Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aafreen

  1. You should get to know these names better. They're just like you. They think the East and the West are neat titles that can be arbitrarily slapped on the things we like and value vs the things we don't like and value - exactly the kind of people exposed by Said when he wrote Orientalism. Bernard Lewis is an oriental studies buff who was often the target of Said's harshest critique. Ignatieff currently leads the largest opposition party in Canada after having taught at Harvard where he acted as a cheerleader for America to become the policeman of the world. His work is used heavily in American war colleges and at highest levels of American strategic studies to basically argue "if not American than who?" Again, these tiles don't work for me. They never have and never will. When you use them, you come off as no different to me than the noblemen mentioned above - men for whom I have very little respect. Now that is interesting. I pointed out to you a flaw in your argument but you chose to blither on about something completely besides what I pointed out. That IS the problem. On the other hand, if you cannot distinguish between academic interests and personal interests, I'm not sure how to get to across to you. My academic interest no longer lies around the war, hence I'm not interested in reading up on it again. I refuse to do it especially because you would do exactly the kind of clever dodging that you just did by completely avoiding the point I made (about Hamid Algar!). It makes clear that you are interested more in glorifying your position and your beliefs over trying to discover the truth. Quite frankly, I find your unfounded accusation after accusation unworthy of my response. Most importantly that somehow I care less about Iranian lives. Where exactly do you get that? Dreams? Just because I focus on a particular aspect of the war, i.e. how Iran could have avoided a messy war (which I believe no one won), doesn't mean I'm absolving Saddam and his supporters of their guilt. Any such assumption on your part just reflects poorly on you mate. Any serious academic who blames Iran for the war is an idiot. Period. But at the same time it would be foolish, for instance, to absolve the allies of their crimes i.e. carpet bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the use of nuclear bombs by the US - even though Germany and Japan were the aggressors. Again, I don't recall getting venomous about the IRI. I have a problem with the system of velayat-i faqih because I believe it has little basis in Shi'ism, and will be a failure in the long run. I will continue to criticize it, just as I criticize anything else I don't agree with.. capitalism, communism, development, WTO, IMF, WB, Israeli occupation, dictatorships in Pakistan, judicial activism in Pakistan, orientalis, occidentalism, etc etc. I simply believe that if an individual's faith in God is insufficient to make them a good Muslim, no government, no theory of Islamic government whether its VF or khilafa etc can do it. If you are really interested in looking at a genuine flip side of the picture, read (and I have a feeling I have suggested this before) the Report of Inquiry into Punjab Disturbances of 1953 by Justice Munir and Justice MR Kayani. As for the war, when elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. I hope that's enough of an indication to tell you what the war means for me. Now if you're interested in a constructive debate and understanding you'll want to do some introspection and may be read what I suggested. If you're interested in brownie points to feed your ego a bit more or enhance your manliness rating or whatever it is you've been trying to do - do yourself a favor and don't reply, because I wont bother and all your hard work will have been in vain. Ciao.
  2. Thank you doctor, for your excellent diagnosis. Yet, those plenty of ISLAMIC philosophers have still read Socrates. Funny... You evoke the civilizational discourses of Huntington, Fukuyama, Lewis, Ignatieff et. al. but blame me if that tempts me to poke fun at you. All of your nonsense arguments rest on this assumption that there is a West and an East and that they are confrontational. Sorry dude, as appealing as that sounds it has begun making sense only because it has been repeated so many times on FOX and CNN. I trust you know that, but most on this forum don't. Ditto. Never break a lady's heart :( I'm guessing you've never seen the inside of a well-respected Middle Eastern Studies/Islamic Studies/Near East Studies/Iranian Studies department? Get a grip jackson, before you slip on your own drool of victory. On that note, may I suggest some nerve you too have kiddo. Did you really think I'd shove myself in this debate without having knowledge of it? Sorry to break your bubble, but no I don't plant myself into discussions/debates merely for the heck of it. Let's go over what I said again: I said that it's been a long time since I've studied the war. In other words, my memory is rusty of the specific events and therefore I cannot engage in point-by-point debates with you. Moreover, you are not a strong enough motivation for me to reread books on the war. That btw, includes Rajaee' whom I've met several times. If I'm correct, there's also a piece in it by Hamid Algar. So I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "none of them are friends of what you like to call the 'Iranian regime,'" if Algar isn't a friend of the regime I don't know who is. With that said, I respect him but disagree with him completely. Lastly, when did I ever say or imply Iraq was not the aggressor or that it does not carry more of the responsibility for the death and destruction of the war? Please! Now as for your point on cease-fire is concerned, let me address it. Have you ever taken an introductory IR class? What do you think a cease-fire is? A process of negotiation or a yay-or-nay vote for a marriage proposal? You are downright dishonest in your attempts to completely exonerate the Iranian side. In IR, sadly, debates are hardly ever about what should be. They are about what is and what can be. That's the name of the game and it always will be. Let me refresh your memory and refer you to Hudaibiya and the agreement between Imam Hassan as and Muawiya. If you are not willing to agree that the government of Iran could've negotiated an end to hostilities with an upper hand numerous times during the war then, this debate is really useless. What do you think was going to happen when the Iranian leadership bragged about exporting the revolution across the Islamic world? That all these despots, who'd sell their own mothers for their throne, would simply sit tight with garlands in their hand, waiting to welcome the Iranian forces? Btw, what makes you say the war isn't as close to me as to you? What exactly do you smoke before cooking up that kind of pasta? On the other hand, thanks for pointing out Cordesman. Apparently he's also an expert on Pakistan. Funny that I don't recall coming across him before. I'll definitely take a look to see why he makes your nerves tickle. Frankly, from the description you give of Cordesman, I'm confident you'd both make good buddies since neither of you seem to be able to look beyond your own noses. When you substantiate your claims about the East and the West and the irreconcilable relationship between them (with actual evidence, not recycled hogwash from the likes of Huntington which has already been discredited umpteenth times) I will motivate myself to reread the war and we can engage in a serious, issue by issue, point by point debate.
  3. Oh my Gosh! I never thought of it like that. How can I ever repent for all my misdeeds? I'll be ever so grateful to you for guiding me to the right path! By the way, just in case it escaped your memory, Muslims gave Socrates to the West. Personally, I'm neither a fan of the Greeks nor of the concept of taqlid. So please, spare me! Now as far as our discussion on the war is concerned, it's been a very long time since I studied it. I don't have the time, nor the motivation to revisit it in order to debate you point by point. In case you haven't already picked it up, what I've been trying to impart is that some of the blame for the huge death toll and the associated destruction has to be laid at the 'Emam.' If you're completely exonerating the role he (and the Iranian regime he led) played in prolonging the war, that is simply a travesty of justice and of history. Then again, it does seem that that is precisely what you're trying to accomplish, so I'll just back away. You can twist history to your heart's content, in the end it isn't history that'll get the short end of the stick, you will. P.S. If not for my sake then at least for the sake of your comrades, please do elaborate on whom I have sold out to? What is the 'everything' that I act to exist above? P.P.S. Socrates wasn't crucified, Jesus was - even your ancient Greek reference is a travesty of history!
  4. That's an excellent description of the war until 1982. I was referring to what happened after 1982, which you have obviously, and I must admit very creatively, avoided addressing. Whatever works for you :) As for your unsubstantiated accusations against me, I will, again, consider them compliments. It must cause you some serious frustration that there are 'sellouts' and 'traitors' like me out there who just don't get 'it,' all because I fail to heap praises. You should learn to withstand criticism and remain firm in your beliefs without having to resort to exaggerations and personal attacks. Resorting to such cheap, but often effective, tactics may mislead the lay thereby boosting your cyber-ego, but you can't really claim genuine victory nor seriously debate and learn. (See what I just did there?) P.S. I did concede stalemate to Iran in this instance, with respect to the tall claims and the grand objectives set by the 'Emam' after '82. In simpler words: Iran botched a victory by not ending the war when it had the upper hand. Instead it ended up with hundreds of thousand dead on either side in a war, to quote Henry Kissenger, "with two losers."
  5. You mean the front line of offense right? Also, I was under the impression the war was lost. Since, none of the objectives, envisioned after repelling the Iraqi attackers, in 1982 were achieved? May be we can come to an agreement and call it a stalemate.
  6. http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/06/21/world/1247468023401/pakistan-s-burqa-drama.html Has anyone seen this?
  7. I apologize for any perceived hostility. I did not boldly assume very much, I just offered up factors that were far more compelling than wearing an abaya. You have lived in one country where abaya is the norm, but perhaps other things are leading to overweight women and men in Gulf countries. I think the restriction on movement has very little to do with abayas. If a woman wants to move, she can move in an abaya, a chador, a shalwar kameez, or a long top and slim legged jeans. Going to need more than assurances. I don't agree they are standard or uniform, but let us set that aside, as that was not even my point. We do not have to agree that Pakistani women are right and you are wrong, but that perhaps their choice of clothing is not simply a product of their shame because there isn't anything to be ashamed of in that region. Perhaps they are not simply citing modesty to avoid exercise, as you assumed in this thread? Marbles also missed my point. I did not attack you personally, I just addressed what I felt was a very flawed and illogical argument. I apologize if you felt personally attacked by me. If you can find a research organization that takes it seriously enough to fund, it might be very enlightening for you. However, I doubt this hypothetical study, should it validate your abaya claims, would result in much change. Well I am sure most of shiachat now knows you love to exercise, hence the "we." Bonafide_Huslter mentioned different forms of exercise, and I think it is worth noting that if these women in the Gulf desired exercise or felt it was necessary, it would not be too difficult for them to find ways of achieving. I don't think it is outlandish to say that if all the variables and factors remained the same for these women in terms of culture and education, that they would probably still be fat. Look at America. Wanting to spread fitness awareness is excellent, the quotes I cited above have very little chance of doing that. I apologize if you found my tone hostile, but I still find those arrogant. Social scientists are not afraid of offending Muslims. Good luck with your dream. I still don't think your points about abaya were very logical, but I wish you luck and I hope you are able to change the way some women think of their bodies. That is an excellent goal. Gracious, but I was not denying yours either. My point was something else entirely.
  8. There are overweight people in certain parts of the world who do not opt for loose clothing, just visit the United States. Modesty has been around in those societies a lot longer than modern day fitness concerns. Also, I am not saying that there are not any women who wear loose clothing because they feel uncomfortable with their body shape, overweight or underweight, I am merely stating that if such a study were conducted I would be very surprised if the correlation between abayas and overweight women was established. Any form of clothing can be used to enable health problems, but these problems go a lot deeper than modest clothing. My reference to certain areas of Pakistan wasn't meant to be a specific case study, I was illustrating a bigger point. Loose clothing can often be seen in countries or regions where they embrace curvier women. I am not at liberty to observe women in Lahore, but thank you for your insights on the matter. Speaking from biases is fine, so I don't see why you felt the need to bring it up. I only mentioned it in light of the references made to studies. We are all entitled to our biases, it was the arrogant and presumptuous tone, seen in the quotes below, that made me uncomfortable. Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't ask me to go "easy."
  9. This just sounds presumptuous and a bit arrogant. Until you do conduct a study, it is nothing but a few isolated incidences that you have witnessed and they can be chalked up to variables a lot more significant than an item of clothing that has been around for centuries, in some form or another. For example, the lack of care for female health in certain regions of the world? Or the lack of public health initiatives in general, since most of the men are out of shape too? Or perhaps, dare I say, that you do not have ownership of what is healthy? In Pakistan, for example, a slim woman is considered frail, whereas a bigger woman might be considered more healthy and fertile. Leaving aside the accuracy of this assumption (I don't find it is true) it would certainly get rid of that element of shame associated with those extra pounds in Western societies, and a woman would not feel obligated to dress modestly simple to avoid exercise or ridicule. As of now, they are products of your own experience and your own biases, nothing more or less. I agree with Calm here, there is a difference between women of this generation and women of generations past, which is why you will notice that older women are usually less concerned with health and fitness. Yes, some women wear looser clothing when they are bigger, and some don't. There are too many independent variables to even take an argument about abayas being used as a covering for fat seriously. Using that sort of flawed logic, one could say that any type of modest clothing can simply be an excuse to hide fat, even something like loose pants or a loose top. We get it, you like to ride a bicycle. Some women like to exercise in private and prefer to wear "tents" outside. Even if you did put forth an argument that bigger clothing=fatter women, I am sure most social scientists and academics would be scratching their heads. There are many other factors that merit greater consideration than a form of apparel that has been around for centuries. Just from my personal experiences, I have come across many thin Muslim women who dress quite modestly, and some bigger ones who feel it is appropriate to show off their curves.
  10. In the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program, the UN Security Council has imposed new sanctions. Is Iran truly building a nuclear bomb as Western countries claim? Or are countries playing up the dangers to bring Iran to its knees? SPIEGEL traces the history of Tehran's nuclear program -- with stops in Washington, Vienna and Isfahan. More at Der Spiegel
  11. WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all
  12. Yeah. I downloaded it from an Ahmadiyya website. I wasn't sure if I should consider it reliable and 'the' authentic report, given it was published on a website of a community which has its own competing motive/narrative. But later on I found an actual hard-copy of the report (as in one obtained directly from the Punjab Government) and it was exactly the same as this copy.
  13. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from that thread it appears you haven't actually read the report, just excerpts from Tariq Ali. I personally think every single Pakistani college student as well as most SCers should read the report. One really begins to appreciate why Tariq Ali would suggest making it required reading. It's as entertaining as it is informative, a gem that I found unbelievable to have been produced more than 50 years ago. In case anyone's interested, the report can be accessed here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5514951/report_1953.pdf P.S. M.R. Kayani is awesome (in fact, I'd like to believe he wrote the whole thing!). If you can find his other books/collection of speeches etc, in Pakistan they would be worth the effort.
  14. I remember mentioning this earlier, many members of this association actually distances themselves from this announcement. Perhaps they should present a statement with signatures/seals of each single member - until then, at least, I'm not ready to believe that this was a unanimous decision. Now as far as The Persian Shah's assertion is concerned: Aren't many members of this association also associated with the state institutions and various councils? Sure the association is not the IRI government, but its not exactly not the government either! Many of its members are not exactly 'independent' observers. They are part and parcel of many of the state's institutions and legitimize the state...
  15. 1953 actually. You should read the report of the judicial commission composed of Justice Mohammad Munir and Justice M.R. Kayani which investigated the 1953 riots against Ahmadis. It's available online (mostly on Ahmadi websites - and no worries, no cooking there, I've personally checked the online version with the print version available from the government). After reading the report I wished there were more people like Kayani in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world. Repealing the 2nd amendment and the laws passed by Zia in 1984 is the best way to start fighting this menace!
  16. Until then +1 for the 'Western Poodles'! *Air 5*
  17. That's the problem. You don't seem to interested in other viewpoints. You could have asked me. In any case it's the Egyption author Fouad Zakariya quoted in Heiner Bielefeldt. No one, including myself or Zahratul_Islam, has to agree with what's stated in the excerpt. That doesn't however decrease the importance of questions posed in it. Isn't that obvious, even for you? Something that isn't divine, effectively prevents us from criticizing it by claiming to be divine. Such as in the case of Iran, where political dissidents are often accused, charged, and convicted of committing crimes against God. Muslims believe the Quran is divine, but that doesn't mean that so is its translation and interpretation by humans - which is conditioned by each interpreter's own experiences. Actually now you're just exposing your ignorance of the very nuanced debate between academics on the 'universality'--or lack thereof--of Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Zakariya is simply trying to suggest that the law claimed to be divine requires as much human reason, interpretation, and active participation in its implementation as the law that is man-made. At best you have misunderstood what's being said. At worst you are letting your biases have the best of you. The implications, that you believe the statement to have, are figments of your own imagination and completely unsubstantiated, either by context or evidence. What does secular liberal-democracy have to do with the statement? Furthermore, the definitions of secular, liberal, and democracy are contested. So what exactly are you referring to? Provide concrete, tangible examples. You can't just take a few sentences from a nuanced political science debate, strip it of its context, impose your personal interpretation on it, and then try to play with it according to your own definition of what a secular liberal democracy is. No, secular liberal-democracy does not claim to be universal. That is evident in the huge variances that exist within the systems in Europe or even America alone. Neither does it views all other system as inherently deficient. You are confusing between 'secular liberal-democracy' and some individuals who might believe it. I thought I had sufficiently demonstrated to you the last time that Fukuyama's ideas are [Edited Out] and treated as such by most academics whose screws are still tight. You are only discrediting yourself by cherry-picking the ideas of a fringe and treating them as the the outlook of 'secular liberal-democracy.' I hope you are not studying the social sciences, if this is the kind of stuff you produce you're headed for a train-wreck. In my experience, the majority of academics consider democracy to be the least-worst system - one that is open to criticism and is constantly evolving, and one that affords far more religious freedoms to all sorts and stripes of people than most Muslim countries do (even Iran). But that does not mean the system is perfect or that it has a clean slate. For instance, it is democracies of North America and elsewhere that institutionalized the genocide of Aboriginal people. The very system of nation-state has proven ineffective and even counterproductive at solving many problems. One only needs to look at the plethora of criticism that exists: the works of Aboriginal academics Taiaiake Alfred and Thomas King are cases in point. Because secular liberal-democracy does not claim to be divine, probably to the distaste of its proponents like Fukuyama, it is open to change and human intervention. Peoples and nations associated with it have caused havoc on Earth. But so have peoples and nations associated with organized religion, and with Atheism. Your point is irrelevant. That was just a general point I wanted to make. A more specific point I want to make is in reference to intizar and to Imam Zaman. Unfortunately, our respected sister has fell into a trap which Emam Khomeini warned us about 40 years ago. The interpretation of intizar which has pervaded Shia belief for centuries has been that, during this period of occultation, we (the people) are waiting for Imam Mahdi to return and institute a global reign of justice and peace. However, an alternative viewpoint (which is in essence the basis for the establishment of the Islamic Republic) is that Imam Mahdi is the one who is muntazir; that we are the ones who should be taking steps toward him (by striving to create an Islamic society). Now the thrust of your argument has taken a radical shift - a classical rhetorical ploy. No one wants to confine the Quran to the graveyard. You are free to go do as you please, so long as you don't impose your religious views on others. In the absence of the Twelfth Imam (as), you need the secular liberal democracy to practice your religion freely. The system Ayatollah Khomeini has created only works so long as your wavelength matches that of the leader. The ideal liberal democracy enshrines your right to freely practice your religion. (Again, something it previously didn't do in the case of Aboriginal peoples. Politicians still don't accept their misdeeds to this day. But as you can see, here I am criticizing the system. As soon as I start criticizing the imposition of the human interpretation and human execution of God's law as done in Iran or as called for by some in Pakistan I run into hot water. Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that democracy isn't averse to criticism either. But in the end, it doesn't claim legitimacy from divine sources.) This ought to suffice... "A religion whose direction will be determined on the whim of the ruler" Umm, told you so! You have your own, and might I add very pathetic, notion of what secular liberal democracy is. Ideally, it should be the culmination of an ideology, every-evolving, derived from the sum of all human experience. But that's not what it is in practice, as I have already pointed it. Even 18th century European aristocrats and slave-owners didn't live in a world of their own. They shared it with people like you and me. You are doing exactly what you've constantly accused secular liberal-democracy of doing, which you should actually blame on Fukuyama instead. If its any consolation, no one really believes him. What we're doing is trying to establish a system where we can freely practice Islam or refuse to do so with out the threat of state violence or its coercive power, for us at least until the return of the Imam (as). Back to you!
  18. You forgot to mention that the State of Israel was also providing weapons to Iran besides China and N. Korea..
  19. Let me provide a counter example. Can you refute the following statement: Most cow dung smells far better than buffalo dung. Let's do some discourse analysis on what you've said: -Most Shias in Pakistan are secular and pro-western. -Secular is pro-western -Secular is bad. -Pro-western is bad. -Implementing Sharia is good. -There are Shias in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, unlike Pakistani Shias, they have a purpose i.e. to implement Sharia. Every single assertion you made in the first sentence of the paragraph is without proof and belies testable parameters. It only gets worse from there. Hence, how old are you? (Hint: the smaller the number, more space for me to excuse you!).
  20. It's unfortunate that you ignored the most vital part of my response. In case you didn't get the point I was trying to get across: you're beating a dead horse. Orientalists like Fukuyama, Huntington, and Bernard Lewis have already been debunked. Trying to initiate some kind of intellectual debate and frame your politics in response to theirs' is nothing short of committing the same crime as them and academic/intellectual dishonesty. As far as Abrahamian is concerned, it seems like you've missed the point again. He demonstrates, through empirical evidence, the extent of populism in both rhetoric and actually policy before, during and after the Islamic Revolution. I would much rather that you respond to his theses with concrete information and not mere abstractions that are too broad to either prove or disprove. It's not whats being claimed, rather what has happened, that matters. He and many others argue that contrary to the official claims, WF as conceptualized and implemented in Iran is a response to the clergy's experience with the Shah's repressive regime. You are more than welcome to present evidence and contradict his claims that "the goals of the IRI and the potentials of the IRI" have not evolved based on political expediency i.e. more to do with appealing to people than appealing to Islamic principles.
  21. It seems to me that you're resorting to the same sort of reductionist positions as Fukuyama himself. First off you're not taking into account that this is specifically a post-Cold war work. It's been a long time since I read it, but from what I remember, you're misreading his work. He doesn't say that all countries must become democratic. He predicts that they eventually will. His ideas ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Fukuyama is only one of the several similar thinkers that are taught (and debunked) in most good schools of political science's 101 classes. They include, Benjamin Barber's 'McWorld vs Jihad,' Robert Kaplan's 'The Coming Anarchy,' Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations,' and Michael Ignatieff's work on the American Empire. People like Eqbal Ahmed, Tariq Ali, and Edward Said have beaten all of these ideas to death. From the ideas you've articulated, it seems to me that you haven't read a whole lot of Tariq Ali's work in this regard (especially his The Clash of Fundamentalisms). I can't recall now, but Tariq Ali has discussed at length Fukuyama and his ideas. Here's a glimpse: After the break-up of 1971, Pakistan appeared to lose interest in Kashmir and South Asia as a whole. A young and ambitious State Department official visited the country in 1980, a year after Bhutto’s execution, and advised Zia to look towards the petrodollar surplus being accumulated by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Pakistan’s large army was well positioned to guarantee the status quo in the Gulf. The Arabs would pay the bill. Francis Fukuyama’s position paper, ‘The Security of Pakistan: A Trip Report’, was taken very seriously by the military dictatorship. Officers and soldiers were despatched to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to strengthen internal security. Salaries were much higher there and a posting to the Gulf was much sought after. Pakistan also exported carefully selected prostitutes, recruited from elite women’s colleges. Islamic solidarity recognised no bounds. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n08/tariq-ali/bitter-chill-of-winter You can trash Fukuyama's ideas all you want but you should be careful about the manner in which you do it. Don't fall into the Occidentalist camp while accusing Fukuyama of Orientalism. As far as your quote from Ayatollah Khomeini is concerned, I'd simply direct you to Ervand Abrahamian's book "Khomeinism."
  22. So the following is the resolution unceremoniously passed by self-proclaimed strategic and defence analyst of Pakistan, Zaid Hamid and a bunch of youthful yahoos belonging to Pakistan's upper middle class... let's discuss! Takmeel e Pakistan Resolution March 23rd 2010 Preamble Pakistan is a sacred trust, a romantic dream coming true for the renaissance of the Ummah, a secret from the secrets from Allah, the 'Medina e Sani' for the Ummat e Rasul (sm) in the present times, created on the 27th of Ramadhan on Friday in 1947 under the shadows of millions of shuhada and muhajireen. Today, Pakistan is the greatest and strongest Muslim nation on earth, the natural born leader of the Ummah but yet to claim this rightful place in the world. Today, 70 years after the passing of the Qarardad-e-Pakistan [Pakistan Resolution] and 63 years after its tamer, Pakistani's destiny remains unfulfilled. THe Pakistan that Iqbal dreamt of and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah envisioned and created, remains unfinished. Today we have gathered in the same city where our ancestors did 70 years ago. On March 23rd 1940, our forefathers announced their 'razz' to their khalif and the creator of the universe, and Allah SWT granted them their wish in 1947 after sacrifices of 5 million Muslims and migration of 5 million more. On March 23rd 2010 today, we have gathered in the same city to recreate that moment and to renew our pledge to Allah that we intend to keep the promise our forefathers made 70 years ago; that we intend to fulfil the unfinished destiny and complete the dream of Iqbal and Jinnah and our forefathers by taking Pakistan to its Takmeel. We intend to build Paksitan on the model of Khilafat e Rashida and on the glorious past of Qurun e Aula. We intend to make Pakistan the greatest honourable dignified nation on this earth, leading the Muslim world and a decisive player in the global theatre. Takmeel Resolution is firmly grounded on the original Objective Resolution - which was passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in March 1949, and was made a substantive part of the Constitution of Pakistan by President Order No. 14 of 1985 with effect from March 2, 1985. This Takmeel resolution would further interpret, clarify and expand the original Objectives resolution of our founding fathers, hence making it possible for the future leaders and nation to re-model this Pak sarzameen on the pattern of Khilafat e Rashida. Objectives resolution is the most critical document in Pakistan's history after Pakistan resolution of 1940. In words of Liaqat Ali Khan: "I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. This objective Resolution is the first step in the direction of the creation of an environment which will again awaken the spirit of the nation. We, whom Destiny has chosen to play a part, howsoever humble and insignificant, in this great drama of national resurrection, are overwhelmed with the magnitude of the opportunities which are before us. Let us use these opportunities with wisdom and foresight, and I have not the least doubt that these humble efforts will bear fruit far in excess of our wildest expectation through the help of a Providence which has brought Pakistan into existence. It is not very day that great nations come into their own; it is not every day that peoples stand on the threshold of renaissance; it is not every day that Destiny beckons the down-trodden and the subjugated to rise and greet the dawn of a great future. It is the narrow streak of light heralding the brilliance of the full day that we salute in the form of this Resolution." Takmeel e Pakistan Resolution March 23rd, 2010 Takmeel e Pakistan resolution demand the implementation of the 1949 Objectives Resolution, which is further expanded and elaborated as following: Where as sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; Pakistan to be remodelled on the sacred template of Khilafat e Rashida in all spheres of life - political, economic, judicial, social and military. Pakistan would neither be Western democracy nor totalitarian dictatorship but an enacted model of Khilafat e Rashida in all spheres of life. The institutions, norms and statutes of this land must be informed solely by the Holy Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma' and Qiyas (in the order of validity). Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the truly chosen representatives of the people; the chosen leader and representative must confirm to the highest and noblest standards set by Quran and SUnnah and elected through a party-less political process as demonstrated and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida. Wherein the principles of Islamic democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be full observed as demonstrated and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida. Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah; Riba and paper currency based haram economic model to be replaced with rbi free gold based economic model as ordained in Quran and Sunnah and practiced and Khilafat e Rashida. Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; Rights of the minorities to be protected and respected as demonstrated in Khilafat e Rashida. Wherein the territories now include in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a strong Federation. Being the strongest Muslim nation, Pakistan should work towards creation of and then lead an ideological, economic, political and military block with the Muslim world as a collective security doctrine. Wherein the unites within the Pakistan led collective security Muslim block will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed. Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; justice will be provided immediately and free at the doorsteps without fear or favour. Pakistan will be welfare state as manifested in Khilafat e Rashida. Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes as demonstrated in Khilafat e Rashida. Wherein the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured; judicial system will be remodelled on the template of Khilafat e Rahida with justice being free, fair, impartial, and immediate and at door steps. Wherein the So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honoured place amongst the Ummah and in nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity. So that Pakistan may achieve its rightful place as the natural born leader of the Muslim Ummah to unite the Ummah under one ideological banner. Integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights including its sovereign rights on land, seas and air shall be safeguarded; Pakistan's foreign policy, national security policy and military doctrines would be geared towards honourable peaceful co-existence in the world, protecting the honour, integrity and ideology of Pakistan and the Muslim world and friendly nations. With this resolution we vow to work selflessly and tirelessly to carve out this amazing manifest destiny for Pakistan. May Allah be our witness, our guide and protector and accept our humble contribution for the Ummat e Rasul Allah (sm). Ameen. Pakistan Zinda Baad. Source: http://www.takmeel.pk/takmeel-e-pakistan-resolution/
  23. You would obviously do yourself an immense favour by enrolling in an English 101 class (only because we are conversing in English). Either you fail to comprehend what Ahmad has said, or you deliberately choose to ignore it: Islam and Islamists are two different things. In any case, take terms and ideas as broad and abstract as 'liberal society' and continue to fiddle with them inside your head - if it helps you avert the identity crisis that I seem to be under, then all the better. P.S. I couldn't agree with you more: Islam does in deed supersede complexity! But you forgot that Islam also supersedes water, air, smell, vision, taste, colour, space, yogurt, ice cream and toilet paper etc.
  • Create New...