Islamic Nature of Pakistan Laws

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
@Saiyan0321 I got to go. Even at my age the family can't seem to function without my presence. Will come back but will say your posts are delight to read. Will pick up on this thread later.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
@Saiyan0321 I got to go. Even at my age the family can't seem to function without my presence. Will come back but will say your posts are delight to read. Will pick up on this thread later.

Looking forward to it. As are yours. One of the most Esteemed Posters i have ever known.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
100 1,891
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
All roads lead to the GHQ. Seriously.

Great way to control nation but not just for military rulers but for politicians as well. The power Madoodi displayed on the streets played an important role in the psyche of those that held power from Politicians who had no politician constituency in the country to the military watching the anarchy and to those that held the political constituency in the country.

The thing is that it is the perfect key. Nobody is going to say no to an Islamic Reform like should Khatim e Nabuwat be part of the constitution. Everybody will say ofcourse, it is part of Islam. To say no is to get yourself a fatwa. Pass an Islamic law that no mosque can be removed no matter what and everybody will again say yes, destroying a mosque is considered as Martyring a mosque so that is fine and nobody will say no. To say no would be to invite ruthless Fatwas.

The Psychological factor here, i cant explain it but it is so huge that if you tag it as Islamic then it will be defended by the nation because it will be considered as part of Islam. Controlling the nation was place Islam and add a pinch of vocal religious clerics and you have an Islamic state that is consciously formed to empower those in power. The Land reforms being declared unislamic is the greatest evidence of this.

All road may lead to GHQ but the constituencies in the path played an equal, if not greater role on that road. They added to the effect and solidified and cemented it. It was Bhutto that added Islam in Second Amendment in the Constitution, paving way for every form of Islamization of the Country and the word here is Added. It wasnt part of the Constitution before but added afterwards. No my friend, they all played an important role in creating this system that empowers them and them alone and while the GHQ may be the perfect player in this game, the game was formed by those that even the best player needed to play the game right.
 

VCheng

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
488
Reactions
535
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Great way to control nation but not just for military rulers but for politicians as well.

//Thread. End of.

:D

Seriously though, what you described is the very "Seal of Surety" that Pakistan will remain where it is, and by careful design.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
thing is that it is the perfect key
I have a very functional view of the subject matter. For me it's very simple. Decades before the Muslim elite in Hindustan [meaning region coterminous to India today] knowing they were a minority felt threatened. These elites living in Lucknow, Delhi or Aligarh of United Provinces [UP] knew that their privilaged positions would be under threat once the British left.

They had began to use religion as a political tool to protect their economic interests. Thus these people ironically tended to be personally secular and progressive [they often were British educated and wore western clothes etc] but politically they articulated religion. Thus Muslim League.

So in areas where Muslims were a minority the Hindu threat was major motivating factor behind ML. Where Muslims were in majority as in the region that would become present day Pakistan there was no Hindu threat and consequently very little support for ML. We can see how ML had very little support in Frontier or Punjab right till the end. In short where you could make Pakistan [Muslim majority] there was no demand for Pakistan. Where Pakistan could NOT be made [Hindu majority areas] there was demand for Pakistan.

This dichotomy would be the cause of much destruction and malaise to the future Pakistan. Indeed I would suggest the schizophrenia you see in Pakistani society today is a hang over from this dichotomy. In 1940s religion in the most vulgar way was used by this ML elite to mobilize Muslim majority areas. This proved to be the 'perfect key' with Pakistan coming into existence in 1947.

in 1947 we had a Pakistan in a region where not long ago nobody wanted Pakistan ruled by a ML elite who migrated from India where ML had the support base. This mean't there was a disconnect. ML ruling elite were from India ruling over provinces which had nominal ML support. With charismatic Jinnah dead the ML found themselves ruling a people with whom they had absolutely zero traction other than the fact they were Muslim. A politician from Lucknow was not going have any grass roots support in Multan, Rawalpindi leave alone Peshawar.

However the migrant ML elite found themselves ruling a entire country. People like @VCheng alway point fingers at the army. In my estimation the army is not the CAUSE of Pakistan's problems but the symptom. The cause was the disconnect in 1947 of having ML running a country over whose peoples they had very little grass roots support or base. ML's support base was the heartland of United Provinces in India which now was in India.

To put it in another way Pakistan had a ML ruling elite from India ruling a 'foreign' people with whom the only connect was Islam. You can see the CAUSE by looking at the period from 1947 to 1958. This is between decade to 11 years that where United Provinces ML elite ruled Pakistan. What mandate did they have to rule the native people other than Islam? NON.

Compare this formative decade with India. It rolled out a constitution by 1950. It had regular elections. The ruling ML clique [almost all migrants] ruled Pakistan for over decade. They did not bother with elections. Instead they played a game of musical chairs with each other. Greed and lust for power drove them. In this entire decade they failed to give the country a proper constitution and gave up the idea of having general elections because they knew they had zero traction with the electorate.

So what do people do when they have no mandate and have commonality over those they rule other than Islam. They start using Islam. This "key" had worked in giving them Pakistan. The key now gave them a decade of power during which they lotted assets of the now left Hindu merchants and grabbed carved privilaged position within the political-economic landscape of the country which even holds today to some degree.

Compare this formative decade with Congress in India which cultivated democraxcy by having regular election - I believe India had two elections in this time after having sorted the constitution in 1950. Yet the ML clique had settled nothing but just used this period to loot.

As we move forward we can see Islam being used to legitimize the rulers via Objectives Resolution and interestingly all the garbage mullahs like Maudoodi who had opposed the idea of Pakistan being allowed entry into Pakistan from India and setting up his JI.

If Islam was one leg by which this illigitimate ML elite ruled the country the other leg increasingly was the army. Of course the end result was the army under Ayub one day woke to the fact that why were they touting for a corrupt ML elite which had zero legitimacy or mandate. It was clear to the army the ML was ruling on their back. Surely why not chuck the rider off their back and they rule themselves?

By 1958 this is exactly what the army did. Interstingly 1958 was not just the army taking over but the first time a "native force" [meaning one that was rooted in what was Pakistan and not migrated from India] had taken the state of Pakistan. The army in fact can be seen under Ayub to began the process of nativization. Examples are the capital was shifted to Rawalpindi. We all know most of the army came from the Pakhtun/Punjab tract around Rawalpindi.

Purists might cry that the army had no mandate. But the ML never had any mandate either. If ML had elections over that formative decade they could have come from platform of legitimacy. But the ML had not bothered with electons and ran the country through fiat all the while the clique was engaged in internecine war over grab of loot and plunder.

Essentially it is this dynamic that has dominated Pakistan all the way to present. Islam was injected into body politic of Pakistan in the first decade of the country under the ML clique. The infection just grew over the decades. Blaming it on Zia or Bhutto is wrong. The reacted around what was sown in the 1947-58 period. Pointing fingers at GHQ is easy. Reality is more nuanced.

@Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321
 
Last edited:

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,071
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Could Pakistan benefit from adopting the Turkish Constitution with only minor adjustments?
Yes absolutely. It would be the greatest thing that anybody could do for Pakistan. I spent nearly two months this summer in Pakistan. I have total faith in Pakistani people. I saw that at close hand. The potential of the people is huge. In any measure of Pakistan understand the counry has almost zero natural resources like oil, iron, coal etc. It's real resource is the people.

If the state could be brought down to the ground from the lofty heights of serving religion and god. Instead just a simple secular federal republic of five main ethnic groups with simple remit of providing a country where individuals can fulfill their natural potential. Education, social welfare, health welfare, justice and equality with economic opportunities being the driving force of the state the country would take off.

I actually think this is exacttly what PM Imran Khan is trying to do but as a pragmatist he knows 70 years can't be undone in 10 years. Thus his policies are peace, education, health, justice and trying to provide economic opportunities knowing that as these mature over time it would create a more secular society anyway.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,323
Reactions
5 17,823
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Could Pakistan benefit from adopting the Turkish Constitution with only minor adjustments?

It literally depends to be honest. Pakistan is a different country with different values and customs.

Not to mention they have tribes living there that rule by their own laws.
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,109
Reactions
21 1,938
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
I have a very functional view of the subject matter. For me it's very simple. Decades before the Muslim elite in Hindustan [meaning region coterminous to India today] knowing they were a minority felt threatened. These elites living in Lucknow, Delhi or Aligarh of United Provinces [UP] knew that their privilaged positions would be under threat once the British left.

They had began to use religion as a political tool to protect their economic interests. Thus these people ironically tended to be personally secular and progressive [they often were British educated and wore western clothes etc] but politically they articulated religion. Thus Muslim League.

So in areas where Muslims were a minority the Hindu threat was major motivating factor behind ML. Where Muslims were in majority as in the region that would become present day Pakistan there was no Hindu threat and consequently very little support for ML. We can see how ML had very little support in Frontier or Punjab right till the end. In short where you could make Pakistan [Muslim majority] there was no demand for Pakistan. Where Pakistan could NOT be made [Hindu majority areas] there was demand for Pakistan.

This dichotomy would be the cause of much destruction and malaise to the future Pakistan. Indeed I would suggest the schizophrenia you see in Pakistani society today is a hang over from this dichotomy. In 1940s religion in the most vulgar way was used by this ML elite to mobilize Muslim majority areas. This proved to be the 'perfect key' with Pakistan coming into existence in 1947.

in 1947 we had a Pakistan in a region where not long ago nobody wanted Pakistan ruled by a ML elite who migrated from India where ML had the support base. This mean't there was a disconnect. ML ruling elite were from India ruling over provinces which had nominal ML support. With charismatic Jinnah dead the ML found themselves ruling a people with whom they had absolutely zero traction other than the fact they were Muslim. A politician from Lucknow was not going have any grass roots support in Multan, Rawalpindi leave alone Peshawar.

However the migrant ML elite found themselves ruling a entire country. People like @VCheng alway point fingers at the army. In my estimation the army is not the CAUSE of Pakistan's problems but the symptom. The cause was the disconnect in 1947 of having ML running a country over whose peoples they had very little grass roots support or base. ML's support base was the heartland of United Provinces in India which now was in India.

To put it in another way Pakistan had a ML ruling elite from India ruling a 'foreign' people with whom the only connect was Islam. You can see the CAUSE by looking at the period from 1947 to 1958. This is between decade to 11 years that where United Provinces ML elite ruled Pakistan. What mandate did they have to rule the native people other than Islam? NON.

Compare this formative decade with India. It rolled out a constitution by 1950. It had regular elections. The ruling ML clique [almost all migrants] ruled Pakistan for over decade. They did not bother with elections. Instead they played a game of musical chairs with each other. Greed and lust for power drove them. In this entire decade they failed to give the country a proper constitution and gave up the idea of having general elections because they knew they had zero traction with the electorate.

So what do people do when they have no mandate and have commonality over those they rule other than Islam. They start using Islam. This "key" had worked in giving them Pakistan. The key now gave them a decade of power during which they lotted assets of the now left Hindu merchants and grabbed carved privilaged position within the political-economic landscape of the country which even holds today to some degree.

Compare this formative decade with Congress in India which cultivated democraxcy by having regular election - I believe India had two elections in this time after having sorted the constitution in 1950. Yet the ML clique had settled nothing but just used this period to loot.

As we move forward we can see Islam being used to legitimize the rulers via Objectives Resolution and interestingly all the garbage mullahs like Maudoodi who had opposed the idea of Pakistan being allowed entry into Pakistan from India and setting up his JI.

If Islam was one leg by which this illigitimate ML elite ruled the country the other leg increasingly was the army. Of course the end result was the army under Ayub one day woke to the fact that why were they touting for a corrupt ML elite which had zero legitimacy or mandate. It was clear to the army the ML was ruling on their back. Surely why not chuck the rider off their back and they rule themselves?

By 1958 this is exactly what the army did. Interstingly 1958 was not just the army taking over but the first time a "native force" [meaning one that was rooted in what was Pakistan and not migrated from India] had taken the state of Pakistan. The army in fact can be seen under Ayub to began the process of nativization. Examples are the capital was shifted to Rawalpindi. We all know most of the army came from the Pakhtun/Punjab tract around Rawalpindi.

Purists might cry that the army had no mandate. But the ML never had any mandate either. If ML had elections over that formative decade they could have come from platform of legitimacy. But the ML had not bothered with electons and ran the country through fiat all the while the clique was engaged in internecine war over grab of loot and plunder.

Essentially it is this dynamic that has dominated Pakistan all the way to present. Islam was injected into body politic of Pakistan in the first decade of the country under the ML clique. The infection just grew over the decades. Blaming it on Zia or Bhutto is wrong. The reacted around what was sown in the 1947-58 period. Pointing fingers at GHQ is easy. Reality is more nuanced.

@Joe Shearer @Saiyan0321

Ah, bliss.

How nice to have really thinking people commenting; even the dissent is intelligent dissent.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,556
Reactions
21 12,116
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
It literally depends to be honest. Pakistan is a different country with different values and customs.

Not to mention they have tribes living there that rule by their own laws.
Yup trying to rule a country without understanding the basics of how society works will result in catastrophe, such as the times when the soviets are trying to impose Communism in AFghanistan.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,323
Reactions
5 17,823
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yup trying to rule a country without understanding the basics of how society works will result in catastrophe, such as the times when the soviets are trying to impose Communism in AFghanistan.

Indeed people think every country has to be a western liberal democracy.

Its just madness to be honest. Im not calling for dictatorships. But western liberal style democracy failed in a lot of countries.

What the west sees that it works fails in other countries.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom