You talk such nonsense but have Imran Khan in PFP. You are a living oxymoron.
What nonsense have I spoken.
I've directly quoted Jinnah.
You folks are just huffing hot air and threatening us with violence.
Lol.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You talk such nonsense but have Imran Khan in PFP. You are a living oxymoron.
So how the hell do you deal with an extremely religious population base with relatively low levels of education?
Of course they are likely to buy into ideas of sharia if the state becomes more secularised,
as the anti-state actors will have more leverage in targeting state institutions with the aid of the people.
This could very well lead to the fragmentation of Pakistan.
Watch where you tread with that.
A secular Pakistan would stabilise Pakistan and remove power from pedophile mullahs and pseudo mullahs like Diesel and others who use religion as a weapon.
How dare you threaten us.
Religion of peace eh?
What nonsense have I spoken.
I've directly quoted Jinnah.
You folks are just huffing hot air and threatening us with violence.
Lol.
You are clearly anti Islam yet you have Imran Khan,who is clearly pro Islam, as your pfp. You are a fake Imran Khan supporter. Simple as. LiberalWhat nonsense have I spoken.
I've directly quoted Jinnah.
You folks are just huffing hot air and threatening us with violence.
Lol.
Military matters have no place in this conversation.By educating them. By removing the hyper religious nonsense that was implemented by Zia ul Haq in Pakistan Studies curriculum?
Education is more important than your silly jets which you don't even have the balls to use when daddy America is droning our own citizens.
Might as well use that money to educate our population.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are both more prosperous than Pakistan is. Guess who has the more secular constitution?Why? You're telling me the average Pakistani when given the choice, the average person would ditch living in a free society for a hyper-religious society?
All the more why education and Pakistan Studies reforms are crucial.
Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of why that doesn't work. Add in the paradise of Mauritania.
Teaching people about their land is paramount, and has been done.?
Ah yes. Teaching people to love the land and their people will "fragment" the country. That makes total sense.
Abandon your mother tongues and speak broken English and broken Urdu. Science and technology are of the devil. Only memorise quran.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan![]()
Watch your mouth. You don't threaten my country you terrorist sympathizer.
A secular Pakistan would invite more religious extremists to polarise the highly religious population by labelling the state as Kuffar even further.
Rioting is a part time profession. Less so now but significant historically.You live in the UK right? Have the white folk here ever rebelled?
Anarchists, far right and left movements... you really need this elaborated any further. Are they all anti state?The only anti state folk were from the Muslim community.
Obviously you're not talking UK here ... as Scott's may still find their way out. Britain did via brexit didn't it? Where did the good ole "sincere secularism" go?Well organised sincere secularism will kill off any anti state ideology before it can create a movement and promote devotion to the state.
foreign ideology is what you're promoting on a people with a professed faith and state they helped create... To Protect and Profess it in complete liberty.It's not rocket science, a foreign ideology like political Islam is designed to culturally and socially assimilate non Arab countries, that was its original purpose.
Your current abode helped create exactly the environment conducive for a nationalism... it is obviously a European creation imported by Arabs that started the whole Arab nationalism and it's subsequent iteration in Turks.It's hegemonic, parasitic in nature. This is why Turkey took the route it did and they had an empire based on it so why is Pakistan any different?
In relation to Pakistan? Almost everyone... but not all pretend changing masters as a solution. However, Pakistanis don't just pretend they expressly employ their former lords agenda... laws, legislation and discourse.Who is doing better?
A trojan horse ... a whataboutism, neither here nor there... care to elaborate? Pakistan joined a project of aggression designed and abated from within... than milked it for CSF. Leaving all back to point A. Your protagonist was previously a war hero fighting a godly war against the godless commies.Right now Pakistan is in no mans land, its a hybrid and it flirted with extremism because their influential clergy said Osama Bin Dickhead was the good guy whilst he labelled Pakistanis as Kaffirs and an enemy.
Your pal mushy made the most out of it... ran a program in contrast to his predecessor in Zia and sold own and foreign citizens for a buck. Impunity and wholesale disregard of human life followed... Pakistan's own became opponents. Milked further for CSF... till it stopped... the whole charade stopped.20 years of terrorism followed. Isn't it anymore obvious it isn't working?
More Islamic or follow Islam?The solution is not going more Islamic as that will legitimize the fringe extremist elements even more.
Which Mullah runs the state in Pakistan, none!The mullahs who's grandparents did'nt want Pakistan to be created would love this because they can finally distenegrate the state so they can become influential again under control of India.
Should that even be an option. Didn't they pick the right option already? It actually proves your obsession on your psyche and ideals that conflict with Islam and Pakistan.It's a wet dream of theirs. You ask any of them and they will pick Islam over Pakistan. How is that patriotism?
Yes, MENACE!I classify that as a traitor. What if someone said they will choose Hinduism or Christianity over Pakistan? Everyone would be quick to label them agents of chaos.
Why compare Quran to secularism again? Is secularism good or something amazing? It is Islam it doesn't need to held to any standard created by others. Also Islam doesn't need us we need it and we must serve in its interests and sometimes violence is required to do so you don't allow ideologies of your foes to enter your society uncontested then try to control your society.
Pakistan is more of an Idea than a nation because as a nation we make no sense why are we united as Pakistan if not to be an Islamic country and Jinnah is smart enough to know that thus its a bit of no brainer honestly.
It is clear that the Quran does not specify real-world sanctions for blasphemy, but the sunnah (which we get a majority of quranic interpretations from), does.Perhaps you are not grasping my argument. While I maintain that the idea of secularism, as it is understood in contemporary times, may not be an inherent part of Islam (similarly to the concept of a nation-state), I contend that the West assimilated the principle of the separation of church and state from Islamic philosophy. I have made it clear that the Quran does not specify any material sanctions and punishments for religious infractions, such as apostasy, blasphemy, missing prayers, etc. However, it does establish distinct penalties for acts of criminality committed against society and humanity. From that vantage point, Islam's essence is nearer to the modern concept of secularism than a theocratic form of government.
What on earth?And again, using violence as a means to deal with ideologies that one disagrees with or considers foreign to Islam is not acceptable either in Islam or in society as a whole. The Quran instructs Muslims that there should be no compulsion in religion and that religion is a matter of personal belief for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
But as per your own definition, people are not to be judged on the validity of their faith!Therefore, such an approach cannot be justified in any way. On the contrary, such an approach is highly condemned in Islam, and those who resort to violence against other Muslims for ideological differences are considered misguided and condemned as Kharijites, the worst of people who have strayed from the true path and are considered residents of hell in Islamic tradition.
It is clear that the Quran does not specify real-world sanctions for blasphemy, but the sunnah (which we get a majority of quranic interpretations from), does.
Are you going to claim that you will only follow the Quran now, and disregard hadith?
But as per your own definition, people are not to be judged on the validity of their faith!
You live in the UK right? Have the white folk here ever rebelled? The only anti state folk were from the Muslim community.
Well organised sincere secularism will kill off any anti state ideology before it can create a movement and promote devotion to the state.
It's not rocket science, a foreign ideology like political Islam is designed to culturally and socially assimilate non Arab countries, that was its original purpose.It's hegemonic, parasitic in nature. This is why Turkey took the route it did and they had an empire based on it so why is Pakistan any different? Who is doing better?
You ask any of them and they will pick Islam over Pakistan. How is that patriotism? I classify that as a traitor. What if someone said they will choose Hinduism or Christianity over Pakistan? Everyone would be quick to label them agents of chaos.
The topic of Sunnah/Hadith (narrations credited to Prophet Muhammad PBUH almost 200 years after his demise) is a subject of considerable controversy among Muslims. Not all Muslims are in agreement about the content of Sunnah. Moreover, there is no Sahih Hadith that declares that all blasphemers must be executed. Abu Hanifa upheld this stance as well
But as the focus of this thread is the vision of Pakistan's founding fathers, it is worth noting the viewpoint of Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who stated:
“.. if modern Liberalism considers it safer not to make any indiscriminate use of them [Ahadith] as a source of law, it will be only following [the example of Abu Hanifah]..." (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)
Taking into account that various Muslim sects have their own collections of Hadiths that they deem authentic, and considering that the Holy Qur'an is the only text universally agreed upon by all Muslim sects, it would be appropriate to base laws solely on the Qur'an, this view is acceptable to Allama Muhammad Iqbal
You are free to disagree but it's important to recognize that there are different schools of thought within Islam and If you label liberal Muslims as unbelievers, then you would also have to declare Imam Abu Hanifa a kafir, who practically did not use Hadith as a source of law. Allama Muhammad Iqbal also endorsed the idea of avoiding the indiscriminate use of traditions as a source of law.