will not be tolerated again by any government in India. So there is no place for another GUJRAT in India for now. So retaliation of HINDUS like you mentioned is out of question. More over, Mumbai massacre took a heavy toll of Innocent muslims as well. Hindu names appearing in the casuality list were not alone. There are a significant portion of muslims casualities as well.

Fighter

Higher than the proportion of their population in Mumbai. They form around 16%, but around 30% of the innocents killed were Muslims.

To say that Muslims showed their anger out of "fear of Hindus" is highly insulting and demeaning.Let me remind people that Indian Muslims have easily defended their pov no matter how controversial it is in various occasions.
 
Not name but Islam be part of Islamic constitution. I understand Indian Muslim have to be politically correct and apologetic to survive...... Infact that goes to us Pakistani too when it comes to the western world :D

I wasn't trying to be politically correct or anything. According to many scholars, using Islam to gain political power is unIslamic. For example, saying give me vote because "I will protect Islam" is wrong.

Turkey does very well without mentioning Islam in its constitution. That doesn't mean Turkish muslims are any less muslim. Bangladeshi constitution starts with Bismillah, but their laws are secular in nature and infact are even contemplating laws to ban religion based parties.

On the other hand, KSA claims to be an Islamic kingdom. When infact, having a King that is not selected through a shura is UnIslamic in itself.

Anyways, I have posted extensively on this concept of "Establishing an Islamic state" in the link I posted earlier, so you can read what my views are there if you want to. :)
 
I wasn't trying to be politically correct or anything. According to many scholars, using Islam to gain political power is unIslamic. For example, saying give me vote because "I will protect Islam" is wrong.

Turkey does very well without mentioning Islam in its constitution. That doesn't mean Turkish muslims are any less muslim. Bangladeshi constitution starts with Bismillah, but their laws are secular in nature and infact are even contemplating laws to ban religion based parties.

On the other hand, KSA claims to be an Islamic kingdom. When infact, having a King that is not selected through a shura is UnIslamic in itself.

Anyways, I have posted extensively on this concept of "Establishing an Islamic state" in the link I posted earlier, so you can read what my views are there if you want to. :)

I have read Hizb charter they do not even go into vote politics as yet. However, they do call for establishment of state based on Quranic laws
 
Zakir Naik is a Yazidi fool! He supports the MURDERER of the family of Rasool Allah (SAW)! He is NO Alim, and he is very ignorant!

He lacks credibility, and knows very little about the hadiths, Sharia, Islamic history, and Islam in general!

Zakir Naik is a huge fitna... I continue to wait for him to get run over by a bus. And each day that it doesn't happen, I think "Allah nay is ki rassi thoree aur lambi kar dee".

He is a total and complete sw1ne who is dividing muslims and spreading mischief. May he rot in Hell.
 
A flawed idea

M J Akbar, Mar 8, 2009, 02.38am IST

Indians and Pakistanis are the same people. Why then have the two nations moved on such divergent arcs over the last six decades? The idea of India is stronger than the Indian, and the idea of Pakistan weaker than the Pakistani. Multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular, democratic India was an idea that belonged to the future; one-dimensional Pakistan was a concept borrowed from the fears of the past. India has progressed into a modern nation occasionally hampered by backward forces. Pakistan is regressing into a medieval society with a smattering of modern elements.

Pakistan was born out of the wedlock of two inter-related propositions. Its founders argued, without any substantive evidence, that Hindus and Muslims could never live together as equals in a single nation. They imposed a parallel theory, perhaps in an effort to strengthen the argument with an emotive layer, that Islam was in danger on the subcontinent. Pakistan's declared destiny, therefore, was not merely as a refuge for some Indian Muslims, but also a fortress of the faith. This was the rationale for what became known as the "two-nation theory". The British bought the argument, the Congress accepted it reluctantly, the Muslim League exulted.

The Indian state was founded on equality and equity: political equality through democracy, religious equality through secularism, gender equality, and economic equity. Economic equality is a fantasy, but without an equitable economy that works towards the elimination of poverty there cannot be a sustainable state. India, therefore, saw land reforms and the abolition of zamindari. Pakistan has been unable to enforce land reforms. India and Pakistan were alternative models for a nation-state. Time would determine which idea had the legs to reach a modern horizon.

The two strands within Pakistan's DNA began to slowly split its personality. The father of the nation, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, thought he had produced a child in his own image, but his secular prescription was soon suppressed. His ideas were buried at his funeral. His heirs began to concede space to mullahs like Maulana Maudoodi who asked, in essence, that if Pakistan had been created to defend Islam, then who would be its best guardians?

After some debate, the first Constitution in 1956 proclaimed Pakistan as an "Islamic" state. It was an uneasy compromise. No one cared (or dared) to examine what it might mean. The principal institutions of state, and the economy, remained largely in the control of the secular tendency until, through racist prejudice, arrogance and awesome military incompetence it was unable to protect the integrity of the nation. The crisis of 1969-1971, and the second partition of the subcontinent, which created a Muslim-majority Bangladesh out of a Muslim-majority Pakistan, forced Pakistan to introspect deeply about its identity.

Perhaps the last true secularist of this Islamic state was the Western-Oriented-Gentleman Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who came to power in 1971, preached emancipation from poverty and did not mind a spot of whisky in the evening. By the end of his six years in office, he had imposed prohibition. The ground had begun to shift even before the coup that brought Gen Zia to power.

Zia had the answer to his own question: if Islam was the cement of Pakistan, how could you expect the edifice to survive if the cement had been diluted. Islam became the ideology of the state, not as a liberal and liberating influence, but in its Wahabi manifestation: compulsory prayers in government offices, public flogging, the worst form of gender bias in legislation, the conversion of history into anti-Hindu and anti-Indian fantasy, a distorted school curriculum, with "Islamic knowledge" becoming a criterion for selection to academic posts. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided the excuse for the adoption of "jihad" as state policy as well as a medley of irregular forces, liberally funded by American and Saudi money. The madrassas became not only the supply factories for irregular soldiers, but also the breeding ground for armed bands that are holding Pakistan hostage today.

If it had been only a question of an individual's excesses Zia's death could have been a swivel moment for the restoration of the pre-Zia era, particularly since his successor was Benazir Bhutto. But in the quarter century since his sudden death by mid-air explosion, no one in Islamabad has had the courage to change the curriculum or challenge the spread of the madrassas. There are now over 20,000 of them, with perhaps two million students, most (not all) of them controlled by extremists. Worse, prompted by thoughtless advice, Benazir engineered the rise of the Taliban and helped it conquer Kabul. The children of Gen Zia are now threatening Islamabad. Sometimes a simple fact can illuminate the nature of a society. During the 2005 earthquake, male students of the Frontier Medical College were stopped by religious fanatics - their elders - from saving girls from the rubble of their school building. The girls were allowed to die rather than be "polluted" by the male touch. This would be inconceivable in India.

For six decades, power in Pakistan has teetered between military dictatorship and civilian rule. When the credibility of civilians was exhausted the people welcomed the army; when the generals overstayed their welcome, the citizen returned to political parties. Pakistan is facing a dangerous moment, when the credibility of both the military and politicians seems to have ebbed beyond recovery. How long before the poor and the middle classes turn to the theocrats waiting to take over? The state has already handed over a province like Swat to Islamic rule. Men like Baitullah Mehsud, Mangal Bagh and Maulana Faziullah are a very different breed from the mullahs who have already been co-opted and corrupted by the system. They have a supplementary query which resonates with the street and the village after 9/11: why is Pakistan's army fighting America's war against fellow Muslims? Any suggestion that Pakistan might have become a much larger base for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was is met with the usual response, denial.

On the day that terrorists attacked Sri Lankan cricketers, I had a previously arranged speaking engagement at a university in Delhi before largely Muslim students. I began with the suggestion that every Indian Muslim should offer a special, public prayer of thanks to the Almighty Allah for His extraordinary benevolence - for the mercy He had shown by preventing us from ending up in Pakistan in 1947. The suggestion was received with startled amusement, instinctive applause and a palpable sense of sheer relief.

A flawed idea - The Siege Within - MJ Akbar - Opinion - Home - The Times of India
 
He boycotted the plebiscite and the majority was 50.3% something (despite his boycott)nothing of an overwhelming majority.The voting was also not based on universal adult suffarage only those who paid income tax were eligible to vote

Give it a rest. No Pakistani would ever want to be called indian be it Punjabi, Pakhtoon, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Baloch, Saraiki, Hazara, etc...

And dont expect to get any sympathy from Pakistani Pathans.

Pathans and Kashmiris of Pakistan hate indians the most.

Well all ethnic groups of Pakistan are not fond of indians :sniper:
 
Salaam

we take the good and reject the bad.

Remember that he has done allot of good in the field of comparative religion, allot of Hindus have embraced Islam because of him. However, I myself disagree with him on a few things such as his stance on Yazeed and madhabs etc

I'll say it again, take the good and reject the bad.
 
I listened to Mr. Zakir Naik with great enthusiasm initially, but after first few listening, I knew something was not right about him. He is not an Aalim but only a Zakir (not because of his name); those who have ever attended 'Manazras' and 'Majalis' would know what I mean by an Aalim and Zakir. Few more example are Mr. Ghamdi, Mr. Aamir Liaquat etc whom some people are trying their best to make into an Aalim, which they are not.
 
Come on Mr Ejaz no matter how much you try to defend India truth is Hindu has never accepted Muslims in subcontinent.Ranging from the illiterate street dweller to highly educated and rich and also the so called secular Hindu.They all hate Muslims and at first Instance they will miss no chance to malign Muslims(living Example is this forum)

And Sir i very well know how Muslims are treated in India(Don't tell me that they live in heaven).They have to Prove their to Loyalty to Indian State.

And One thing more if there is a single incident against India by Pakistan the first people to worry about their livelihoods and life are Indian Muslims.

Because when you Can't attack Pakistan then Naturally all of your anger will be directed towards Indian Muslims.

And that burning of Pakistani Flags by Indian Muslims i wouldn't mind it after all that's a strategy of Survival.
 
to reject to two nation theory by Dr zakir naik is a insult to the creation of this lovely mother land !
Idissagree....
 
Give it a rest. No Pakistani would ever want to be called indian be it Punjabi, Pakhtoon, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Baloch, Saraiki, Hazara, etc...

And dont expect to get any sympathy from Pakistani Pathans.

Pathans and Kashmiris of Pakistan hate indians the most.

Well all ethnic groups of Pakistan are not fond of indians :sniper:

Very well said. As i said using some french that we Pathans keeps India at L--------


And if their memory is working, then in 48 these were us Pathans who had liberated one part of Kashmir.


Let us get free from US and Indian fitnas in Afghanistan i see more bright chances coming our way
 
I have read Hizb charter they do not even go into vote politics as yet. However, they do call for establishment of state based on Quranic laws

The voting tactic is just an example.

But Hizb is part of the same ideology and just as dangerous, even though they use flowery language about Quran and Sunnah.

Even TTP and Al Qaeda have the same charter, to establish an Islamic state. So you see why the concept of grabbing politcal power and pushing Islam top down is flawed? Moreover, as explained by numerous scholars including Maulana Taqi Usmani for example in Pakistan, this is the wrong approach.
 
Agreed 90%
Not 99% but 100% of crap against Pak is created by Indians and 100% of crap against India is created by Pakistanis. Its not that Hindus hate Muslims but Indians hate Pakistanis and vice versa.

Its gonna stay that way. Even Indian muslims hate Pakistan. Can't help it.


“The Mu’minoon are but a single Brotherhood.” (The Holy Qur’an, 49:10)

"A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. He does not oppress him, nor does he leave him at the mercy of others." (Sahih Muslim Book 032, Number 6219)

and they are many other verses on muslim brotherhood if you want more.
 
he did not reject two nation theory, he said the creation of pakistan divided the muslims which of course i dont agree
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom