DO QOMI NAZRIYA KIA HAI?
DO QOMI NAZRIYA KIA HAI?
Last edited by Mughal1; 08-29-2011 at 02:15 AM.
The videos seem pretty interesting, but rather long. It's amazing that these are from the 1960's.
Could you please tell us a little about who the intellectual in the video is? And, what does he say about Pakistan/two-nation theory?
Quran: The Constitution for Humanity
Quran: The Constitution for Humanity
Allama G.A.Parwez was Quranic advisor to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Dear Qasibr, the gentleman delivering quranic lectures is Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, he was a great schoar of the quran, of his time therefore founder of pakistan m. a. jinnah chose him as his adviser in matters relating Islam. He had backing of Alama iqbal who came up with the idea of pakistan and convince jinnah to work along his idea.
There was another great reformer of muslim nation before these people, his name was sir seyyed ahmad khan.
The major difference between reformers and muslim clergy was looking at islam as a deen rather than mazhab. I have given the links to you to find out thing about them for yourself as and when you have the time.
I know these lectures are time consuming but without these we are at loss as human beings seeing what is going on in the world today.
Two nation theory is not about us and them to create hatred between people but an idea for positive organizational base to set up a pilot scheme to show others how we can become better human beings rather than living like animals. Unfortunately the very people who were supposed to work on it lost the way and today they can't even explain what it was all about. These videos show what these people created pakistan for and what they meant by two nation theory. These are the people who were leaders of muslim nation at the time.
However nations with vested interests gradually found people amongst this nation and by funding them gradually blocked their ideas from pakistani public. In the very land the very people who created the land became strangers.
As a result today pakistan is at the verge of collapse as an ideological state thanks to enemies of islam and humanity. Islam is anti exploitation, so one can see that it has so many people as its enemies who rather use and abuse each other than have any sense of human brotherhood and concern for each other.
If we believe in good will for humanity then we must not let pakistan perish in the hands of mullahs and ruling elite and if pakistan is allowed to slide in to nonexistence as regard its ideological stance then this opportunity will not arise again soon. Such things do not happen on daily basis but once in a very long time.
People are made to think islam is no loss to them the sooner it disappears the better off they will be but that is just misinformation and disinformation about islam spread by enemies of humanity. The world will become a much worse place if there is no islam because then there will not be any more resistance against oppression, injustice, unfairness, cruelty, animosity, regression and poverty etc etc.
All this will increase wars and exploitations based on caste and class etc. So people who are not part of families that own banks and multinationals better look out for their own interests and fight for ideology that unites them rather than side with their enemies and sign their own death warrant.
regards and all the best.
Last edited by Mughal1; 08-30-2011 at 07:05 AM.
I didnt watch the video..
But the ideology of Pakistan was "A place for Muslims where they can practice Islam without hurdles and persecution"...and that included the constitution which should not "Clash" with shariah,,,although it may not be pure shariah....
This wasn't a ploy to create caliphate or to impose shariah on Muslims as fragile as us who can do simple things in Islam..
There is no doubt that sovereignty only and only belongs to Allah as far as the quran is concerned. However, the quran gives us basic constitution eg goals, guidelines, rights and responsibilities, rules and regulations.
This acts as a framework within which muslim are free to have their own goals, guidelines, rights and responsibilities and rules and regulations as a single community and within this framework individuals have the right to have their own goals, guidelines and rights and responsibilities or rules and regulations.
Anything that contradicts this framework can be clearly proven from the quran as unislamic. This also means all so called hadith and fiqh based shariat that was invented for kings and rulers by mullahs is also not acceptable.
In short islamic goals within which ummah is free to live as it likes are freedom, justice, fairness, compassion, brotherhood, progress and prosperity. Only and only this framework decides whether ummah is living and working according to islam or not. So any goal ummah sets for itself must not contradict the divine goals.
Likewise there are rules to regulate ummah or society eg murder is forbidden so ummah is not allowed to make any law that contradict this guideline. This is why no fatwa of anyone can be accepted as genuine islam if it contradicts any divine guideline and the same is true about any hadith attributed to the prophet. It is because the prophet cannot be expected to oppose the quran.
So most of shariah is not islam at all but invented stuff that is anti islam when examined properly by rules of examination. So there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about islam and islamic rule. Islam is not a rule by any person but Allah therefore all are subjected to the very same rule or standard ie all are equal before divine rule of law, constitution or law.
Unless people have ability to understand this much they cannot see what is wrong with ideas that are promoted by many muslims due to their ignorance about islam. Islam is not a tradition but a rule of law. Rule of law is mostly about setting limits that are not to be transgressed by anyone or society will break down. Likewise limits must be proper that make society work and not stupid, anti social that do not let society come into existence or do not let it survive and instead destroy it.
Mullaism is a concept or ideology whereby people turn deen in to mazhab and then divide rule of law and rule of religion into two separate spheres ie cause split between worldly affairs and religious affairs known as church and state separation in secular christian countries. This is imperialist trick to use and abuse people at both ends ie in the name of loyalty to king and country and in the name of loyal to god and his agents ie mullahs.
Most stuff was borrowed from jews and many jews turned muslims just to bring down rule of the quran from within as they brought down rule of toraat, zaboor and injeel before it. Jews always conspired against islam since the time of the prophet. However they did not succeed in life time of the prophet. The quranic rule did not last long after him. Rule became malukiyat whereby mullahs became rulers in the name of religion and kings became rulers in the name of country.
In india sir seyyid challenged mullahs' interpretation of the quran whereby they used to fool masses and iqbal challenged their concept of islam whereby they separated islam between religion and state. All this is very nicely explained by dr israr and alaama parwez. Dr tahir qadri has also talked about it as well as others.
So mullaiyat is nothing new. The simple thing to remember is mullahs are those who are quick at denouncing others as kaafirs. Ulema do not do that, they accept differences in opinions as normal human evolution of thought process. They are not dogmatic and ritualistic.
Khilaafat is simply a concept whereby ummah is organised on basis of quranic precepts to manage all its affairs as a single community. It is not about being ruled by anyone. Even the prophet was not a ruler but one of the people ruled by the same law as his followers. Anywhere we see the prophet is given any status that opposes this is trick by mullahs to show that prophet was like a mullah or a king. All this is against the spirit of the quran which tells us it is not right even for a prophet that when Allah gives him book that he should claim rule for himself. All this is done so that these corrupt people could justify that they have the right to rule the people because the prophet did it too.
Western style secular democracy is anti islam because there in is no concept of set divine limits. This is where I disagree strongly with idea of dr ghamdi. His idea is that people are naturally bestowed with divine precepts. Had this been the case then people ought not to cause and accept all these destructive and terrible painful deeds but they do and we can clearly see all this all around us. Also if it was natural thing then why such things are so much emphasized in the quran? It is because what is supposed to be natural comes naturally nobody needs to be told about it. Animals do things naturally read no book and need no book to advise them. So if the people were left to their own devices they would not find the way hence the need for divine guidance. Moreover in the western democracy the concept that some people rule others is anti islam. Islam is all about brotherhood no masters no slaves, no rulers and no ruled. Just a family living by agreed upon house rules with sanctions against any member that breaks them.
The two nation theory failed after East Pakistan became independent. Countries made out of religion never work, no wonder even after 64 years Pakistanis are still struggling to come up with an identity. Can't believe the divide and rule policy of the British worked so easily in South Asia. Try to think of Pakistan first and then maybe Pakistan might do a little better.
One obviously converted to Zoroashtrianism Jew was responsible for introducing cheap unhealthy food in cafeteria of one company I used to work for.
Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Kybher Pakhtunkhwa all decided in a referendum to be part of Pakistan and our land's history has always been distinct from what is now india. Bengal was thousands of miles away from us and surrounded by hindustan on all 4 corners and they have more in common with hindustanis than Pakistanis, even today their women wear sarees and red dots on their forehead.
An by the way, Karachi will always stay part of Sindh province....no more Jinnahpur propaganda. If you want to go back to india like your leader altaf begs india to take him back then go, but all of Pakistan, including Karachi, will always stay part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Last edited by Omar1984; 08-30-2011 at 10:28 AM.
People attack two nation theory without knowing what it is about. It is about islam and humanity not at all just about islam and pakistan. pakistan was just a part of scheme and it has survived for a few generations now against all odds just as it was created against all odds.
Even if people break up a bigger country, in a biased capitalist or market economy what chance is there for smaller nations to survive? Something that people need to think about who are interested in breaking up of pakistan. One has to see youtube videos as to what is happening to muslim minorities throughout the world. Grass looks green on the other side but wait till you get there.
How hindus treat hindus in india should not be forgotten and if that is true then how would they treat nonhindu minorities? Again see videos about christians and muslims who are suffering in india.
The partition of india was not just for sake of it but that muslims suffered there otherwise why would they support creation of pakistan? If secularism was the demand then why would the creators of pakistan create pakistan when after all india accepted secular democracy and western economic system?
So you may be better off with the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
regards and all the best.
Last edited by Mughal1; 08-30-2011 at 11:55 AM.
If you say two nations theory failed after 71, that means there were NOT 2 nations in the subcontinent.
which would imply that Bangladesh went back and became an Indian province.
Did that happen ? NO !
Look at the map today, all what it shows is that there are not two, but THREE nations in the subcontinent.
So stop harping this stupid phrase from your aunt Indira.
India accepted everything she was told so there was no pressure on india. India did not give share of things to pakistan and partition was done dishonestly by the british favouing india because because india was more closer to them ideologically. The point is, whereas india was in advantageous position right from the start pakistan was at a great disadvantage.
Yet pakistani nation survived as it did is nothing less than a miracle. So we know who are the people who have serious animosity towards us and why they are our enemies. Ideological animosity is most dangerous. This ideology is not religious but political and economic. Unfortunately due to lack of vision on part of our religious and political leaders, people fell back in the ditch they were saved from ie we became slaves to imf and world bank. This is what happens to nations that hide history of their real leaders and their achievements.
If people make such a silly mistake then they are forced to pay for it and that is what is happening now till nation becomes sensible again.
regards and all the best.
Last edited by Mughal1; 08-30-2011 at 11:48 AM.
The two nation theory failed twice. The theory was suppose provide a state for Muslims. but It failed first in 1947, when Muslims chose to stay in India. And again in 1971 with the independence of Bangladesh.
So if Muslims wanted to stay in a state, all Muslims should have gone to Pakistan, which didn't happen. moreover the independence of Bangladesh shouldn't have occurred. Therefore, this theory is a biggest blunder.
Surely the two nation theory did not have as goal the petty idea of just staying away from evil hindus at any cost, because that had failed in 1947 itself when 1/3rd muslims rejected it. Surely the idea was that muslims away from hindus will stay together happily and prosper, that miserably failed in 1971, unfortunately that experiment cost too much life, million in 1947 and debatable but far too many in 1971 and thousands in Karachi even today...
so much cost, just for dividing the muslims of sub continent into three parts...
Jews did conspire against state of madinah because before the prophet came their they were doing things as they pleased. Hindus used to do the same to their people, watch old indian movies to understand how things used to be. So when a new person comes and settles in a place and gives people new ideas to prevent others from their use and abuse then those people become enemies and try their best to get rid of this person who affects them negatively. They used to lend money and charge heavy interest but when muslims stopped this they became their enemies. Also because they were rich and powerful they were a political force as well but after coming of muslims they lost their this position. As muslim power grew they could do nothing other than conspire with enemies of muslims in order to get them out of madinah.
After fall of persia their ruling and religious elite also conspired against islam and muslims to take revenge. Islam is always on the side of the poor and the weak, so those who abuse these people when their slaves are taken away from them ie freed, they try to take revenge any way they can and so some of them did who accepted islam due to defeat but rejected it in their hearts.
Conspiracy is the only tool everyone uses to try and take advantage of things when other things are thought to be too risky.
So conspiracies when they are understood in light of political and economic contexts then they are mostly true but not always.
regards and all the best.
Last edited by Mughal1; 08-30-2011 at 12:25 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)