Article 62 63 constitution of Pakistan

[Kamran Stu]

​

Let us destroy one propaganda myth against article 62, 63. All those who are against these clauses say " who will decide who is the Sadiq and ameen?? Who will decide who is the pious Muslim or not ??? Who will be the judge of people's Imaan ???

All the above arguments are either given by snakes, idiots or fools to deceive the nation.

What does article 62,63 basically mean??

1. Person should not be against the ideology of Pakistan. Now, what is so difficult about this clause??? Everyone knows who is against the ideology of Pakistan and who stands for an Islamic Pakistan of Quaid and Iqbal. ANP DO NOT accept Pakistan at all. MQM says making of Pakistan was the biggest blunder. So these snakes are clearly known and the entire nation knows that they fail this first clause of the article 62,63.

2. Second clause says they should be practicing Muslims abstaining from known Haram and major sins -- like Alcohol, adultery, womanizing, Riba and should be following at least the 5 fundamental pillers of Islam -- Salat, Zakat, Hajj and Saum along with being a Muslim. Now, this is also NOT a secret who does what openly. Only Allah knows the sins done within the boundary walls or behind locked doors but this clause applies to sins or deeds done in Public. What is so difficult to decide who drinks, womanizes or prays or not ???? Those leaders who are living without wives like Zardari and Altaf are not angels that they live without wives and pray all night and fast all day !!!! Everyone knows what they do and so does so many of the Ministers, MNA's and MPA's.

3. Third clause is that they should not be financially corrupt where the condition of Ameen is applied. Again, everyone knows who is corrupt and who is honest. When people live beyond their known incomes and they become rich overnight after coming into power, they are corrupt. This is NOT a secret anymore now. Almost the entire country has been bled dry at 13 billion rupees per day corruption and still we don't know who the corrupt are ???? Astaghfurllah.

So, all the criticism on article 62, 63 is only done by total and complete idiots, corrupt or traitors or womanizers, or those who do not offer salat or pay Zakat or do not fast have not done Hajj because they fear it most!! Now you get it ????

 

[lurker]

1. Saying is not enough. You need something concrete. Like a Court judgement Ratifying the "saying".
2. Define Practicing Muslim? If a Man deliberately does not pray; is he/she not a practicing Muslim? It is NOT defined what a Practicing Muslim is. Hence the Clause is not complete.
3. Being Financially Corrupt does disqualify you; but then it does not say how an overturned conviction or Pardon works with this clause? Again; incomplete clause.

 

[Kamran Stu]

 

[PappuChikna]

Thread poster has re-written constitution on his own.
Article 62 and 63 are different than what he has posted.

Admin should edit or delete this thread.

actual articles are here. Start from page 40
http://na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1333523681_951.pdf

here are some of the extracts.

he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins;
(f)
he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law; and
(g) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.


He has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or the integrity, or
independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has lapsed since his release

 

[PappuChikna]

ab suno.

According to this article, anyone defaming or ridiculing pindi wali sarkaar and judiciary including arslan ka abbu are not allowed to run in elections.

ab inn kee harkatein dekho and tell me should this article remain in the constitution or not?

only an aala darjay kaa boot polishiya will say they should remain.

 

[PappuChikna]

aur sono.
"abstains from major sin"

how to prove he does or he does not.
How to prove or not prove a person is a zaani? put cameras in his bedroom?
and how to prove if a person was zaani and has now repented and leads a good life. Still ineligible?

How to prove a person is baynamazi?
If a leader brings a witness who says I have seen this man praying namaz always, how will you prove him wrong?

If a person has not done hajj, he is not allowed to run in elections? assuming the contestant can afford to go for a hajj?

 

[PappuChikna]

bhaiyoo te behnoo .

You can clearly see these articles are a total non-sense and BS.
No wonder SC and parliament has not referred to these articles so far in their judgements because they are extremely open-ended and dangerous.

PTI waloo ka dimagh kharab hai kay they insist upon activating this non-sense article.

There is already a clause saying anyone convicted from court is ineligible. Why then there is a need for this extra non-sense to put in?
bayshakk, aisay kaam zia jaisay dictator aur onn kay JI supporters hee kar saktay hein.

 

[jaanmark]

we all including Nawaz and his east Indian company known every well what is the signal truth but they are making money on it and so all judges of SC too