ok too much confusion in the thread. So far what i have got is either Pakistan can be a secular state or a talibani version of islamic state. Why not a reasonable middle? Just because we donot agree with every thing that taliban did shouldnt mean that we disagree with anything they did on that premises. Secondly why does the taliban interpretation of shariah has to be the only interpretation of shariah? Take what you think is genuine and leave what you find to be a deviation from Prophet's way. Democracy is a good, an excellent tool actually, shariah is more like the constitute which the democratic regime furhter extrapolates in domestic bodies. However to me personally its truly unfathomable that once we have established a country for the protection and liberty of muslim to practise their religion we prevent shariah to be established or stomp on the legitimate desire of its people. Pakistan is a muslim country, it should try to develop a complete islamic system, although we have never had a complete islamic regime in past , however, that shouldnt mean that we should forget about the concept of islamic state and focus on a secular state. There is a difference between trying to get there and changing the goal altogether. I think we should be able to democratically select leaders and representative but we cannot democratically or by any other means alter the religious foundation of our country. The current situation is, in my opinion, a stark reminder of the poor progress that we've made in achieving the goal that we vowed to achieve with the birth of our country. That shouldnt equate to me agreeing with tactics of talibans , that merely means that our governments should seriously think about the issue and develop strategies that has created such a storm, along with a reasonable approach to handle the current situation.
Request to Moderators
Dear Moderators can you please split the second page from my thread caz its off topic and open an other thread with khekeshan or** the Joke** as its starter and title it** " Taliban Vision of Islam " etc etc**
Because the prime purpose of my thread was Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal's Vision of Pakistan but somehow over excited people have spotted a Taliban here...and have made it another one of those typical Taliban vs Good guys Thread.
Please Take action and preserve the essence of my Post. I repeatedly tried to explain them to stay within the confinements of the topic but some people hijacked the entire thread with another discussion.
I think you should have clarified in the beginning of the thread that whoever has views opposite to yours should not post in the thread.
Ignoring your self glorification and cheap publicity stunts like offering money I think you missed the point completely from Quaid's quotes.
1) May be Quaid wanted to name Pakisatan as Islamic republic to represent majority of the people here are Muslims, but did he want to name Pakistan Islamic theocratic state...I think certainly not..
2) He wanted an Islamic democratic country where Muslims were free to exercise their religions in their private lives while giving the relgious freedom to other communities as well. Did he want a theocratic Islamic state where Islam is imposed on people by the state...Certainly not...
3) Did he want a state where he wanted to punish people's sins with Islamic sharia...certianly not...
4) Did he want a democratic Pakistan or wanted to follow an Islamic system where women and non believers are not consulted in the matters of government formation and matters of collective wisdom...certainly not..
It's important what you understand from these quotes. If you agree on above points you can call Pakistan Islamic Republic or Islamic fundamentalist...name does not matter...He envisioned Pakistan as an equal opportunity country for Pakistanis irrespective of their relgion, colour, creed, or ethnicity. He wanted private choices for people in the matter of their personal lives and did not want a country with moral police restricting people's choices in their private affairs and flogging people for their romantic affairs, length of the beard, attendence in the mosques, unveiled women, painting and singing etc etc...
If you want to call this an Islamic system where state does not punish sins and only is concerned with crimes...There is no dispute between your point of view with liberals...but if you want to create an Islamic state where right of voting is not given to women and minorities as it was done in Madina like state, where moral police will interfere in private lives...I think Quaideazam's version of Islam differed from yours...
Quaideazam's understanding of Islam did not restrict the development of society beyond Madina like state. For example slavery was legal in Madina like state, I don't think he wanted to reintroduce slavery to create a Madina like state..people used to ride camels in a Madina like state, I don't think he wanted to reintroduce camels to create a Madina like state...in the same manner he believed in democracy, separation of religion from state affairs, equal human rights for men women believers non believers, no business of the government in morality of people in religious sense...some ideas which were not there in Madina like state but have evolved in last few hundred years to have a better civil society...
Let me tell you a bitter reality...if you think Madina like state was perfect and there is no betterment possible in that system....and that should be the system followed today in a state without any change...you have no place in the civilized world today...and if you take only the principles and apply them according to today's requirements...nobody has any objection if you call it Islamic or secular...name does not matter...////
I think you should have clarified in the beginning of the thread that whoever has views opposite to yours should not post in the thread.
Let me tell you a bitter reality...if you think Madina like state was perfect and there is no betterment possible in that system....and that should be the system followed today in a state without any change...you have no place in the civilized world today...and if you take only the principles and apply them according to today's requirements...nobody has any objection if you call it Islamic or secular...name does not matter...////
Rejected!
Reason: You failed to discuss the qoutes of Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal and you made it look as if I said those quotes. Dear Mr Yazdi those quotes are not mine . The qoutes go back to the founders of Pakistan. You are barking at the wrong tree man!............I request you not to focus on my personal beliefs caz you dont even know them .
I am sure if Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal were alive today, out of your compuslive nature of b*****ng all islamic minded people as Talibans....you would have certainly declared them as Terrorists!
Why not a reasonable middle?
Problem solved.
Rejected!
Reason: You failed to discuss the qoutes of Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal and you made it look as if I said those quotes. Dear Mr Yazdi those quotes are not mine . The qoutes go back to the founders of Pakistan. You are barking at the wrong tree man!............I request you not to focus on my personal beliefs caz you dont even know them . I am sure if Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal were alive today, out of your compuslive nature of b*****ng all islamic minded people as Talibans....you would have certainly declared them as Terrorists!
*Overruled. *
Iqbal and Jinnah are worlds apart from the present day takfiri talibs, that it's not even a debate.
Please be foucsed this thread is not taliban vs army thread. I am going to rest for a while caz i cannot answer every childish reply. Come up with some scholarly reply with quotes, references and dates.
Its very typical of secular fanatics that when they cannot negate an argument they jump on XYZ things like Shaving, Taliban, Sudan, Somalia and so on...........
I am going to hibernate till some intellectual reply comes.
Peace Now......
do us all a favor and continue hibernating
your pathetic replies and failure to comprehend a slightest discourse is your failing
why don't you become the spokesman for the taliban
Rejected!
Reason: You failed to discuss the qoutes of Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal and you made it look as if I said those quotes. Dear Mr Yazdi those quotes are not mine . The qoutes go back to the founders of Pakistan. You are barking at the wrong tree man!............I request you not to focus on my personal beliefs caz you dont even know them . I am sure if Quaid-e-Azam and Iqbal were alive today, out of your compuslive nature of b*****ng all islamic minded people as Talibans....you would have certainly declared them as Terrorists!
Case Dismissed!
**Reason: **You failed to challenge the points presented. Instead like a parrot you keep repeating the same nonsense. Thinking if you throw crap enough times on a wall it will actually stick. The Taliban are not islamic minded people.
They are the biggest sinners in Islam because they pretend to be Muslims and yet commit crimes that Arabs used to do before Islam came.
They will be burning in the deepest fires of hell. And if you don't reform your ridicilous views, you would be joining them.
Re: Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah - The Founder of Islamic (Not Secular) Pakistan
Case has been decided in favor of the Plaintiff, Non of the secular defendants were able to put a concrete defense.
Case Closed and Decided in Favour of Bitter- Reality
Reason: All Secular Extremists failed to provide one single quote from either Iqbal or Quaid-e-azam that Pakistan would not be an Islamic state. The Plaintiff ( Bitter) presented 10's of quotes in favour of his arguments and the secular extremist defendants failed to present one single quote from any founding leaders of Pakistan.
The Jury Declares bitter-reality as Winner of this Debate and Congratulates him on his 1 vs 10 ( Khekeshan, Mercernary 2k , Shamraz etc etc etc ) vitcory. Well done Bitter!
FAIL!
REASON: YOUR POSTS ARE YOUR OWN WEAK INTERPRETATIONS OF JiNNAH.
Even if Jinnah said Pakistan should be governed with Islam principles and laws in mind, that does NOT mean he wanted a theocracy…
Jinnah wanted a state based on the universal principlas of good and fair governance.
Many people and many nations are inspired by their collective faith to draft
their laws. That does not mean they arent secular.
Secular simply means the govt has no say in the matter of religion, and issues of relgion are seperate. This is exactly what Jinnah refferred to in his speech.
You are free to worship as you please, and it is not the business of the state!
Your problem, you make assumptions about Jinnah that are not supported by the mans own character.
So lesson for Backwards religous fascits: If you want a Pseudo Islamic totalitarian state, then go live in Saudia Arabia, or better yet, live in Swat with all you terrorists friends..
Pakistan is for secular progressives.
Case Dismissed!
**Reason: **You failed to challenge the points presented. Instead like a parrot you keep repeating the same nonsense. Thinking if you throw crap enough times on a wall it will actually stick. The Taliban are not islamic minded people.
They are the biggest sinners in Islam because they pretend to be Muslims and yet commit crimes that Arabs used to do before Islam came.
They will be burning in the deepest fires of hell. And if you don't reform your ridicilous views, you would be joining them.
Yes very true..
It a well known fact that many of these so called Talibs are career criminals who are only in this to further their careers. The Swat Taliban for example have support from the timber mafia.
The retarded thing about Pakistan is, that its perhaps the only country in the world where if a thief robs a bank, he can be punished as a thief. But if the same thief claimed to be a devout Muslim who was commiting the crime in the name of Islam, he suddenly has the support and admiration of geniuses like this "bitter reality" person. Then if he is killed by police or put to death, he is now a revered shaheed!
FAIL!
REASON: YOUR POSTS ARE YOUR OWN WEAK INTERPRETATIONS OF JiNNAH.
Even if Jinnah said Pakistan should be governed with Islam principles and laws in mind, that does NOT mean he wanted a theocracy...
Jinnah wanted a state based on the universal principlas of good and fair governance.
Many people and many nations are inspired by their collective faith to draft their laws. That does not mean they arent secular.
Secular simply means the govt has no say in the matter of religion, and issues of relgion are seperate. This is exactly what Jinnah refferred to in his speech.
You are free to worship as you please, and it is not the business of the state!
Your problem, you make assumptions about Jinnah that are not supported by the mans own character.
So lesson for Backwards religous fascits: If you want a Pseudo Islamic totalitarian state, then go live in Saudia Arabia, or better yet, live in Swat with all you terrorists friends.. Pakistan is for secular progressives.
Rejected!
Reason : Failure to present any document, qoute or speech excerpt. Your own personal opinion cannot be taken as defence exhibit.
Re: Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah - The Founder of Islamic (Not Secular) Pakistan
THE CASE IS OFFICIALLY NOW CLOSED. THE JURY MAY REST! REPLIES WON'T BE ENTERTAINED NOW!
Re: Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah - The Founder of Islamic (Not Secular) Pakistan
[note]Thread cleaned up. Please discuss the topic at-hand, not the participants. Any further personal attacks or provocation will be met with infractions. Thanks for the cooperation.[/note]
THE CASE IS OFFICIALLY NOW CLOSED. THE JURY MAY REST! REPLIES WON'T BE ENTERTAINED NOW!
Is that a request to close the thread?
Re: Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah - The Founder of Islamic (Not Secular) Pakistan
^^ after the thrashing that bitter_reality has received
it would be a mercy closing
Is that a request to close the thread?
Yes , Please do close the thread! Its has been discussed to its limits.