Was that a warning to me?

No.To everyone.This thread has been a very healthy one up till now,but now I can see some frayed nerves and growing tempers here.That's why

__________________
I shall either find a way,or make one
'Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa'

1. @Sheeraz S
a- I never like discussions which are not part of the Main Topic. Thus, would not like to comment anything discussed by Sheeraz S regarding history of Islam. Frankly, i consider such discussions to mislead the topic, when nothing is left to say.
b- Please answer the questions i asked you in my previous post. May i ask level of your interaction with people of different beliefs and thier socities/culture?

2. @JazibRoomi -
a- For you brother, i have only one suggestion. Refer books instead of GOOGLE, to get correct references.
b- Again; we are not discussing "Islam & Democracy" in this thread. This is not our subject. So i request you not to turn the discussion towards new direction, instead refer to previous posts on similar subject. The point here is that Jinnah talked about non-secular state simply.

3. I request moderators to interfere at this point to make the discussion to-the-point, as per the TOPIC.

__________________
The Demand Of Faith Is To Bow Down After Hearing The Command. Faith Cannot Co-Exist With Ifs And Buts.

Original reference is Dawn of January 26, 1948 (since this speech is not included in the compilation of Jinnah's address as Governor General). Anyone can search. Exact wording is the way I quoted here. What you wrote is a distortion (originally made by Hameed Gul?).
If you read earlier posts in this thread, you may find that in addition to discussing advantages and disadvantages of secularism and its workability w.r.t Pakistan, we also discussed Islamic form of Government and Caliphate system, so this question of mine that does Islamists endorse democracy is not irrelevant.

I know that they do not believe in democracy. They do not recognize the right to vote for every citizen above 18. Their law makers are merely a group of Ulema or Interpreters. I asked this question just to show that Jinnah is not standing on that side you are dragging him to.

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

Question that hammers the head is "What progress does a modern state need to lead the world ? working on its religious ideologies or devoting towards scie tech and economic uplift ?"

doesnot secularism pay in this context ?

if we call Islam being practiced today as a Din "All embracing code of life"

why are we unable to freed the interest from banking..and the like various other fundamental principles of Islamic Ideology which are poles apart from our contemporary lifestyle..

Tell any single soul who is living dat fundamental life and is not isolated from the modern world ????

If we wish to lead the world we have to learn keeping in touch with it first.
we need to be flexible... we need to accept the meaningful changes in our life.
if not the world looks upon us with indifference.
and we are so reluctant to reformat religious thought in us. how much discussion and opposition we see on your parts to contest certain changes !!!!

BY GOD Islam is not that tough as is represented by the Muslims today....

Jazib... please let the Islamist speak of their system rather than you make judgements about it.

The right to vote is enshrined in the shariah by the means of bayah, I have already made that clear in our previous correspondence on the forum.

The Ulema and Interpreters are similar to the advisers that the President of U.S has, they help him reach a decision by presenting "different" points of view. Such a Shura would be comprised of all the different schools of thought within the Muslim world (including the shia).

Jinnah talked about Democracy in a Muslim country and in the light of Islam, his democracy was not based upon a negation of faith but he favored democracy because he thought Islam propagated it:

"Addressing the Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947 the Quaid said, "It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles"."

But it is apparent that Jinnah did talk about shariah as well:

"In the message of Eid to the Muslims in September 1945 he said, "Every Mussalman knows that the injunctions of the Holy Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. From the Atlantic to the Ganges, says Gibbon, the Holy Quran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence, and the laws which regulate the action and the property of mankind are governed by immutable sanctions of the will of God". Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows the Holy Quran is the general code of the Muslims"."

I must say he alludes to people we now call secularists towards the end.

Anyways, Jinnah has implied and explicitly stated his desire for an "Islamic Pakistan" more than once. However, never....ever, never ever...... has he ever used the word "Secular".......if he has........please provide me a reference to that.

If someone means something......he he ought to have used that word at lease once during his life time, right?

Once you are done answering these questions... I'd like to discuss what a secular Muslim state would look like....

To secularists,

religion has nothing to do with the business of the state and every individual is free to live as he desires in the limitation of the laws of the secular state which are not based on religion.

if we accept the above written statement,which is propagated by secularists, then it would mean that laws would be formulated in the legislative assemblies without taking into account religion and in such a case every gay and lesbian etc has every right to get married and to exercise their relationship openly.am i not right?

plus this "without taking into account religion by the state" would also raise some other serious issues with the passage of time.am i right?

__________________
Puppet,Slave,Lover

"We say this is the flag of Islam. They think we are introducing religion into politics- a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains every thing that matters to a man from morning to night."

Quad-e-Azam on 11th January, 1938 stated while waving the flag of Muslim League

__________________
The Demand Of Faith Is To Bow Down After Hearing The Command. Faith Cannot Co-Exist With Ifs And Buts.

The example I gave was of Sufi Muhammad who did not belong to TTP but was a founder of his own militant organization Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Muhammadi (TNSM). Talibaan to abhi 90's ki paidawaar hain. Maulana Madudi was sentenced death penalty in 1953 because of his proven involvement in the massacre of Ahmadis in Lahore. So you see they are all alike. Be that TTP, Jamaat e Islami, TNSM, PNA, Lashkar Jhangwi, Tahreek Nifaaz e Fikah Jafria, or Lal Masjid Walay.

I have to make a judgment because it is your history that you say something and then turn back on your words. Hope this time you wont do this because in what you told me about Islam and democracy this time, I found a point of agreement.


I know, and anyone who have some knowledge of Islamic history knows, that the concept of Bayat in Caliphate era and afterwards in not equivalent to present day voting, because:
1- Voting is for choosing ruler. Bayat was for submitting allegiance to an already selected ruler.
2- Voting is a matter of choice. You can vote for and vote against. Bayat was a compulsion: you can Bayat for but not Bayat against.
3- Those who vote against a ruler are not considered rebels. Those who did not take Bayat on the hand a chosen ruler were considered rebels. Ali waged battel of Nahrvaan because Muawiyaah did not take Bayat on Ali's hand, and Imam Hussain and family were killed because they did not take Bayat on Yazeed's hand.
4-Regarding Bayat, one had only two options: submit allegiance or fight. Regarding voting one has three choices: vote for, vote against, or abstain.
5-Bayat can be implicit or explicit (you said this). Voting is always explicit.

But, as I mentioned earlier, here is also a point of agreement. You say Bayat and voting are equivalent. If this is the sole issue that you want to use the term Bayat instead of voting, while you recognize the voting right of every citizen of the state above 18 for choosing their ruler and the members of their legislative assemblies, then what is the issue? I have no objection calling it either vote or bayat. You also said that right to vote is enshrined in the Shariat. This means that Shariat endorse democracy and authority of majority. And this also means that imposition of any law and any constitution will be made through a democratic struggle and adoption of any other means is condemned by Shariat. Since opposition is and integral part of democracy, Shariat also gives space to opposing ideas and ideologies (make sure I am not making room for going against any law, but yes I am making room for speaking against a law as a citizen of a democratic state).

If they are mere advisors, and not law-maker, and if there is no such compulsion as the law maker must be a qualified Aalam, then I have no reasons for disagreement.

We ll discuss what-Jinnah-says at some other time because right now I am busy reading Strain2’s “THE 100”.

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

Just to enlighten you, Taliban 70s ke paidawar hain.

TNSM was founded by Sufi Muhammad, does that mean he never had any links with al-qaeda? If you think yes then recall the time when he was to conclude a peace treaty with military but was hindered by al-qaeda and thats why he had to be arrested. For more details, see how his son-in-law Fazlullah (whom he always despised) used to dictate him.

Laal Masjid militants etc had links with al-Qaeda. So most of the militant groups you have mentioned above are the ones that were using Islam for the sake of their own interests. I would like to quote example of Capt. Khurram and Maj. Haroon who left army so that they would join some jehadi group but at the end of day, they found that all groups had their own interests and thats why they fled to Afghanistan for jehad. Let me say that here you are generalizing and thats why instead of looking at the doughnut, you are only looking at hole. There have been scholars like Dr. Israr, Dr. Zakir Naik, Yahya Hussain and many classical scholars who did something phenomenal. You only cherry-picked militant groups who follow only ideologues like Ibn-Taimiya, Maudui and Syed Qutab. Does that make them Islamists or champs of Shariah?

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."