Siraj ul Haq hot on JI election campaign

[Raaz]

1975 ke baad se mein JI ki politics ka kabhi maddah nahi raha. Aap meri posts to dekhtey rahey hain. Aap ko maaloom ho ga

سرمیں آپ کی ذاتی بات نہی کر رہا ہوں ، جماعت کی بات ہے جو کہ میں نے خود دیکھی ہیں جیسے آپ نے دیکھی ہیں
آپ کو یاد ہے میں نے ایک بار ایک ویڈیو آپ کو بھیجی تھی ، ڈاکٹر اسرار کی ، کہ مودودی صاحب کچھ کہہ نہی سکتے اپنے آخری دنوں میں ، اپنی ہی جماعت کے ہاتھوں
مجبور تھے
لعنت ہے ایسی اسلامی جماعت پر جو اپنے ہی بانی کے خلاف ہو گئی .... کہاں گیا اسلام ان کا ؟؟ ان کی منافقت تو سارا پاکستان جانتا ہے ، تبھی لوگ ان کو ووٹ نہی دیتے

 

[Raaz]

Kuch maddad he kar laitay akhwan ki, kuch jihadi hi bahaij daitay Egypt main kaam as kaam itni baidardi say tou Sissi un ko na marta..

کیوں مروانا ہے ان کو شرارتن

یہ سو کالڈ اسلامسٹ خود نہی مرتے ، دوسروں کو مرواتے ہیں ، اس کے لئے انہوں نے کچھ پاگل پٹھان اور پنجابی رکھے ہوے ہیں ، جن کو طالبان کا نام دیا ہوا ہے
سعودیہ نے بھی اپنی آخری امیدیں انہی طالبان سے وابستہ کر رکھی ہیں

 

[Raaz]

Kuch ziada nahi ho gaya Raaz - lagta hai aap ko molvi sahiban aur JI se khas bair hai .... :) wo kehtay hain na keep calm and mosey on !!

yes , every one is allergic to artificial people , may be u are not....

 

[rtabasum2]

Islamists believe in the "Iqamat e Din" through political and democratic means. For me, this statement is absurd but this is what Islamists (JI or Ikhwan) believe. So they bear state's oppression as an organization and don't use violent means

Just political sloganeering,in 79 when US paid them they sent all kind for Jihad against Soviets even had Akhwan people coming in n helping them as stated by Qazi Hussain, Raaz is right they r establishment pressure groups whenever they want to use them they readily make available their services nothing Islamic abt them just opprotunist. Listen wt Qazi is saying at 1:20

 

[Res1Pect]

He is trying to fill the vacuum that is being created by PTI's diminishing role and effectiveness in national politics by virtue of recent political disasters committed.

Political Disasters Committed by Noora League, and he is filling the gap for PTI???? Befittingly mind-boggling :13:

The Reality, if you see it with open eyes, is that PTI which, undoubtedly, wasn't an 'entire-country' Party before this Dharnaz, has now achieved that status. PTI's gain, as a political party, is no less than huge. On the other hand, there is ONE BIG LOSER, who has lost so much, and no doubt most of it due to its own stupidity, is PML-Noora.

Go Nawaz Go has become a buzz word with Pakistani people, except a few mentally-crippled people, who are called NOOOORAZ/Darbariz.

 

[حکایت جنوں]

Just political sloganeering,in 79 when US paid them they sent all kind for Jihad against Soviets even had Akhwan people coming in n helping them as stated by Qazi Hussain, Raaz is right they r establishment pressure groups whenever they want to use them they readily make available their services nothing Islamic abt them just opprotunist. Listen wt Qazi is saying at 1:20

In my opinion, this is due to their ideological confusion which exists equally in Ikhwan and Maududi. In their view, once a modern state accepts sovereignty of God it becomes just like an Islamic Caliphate. This error that the modern state can be islamized resulted into entering into Afghan Jihad. They thought that Pakistan, an Islamic state and is being islamized by Zia through legislation, will then follow a policy towards Afghanistan keeping in view their "Islamic ideology". However, Modern capitalist state always operate according to the economic interests of the elites of that state.

JI was of the view that Afghan Jihad will result into the formation of another "democratic Islamic state" which will then work in complete harmony with another "Islamic State" Pakistan. This was not possible, Islam for our elites, like religion for any other secular elite, is only meant to justify their economic status and political influence. These elites don't operate under any religious morality but only according to their interest.

In fact Dr. Israr was right that Maududi's acceptance of democracy and making JI a political party was wrong. JI should have remained only as an ideological party working for the construction of their own "ideal Islamic society and government under Pakistani laws. Maududi and other Ulama should have never given a religious sanctity to the modern state.

All of the contradictions and opportunism in the politics of JI which you also have mentioned stemmed from this ideological error or at least an ideological confusion.

 

[shabir khan]

منافقین کی جماعت کے سردار مولانا سراج الحق صاحب کے دو ہی کام ہیں ، حکومت کے جوتے چاٹنا اور نام نہاد کاغذی جمہوریت کے ڈی ریل ہوجانے کی چولیں مارتے رہنا ، موصوف کی آئی کیو ایک دس سال کے بچے سے بھی کم ہے
​

 

[rtabasum2]

In my opinion, this is due to their ideological confusion which exists equally in Ikhwan and Maududi. In their view, once a modern state accepts sovereignty of God it becomes just like an Islamic Caliphate. This error that the modern state can be islamized resulted into entering into Afghan Jihad. They thought that Pakistan, an Islamic state and is being islamized by Zia through legislation, will then follow a policy towards Afghanistan keeping in view their "Islamic ideology". However, Modern capitalist state always operate according to the economic interests of the elites of that state.

JI was of the view that Afghan Jihad will result into the formation of another "democratic Islamic state" which will then work in complete harmony with another "Islamic State" Pakistan. This was not possible, Islam for our elites, like religion for any other secular elite, is only meant to justify their economic status and political influence. These elites don't operate under any religious morality but only according to their interest.

In fact Dr. Israr was right that Maududi's acceptance of democracy and making JI a political party was wrong. JI should have remained only as an ideological party working for the construction of their own "ideal Islamic society and government under Pakistani laws. Maududi and other Ulama should have never given a religious sanctity to the modern state.

All of the contradictions and opportunism in the politics of JI which you also have mentioned stemmed from this ideological error or at least an ideological confusion.

I don't think there r any hard rules for khilafat, it is how u interpret it and modern states n democracy has reflection of that form of Govt in it. Maudadi if he had the idea of turning JI as just an ideological party was wrong which wud hv turned it into another Tableegi Jamaat who don't do nothing accept Duwa n don't indulge in politics,where as Holy Prophet whole life was embroiled in politics I don;t know where Madudi picked up this notion from. The criticism that JI is facing today is caz many people expected more from them as through the age we thought that this party is different than other as there no financial scam against their leader although they remained in power unfortunately they have failed to translate their ideology into their acts.

 

[حکایت جنوں]

I don't think there r any hard rules for khilafat, it is how u interpret it and modern states n democracy has reflection of that form of Govt in it. Maudadi if he had the idea of turning JI as just an ideological party was wrong which wud hv turned it into another Tableegi Jamaat who don't do nothing accept Duwa n don't indulge in politics,where as Holy Prophet whole life was embroiled in politics I don;t know where Madudi picked up this notion from. The criticism that JI is facing today is caz many people expected more from them as through the age we thought that this party is different than other as there no financial scam against their leader although they remained in power unfortunately they have failed to translate their ideology into their acts.

This is not necessary that political action only means to accept and enter into a political system. Maududi made it a political party but I don't agree with this decision. I think that JI should have worked only as an ideological party. If they really wanted to have their say in the political system they should have adopted the policy of Ikhwan where Ikhwan worked as an ideological party and their political wing is a full fledged political party. JI's politics ruined their ideological evolution and we see there is not a single person in JI who can continue Maududi's academic legacy.

Our Prophet's (PBUH) struggle resulted into a complete change in the religious, political and economic change. Our Prophet (PBUH) changed the nature of the political structure. The political structure founded by him didn't rely on tribal affiliations. In fact the system negated the formation of a political structure on the basis of tribal affinities. On the other hand the political system of Islam was constructed on the basis of a large religio-political community where ethnic identities were cultural not political. A modern State is a secular institution built on the basis of a nation, race or a linguistic group. An Islamic State cannot be founded in the modern world until and unless it rejects the secular idea of a modern nation.

 

[wahreh]

Well, you got a point there. I could see he may hope to gain a couple of seats in Baluchistan, specially in Pashtoon areas, but rural Sind ??? beats me

By doing Jalsas in rural Sind n Baluchistan u must be joking!!

 

[rtabasum2]

This is not necessary that political action only means to accept and enter into a political system. Maududi made it a political party but I don't agree with this decision. I think that JI should have worked only as an ideological party. If they really wanted to have their say in the political system they should have adopted the policy of Ikhwan where Ikhwan worked as an ideological party and their political wing is a full fledged political party. JI's politics ruined their ideological evolution and we see there is not a single person in JI who can continue Maududi's academic legacy.

Our Prophet's (PBUH) struggle resulted into a complete change in the religious, political and economic change. Our Prophet (PBUH) changed the nature of the political structure. The political structure founded by him didn't rely on tribal affiliations. In fact the system negated the formation of a political structure on the basis of tribal affinities. On the other hand the political system of Islam was constructed on the basis of a large religio-political community where ethnic identities were cultural not political. A modern State is a secular institution built on the basis of a nation, race or a linguistic group. An Islamic State cannot be founded in the modern world until and unless it rejects the secular idea of a modern nation.

Was Pakistan made on basis of nation or religion????????? Was not Israel n Pakistan created on basis of theocracy n not secularism as largely precieved?????

 

[حکایت جنوں]

Was Pakistan made on basis of nation or religion????????? Was not Israel n Pakistan created on basis of theocracy n not secularism as largely precieved?????

Israel is a secular country founded on the ethnic foundations of "Bani Israel". This is another thing that this ethnic group had its own religion. Pakistan was also founded on the basis of Muslim nationhood, a secular idea if we consider Muslims as an ethnic or cultural group demanding their special rights in a majority population of India. Israel came out of this confusion very easily because being an Israelite also attached them to a language, Hebrew. Being a German Jew was a condition imposed by times which they rejected when accepted Israel's nationality. So for Israel, it was much much easier to construct a secular society and a nation state due to their common ethnic and linguistic origin. For Pakistan, it was a much difficult task. Ethnic identity is real in Islamic societies. Being a Muslim and a Pashtun on the same time does not create any problem. You can't convince a Pashtun to leave its linguistic and ethnic identity to become a Pakistani but you can convince an Israeli to leave its for example German linguistic identity due to their peculiar history and ethnic identity as explained above. Thus, two nation theory as a secular idea worked well in pre-partition India but in Pakistan, it created a lot of confusions. Unlike Israel, we had to rely on the religious identity of Pakistanis because this is the only thing common between at least 10 big ethnic groups. So our case is totally different from Israel.

 

[حکایت جنوں]

Israel is a secular country founded on the ethnic foundations of "Bani Israel". This is another thing that this ethnic group had its own religion. Pakistan was also founded on the basis of Muslim nationhood, a secular idea if we consider Muslims as an ethnic or cultural group demanding their special rights in a majority population of India. Israel came out of this confusion very easily because being an Israelite also attached them to a language, Hebrew. Being a German Jew was a condition imposed by times which they rejected when accepted Israel's nationality. So for Israel, it was much much easier to construct a secular society and a nation state due to their common ethnic and linguistic origin. For Pakistan, it was a much difficult task. Ethnic identity is real in Islamic societies. Being a Muslim and a Pashtun on the same time does not create any problem. You can't convince a Pashtun to leave its linguistic and ethnic identity to become a Pakistani but you can convince an Israeli to leave its for example German linguistic identity due to their peculiar history and ethnic identity as explained above. Thus, two nation theory as a secular idea worked well in pre-partition India but in Pakistan, it created a lot of confusions. Unlike Israel, we had to rely on the religious identity of Pakistanis because this is the only thing common between at least 10 big ethnic groups. So our case is totally different from Israel.

@rtabasum2

I should conclude this discussion. Pakistan was a modern nation state with secular elites and a secular legal and economic structure but it was relying on a traditional idea of the political unification of different ethnic groups under an Islamic caliphate. This contradictions led us to fierce confrontations between Pakistanis on the question of national language, creating homogeneous capitalist society ad the role of religion in the Pakistani state. These were so big contradictions which are still there unresolved. Would IK be able to form a nation in Pakistan on the basis of some homogeneity other than religion? This is the real question. To form a government in Pakistan is relatively a easier task for PTI