Place That Was Also Called Pakistan.

[NJamal]

If people call the free availability of Alcohol, advertisement of Cigarettes, drinking of beer, shooting of hollywood movies, making adult rated movies, pictures of some charsis as a sign of progress then yes Pakistan was too progressive at that time.

[PakPrince]

Originally Posted by Tasavur Kindly explain how secularism is compatible with Islam? There are obligatory elements of Islam dealing with governance, economics, foreign relations, taxation etc. How do you propose to accommodate these fara'iz in a secular set-up without casting them aside? Very interested to hear your answer.

Pakistan was meant as a secular state. Quaid-e-Azam envisaged it as such.

In India the issue was that Muslims would not be allowed to practise Islam freely and would be persecuted for their beliefs. Hence there was a call for Pakistan so that people could practise faith without fear, or no faith at all if they wished so. There was no intention for religion to be intermixed with the state and/or politics. Religion is a personal thing and is matter between man and Allah. The state has nothing to do with it.

These quotes by the Quaid make it pretty clear imo:

“….Religion should not be allowed to come into Politics….Religion is merely a matter between man and God”. [Jinnah, Address to the Central Legislative Assembly, 7 February 1935

]

You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State.” [Jinnah, Presidential address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Karachi, 11 August 1947]

But make no mistake : Pakistan is NOT a theocracy or anything like it.” [ Jinnah, Message to the people of Australia, 19 February 1948 ]

And Pakistan for a few years was according to the wishes of the founder until the Objectives Resoultion was adopted b Liauqqat Ali to cling onto power.
The fact that religious parties have rarely won more than a few percent of the popular vote in the elections proves that the people of Pakistan dont want religion the in government.

[youboy]

Originally Posted by PakPrince Pakistan was meant as a secular state. Quaid-e-Azam envisaged it as such. In India the issue was that Muslims would not be allowed to practise Islam freely and would be persecuted for their beliefs. Hence there was a call for Pakistan so that people could practise faith without fear, or no faith at all if they wished so. There was no intention for religion to be intermixed with the state and/or politics. Religion is a personal thing and is matter between man and Allah. The state has nothing to do with it. These quotes by the Quaid make it pretty clear imo: ] And Pakistan for a few years was according to the wishes of the founder until the Objectives Resoultion was adopted b Liauqqat Ali to cling onto power. The fact that religious parties have rarely won more than a few percent of the popular vote in the elections proves that the people of Pakistan dont want religion the in government.

Jinnah's Pakistan cannot be secular as he describes it beautifully here in his own words after the creation of Pakistan.
Pakistan be Based upon Islamic Socialism!



Untold wording of Quaid e Azam about Khilafat by Dr.Israr Ahmed - Takmeel-e-pakistan





Quaid e Azam: The Last Will



"I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organization in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind."

(1st July 1948)

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by KingKhanWC Pakistan will never allow alcohol to be legalised again because the majority don't want it to be legal. It's time these faux liberal secularists woke up and smelt the coffee. A small radical minority cannot dictate society to the majority whether it's religious extremists or secular liberal extremists.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy isn't a basis of an argument. Anyways, you can't even differentiate between religious extremists and secular liberal extremists. The former wishes to infringe on others by denying them consumption, the latter is seeking the right to consume.

Modern society is based on contract based laws. If individuals in society begin to reject a law, it essentially becomes nullified. desuetude. Once people start to ignore a social norm then it simply discontinues to be a social norm and goes away or just evolves into a new social paradigm.

People who try to analyze laws from a religious concept fail to understand the science of human action. If social conditions do not fulfill your idea of social utopia and if your view of how the fabric of society are to function is proven to be unattainable you see the fault in the moral failure of man and not in your dogma. Societies evolve, morals change, individuals progress.

The last point I want to make is what is this fascination forcing others to be moral/ethical. The idea of one set of individuals forcing others to be "moral or ethical" makes no sense (Western and in Eastern societies). Posters are already defining arbitrarily of what people should consume (ref to drugs) to fit within their concept of ethical behaviour. The concept of “morality and ethics” makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen.

[James]

Originally Posted by Liberty Argumentum ad populum fallacy isn't a basis of an argument. [...] People who try to analyze laws from a religious concept fail to understand the science of human action. If social conditions do not fulfill your idea of social utopia and if your view of how the fabric of society are to function is proven to be unattainable you see the fault in the moral failure of man and not in your dogma. Societies evolve, morals change, individuals progress. The last point I want to make is what is this fascination forcing others to be moral/ethical. The idea of one set of individuals forcing others to be "moral or ethical" makes no sense (Western and in Eastern societies). Posters are already defining arbitrarily of what people should consume (ref to drugs) to fit within their concept of ethical behaviour. The concept of “morality and ethics” makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen.

Far too good.

[the Great Khan]

Originally Posted by DesiMunda Respectfully, You were able to see that because you had a choice of living the other side as you put it. If people don't have a choice to indulge in something, they will always yearn for it. You've been there done that, and so can look back and live peacefully in the knowledge that that lifestyle didn't suit you, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't let others also decide for themselves.

In pakistan by the way....let me clarify..im not talking about laws, pakistan as a secular statw etc etc..im responding to accusations that the way of Islam that bans the above is fascistic and backward..my responses are to those who seek to denigrate this way..

As for the indians the discussion is for another thread..

Im merely highlight the hypocrisy of their untenable positions..

[ElRaja]

Originally Posted by Liberty Argumentum ad populum fallacy isn't a basis of an argument. Anyways, you can't even differentiate between religious extremists and secular liberal extremists. The former wishes to infringe on others by denying them consumption, the latter is seeking the right to consume. Modern society is based on contract based laws. If individuals in society begin to reject a law, it essentially becomes nullified. desuetude. Once people start to ignore a social norm then it simply discontinues to be a social norm and goes away or just evolves into a new social paradigm. People who try to analyze laws from a religious concept fail to understand the science of human action. If social conditions do not fulfill your idea of social utopia and if your view of how the fabric of society are to function is proven to be unattainable you see the fault in the moral failure of man and not in your dogma. Societies evolve, morals change, individuals progress. The last point I want to make is what is this fascination forcing others to be moral/ethical. The idea of one set of individuals forcing others to be "moral or ethical" makes no sense (Western and in Eastern societies). Posters are already defining arbitrarily of what people should consume (ref to drugs) to fit within their concept of ethical behaviour. The concept of “morality and ethics” makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen.

wow, potw material.

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Originally Posted by humzy and in your countries the same thing goes on but behind closed doors so what is the difference? Your concern is of nothing more then image

I always had the impression that in Islamic countries behind closed doors more or less anything is tolerated, but it's the open propagation which is not allowed at all. So you might get a brewery for example being allowed to produce alcohol, but it won't be advertised.

It's almost as if there's an unspoken rule that you can indulge in what you want in private but it won't be given official sanction, which of course means that it will always have the stigma attached of being seen as wrong.

[Tasavur]

Originally Posted by PakPrince Pakistan was meant as a secular state. Quaid-e-Azam envisaged it as such.

Firstly, how does what you've posted answer my question? Let me repeat: Kindly explain how secularism is compatible with Islam? There are obligatory elements of Islam dealing with governance, economics, foreign relations, taxation etc. How do you propose to accommodate these fara'iz in a secular set-up without casting them aside?

You want to convince the Muslims of Pakistan to adopt a secular system. Explain to them why they should give up key fara'iz in their deen to do so.

Secondly, Qaid-e-Azam is also on record for saying:

"This is the flag of Islam, for you cannot separate the Muslim league from Islam. Many people misunderstand us when we talk of Islam, particularly our Hindu friends. When we say this flag is the flag of Islam, they think that we are introducing religion into politics, A FACT OF WHICH WE ARE PROUD. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only a religion, but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam, we take it as an all embracing word." - 11th January 1938

"Let us go back to our holy book, the Quran. Let us revert to the Hadeeth and the the great traditions of Islam which have everything in them for our guidance if we correctly interpret them and follow our great Holy book, the Quran." - 6th March 1946

Finally, even if Qaid-e-Azam wanted a wholly secular country, which he didn't, what matters more? The wishes of one man, or the wishes of 180 million people? You have yet to convince me that Pakistanis are largely secular people.

[humzy]

Originally Posted by Cpt. Rishwat I always had the impression that in Islamic countries behind closed doors more or less anything is tolerated, but it's the open propagation which is not allowed at all. So you might get a brewery for example being allowed to produce alcohol, but it won't be advertised. It's almost as if there's an unspoken rule that you can indulge in what you want in private but it won't be given official sanction, which of course means that it will always have the stigma attached of being seen as wrong.

Exactly, and this is more politically motivated then anything else. In order to appease the public image of how an islamic state should be run the government inforces these rules, whilst behind closed doors they are all doing that which they ban. And to the Pakistani's who think that these bans are working, ive been to Pakistan, i've met the youth, they are all up to the same stuff that we are in Australia.

The Pakistani Government is smart, they know that all they have to do is appease the religious majority with petty things such as alcohol consumption, meanwhile they are raping the country of its livelihood in every way possible.

[Indiafan]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan actually your the one doing that and your little cadre of secular cultists..im tired of these pathetic threads..people like you and the ideas you espouse must be confronted. you ask where I live. why? why is that relevant? are you a better pakistani because you live in pakistan? does that make you more patriotic? does that make you better than others? are you implying that anyone who doesnt live in pakistan has no right to comment on its problems? well I have news for you janaab, that is called bigotry. Ever heard of a diaspora? . well let me lay it down. As a Muslim I took an oath that there is no God but only One God Allah swt and Muhammed PBUH is his messenger. That oath goes contrary to all the values espoused by secularism and secularist. If you deny this then you may aswell deny the morning sun. tell me this is the sole meaning of tolerance in pakistan now tied together with the freedom to break the Oath we all took? Drinking is Haraam is it not? tell me is it or isnt it! yet you come on here promoting this debauchery. dancing around in night clubs rubbing yourself up against a new honey every night is Haraam is it not? yet you say this is liberalism. well heres something to test yourself on, what is the difference between you and a Hindu/sikh/christian secualrist! name me a difference in your belief pattern and actions. In other words your aqeeda. Now ask yourself this when you die, and you have taken the oath, and your judgment begins, after the questions of faith you will be asked about your salat! If you are a Muslim you will be asked about this. Do you know the punishment for missing just two raqats of farz namaaz? do you know? 30 million years in the fires of Hell even if you make up the prayer. Tell me do you value this liberalism you espouse more than the eternity that awaits you? if you say you dont care than say it openlyas your froiend Aly has on numerous times in his various guises! say it openly that you reject the oath you took. Im tired of the hypocrisy! say what you really think or hold your tongue and keep these debauched values to yourself. to quote George RR martin " you know nothing Looney"!! you all come here and say all sorts without understanding its implications. a member above said these views were fascist, well if keeping ones oath to God almighty is fascist then let all and everyone know I am a fascist! Let them know that all the Companions of the Prophet may peace be upon them are fascists too and i follow all of them!! Secularism in the Pakistani context means ladeeniat..atheism and apostasy..there is no other way around it..

This is a very good post, however I have a few points

1) Someone asked you where you live. I guess the reason was, are you in a country which allows free use of alcohol and allows women to dress the way they want. If you are indeed living in such a country, has it led you to a life of alcholism and debauchery? Clearly not. Then what makes you beleive all the people in Pakistan are at a much lower mental and moral level than you and will give in to these things just because they are available?

2) Isnt religion also about leaving the choice of what the person does to that person? If a person drinks or goes to night-clubs just because they are available, then they were never interested in keeping their vows in the first place!

3) All religious people believe that life is a test by God and the tempetations too are created by him or Satan. So wouldnt a true follower be one who follows his religion despite all the tempetations? We talk so much about free-will and choice to man by God but here you are talking about completely removing both free-will and choice from men of Pakistan. If the goverment bans all alochol, is the man getting a choice to not drink it, or is the choice with the goverment? So why will the man be rewarded for not drinking alcohol when he never had the choice in the first place?


BTW you spoke about keeping an oath to your religion. IMO, if a man doesnt have the freedom to break an oath, then the oath has no meaning, its just a routine thing you do. But if you have the freedom and tempetation to break your oath and chose not to, thats when you are being true to your oath

[Swaraj!!]

Originally Posted by Indiafan BTW you spoke about keeping an oath to your religion. IMO, if a man doesnt have the freedom to break an oath, then the oath has no meaning, its just a routine thing you do. But if you have the freedom and tempetation to break your oath and chose not to, thats when you are being true to your oath

Very true......but honestly, this is a topic about how Pakistan was or should be. We really have no role in this discussion except in ruffling up some feathers if you want that.

This is a good thread though, firstly, in the information it provided, and secondly in the discussion following that. Some real gems in here.

[the Great Khan]

Originally Posted by Indiafan This is a very good post, however I have a few points 1) Someone asked you where you live. I guess the reason was, are you in a country which allows free use of alcohol and allows women to dress the way they want. If you are indeed living in such a country, has it led you to a life of alcholism and debauchery? Clearly not. Then what makes you beleive all the people in Pakistan are at a much lower mental and moral level than you and will give in to these things just because they are available? but what has it done to the majority? remember I am a minority amongst a people who live a way of life that is different to my own. Their values are different when it comes to the above mentioned activities. None of them took an oath, none of them were broaught up to believe that all of this was wrong. None of them were taught to believe that the messenger of God pbuh was our ultimate example. If they carry out such activities it is entirely understandable as they think it is ok. But what if you are told it is not ok, it is morally unacceptable, it is debauched and wrong and affects whole swaths of society negatively, that it effects the growth and propsperity of Islam and its followers. And you still do it, should not one then ask the question? Who are you? Are you one who accepts the oath you took or are you an oath breaker thus one who no longer accepts the aforementioned. You ask How I have kept myself away, simple by keeping to my oath. But what happens if the majority keep to their oath yet a minority then turn around and say your oath is backward and primitive, it engenders primitive thinking, thus to move ahead you must abandon the oath and proceed down a path that will elad to self destruction. Would you accept that? WHy should I as one who struggles day in day out to keep to this oath wish such madness on my brother neighbour? Responsibility should trump petty desire! It is a known fact that once you make alchohol freely available it leads to a slow and sometimes fast degradation of society from the bottom up. The effects manifest at times quickly but most times it is slow and destructive. Western societyies are trying to tackle this immense problem but they wil fail and are failing. Why wish this upon a poor and uneducated society like our own? 2) Isnt religion also about leaving the choice of what the person does to that person? If a person drinks or goes to night-clubs just because they are available, then they were never interested in keeping their vows in the first place! Islam isnt a religion. It isnt a religion like Hinduism or busshism where you sit at home after a days work and spend some personal time in pooja or meditation away from the world.Islam is a state of being like being alive or asleep and so forth. Islam at its core is a public expression of ones submission to the creator. Hence why we are rewarded more for public prayers than private, our celebrations are in public e.g. wedding where the Valima feast is a public announcement of a wedding, where the Friday prayer is a community binding event, the Tarawih is a public event, ramadhan is a public event, the communal breaking of the fast is seen as more precious, ..yes there are moments where solitary prayer is valued but the largest expressions of faith are public, communal and thus binding in their very nature. e.g. the Hajj the ultimate international expression! reducing Islam to mere ritual and thus ignoring its all encompassing communal value simply reduces it to meaningless selfish rituals that ultimatley bring nothing of value to society. As for them going to nightclubs and not wanting to keep their vows, why make it easy for them then?why make it easy for them to then encourage others to do the same? if they want to go, they can go but the state and the majority should not make it easy for them. 3) All religious people believe that life is a test by God and the tempetations too are created by him or Satan. So wouldnt a true follower be one who follows his religion despite all the tempetations? We talk so much about free-will and choice to man by God but here you are talking about completely removing both free-will and choice from men of Pakistan. If the goverment bans all alochol, is the man getting a choice to not drink it, or is the choice with the goverment? So why will the man be rewarded for not drinking alcohol when he never had the choice in the first place? You are rewarded by default. remember the first Islamic community is the only community that I know of that has gone teetotal in its entirety. Are there not many other tests in life anyway that we be so cruel by imposing anotehr on our brothers and sisters? Life is a test, from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. searching for food , job, you religious duty, helping the poor, loving thy neigbour, loving your family, fighting agaisnt injustice, progressing forward , guiding humanity towards righteousness, cleansing ones heart from evil desires like jealousy,envy, vanity yet you say add anotehr layer into this malaise by making alchohol legal thus adding all the ills that it creates. Is this not an injustice? is this not cruelty to inflict madness on society when people already sturggle day in day out? why should we excuse one vice from another then? why not legalise all vice and let man make up his mind? if the world were that simple we would not be human. Is it not the duty of the body politic to make life easy for the population than hard? Should we not provide people the basic tenet of freedom? to live without evil? free from ill's and self inflicted terrors? tell me if you knew a friend who was inflicted by a disease would you not want to help them? or a whatabout a friend who picked up a syringe and injected himself with HIV just because they could? is that not madness? so why inject a whole body with a disease in the name of freedom when this disease will eventually destroy the body? BTW you spoke about keeping an oath to your religion. IMO, if a man doesnt have the freedom to break an oath, then the oath has no meaning, its just a routine thing you do. But if you have the freedom and tempetation to break your oath and chose not to, thats when you are being true to your oath No my oath is not to my religion it is to God (swt), if you have the freedom to break it by all means break it but remember with all things one must then bear the responsibility of the breaking and the taking. One cannot expect to simply take an oath and then not carry out the duties that it entails and at the same time one cannot simply break the oath and not expect to endure the consequences of the act of breaking it. Tell me something, every man has the freedom to jump off a cliff but few do, some do but the majority do not, why would you want to do such a thing? My diatribe or rant above was to highlight that as Muslims we have a responsibility on not just us but everyone around us both Muslim and non Muslim. We are a light unto this world but due to our own desires have fallen far from this light, hence why it makes my blood boil that we are prepared to accept the worst that the West offers and take none of the best ( responsibility, duty, charity,rule of law) , afterall they re-learnt this from us and it seems they have learnt their lessons beter than we have.

answers in bold, excuse the wordyness!

[KingKhanWC]

Originally Posted by Liberty Argumentum ad populum fallacy isn't a basis of an argument. Anyways, you can't even differentiate between religious extremists and secular liberal extremists. The former wishes to infringe on others by denying them consumption, the latter is seeking the right to consume. Modern society is based on contract based laws. If individuals in society begin to reject a law, it essentially becomes nullified. desuetude. Once people start to ignore a social norm then it simply discontinues to be a social norm and goes away or just evolves into a new social paradigm. People who try to analyze laws from a religious concept fail to understand the science of human action. If social conditions do not fulfill your idea of social utopia and if your view of how the fabric of society are to function is proven to be unattainable you see the fault in the moral failure of man and not in your dogma. Societies evolve, morals change, individuals progress. The last point I want to make is what is this fascination forcing others to be moral/ethical. The idea of one set of individuals forcing others to be "moral or ethical" makes no sense (Western and in Eastern societies). Posters are already defining arbitrarily of what people should consume (ref to drugs) to fit within their concept of ethical behaviour. The concept of “morality and ethics” makes no sense unless the moral act is freely chosen.

Pretty dumb post in fairness. You want people to be allowed to make their own moral choices yet at the same time would not allow a huge majority of the population to live who they wish, if it's a religious way. Think before you type next time.

[m-unit]

very interesting pictures of pakistan from yesteryears

http://dawn.com/2012/07/26/also-pakistan-iii/

[Dolphins]

Pakistan today could have been a tourist paradise had it not become islamized but unfortunately right now it is a jihadi terrorist paradise.

[Looney]

http://pakpassion.net/ppforum/showth...=149502&page=3

[LethalSami]

OMG.... i want those goris in skirts and hippies back in Pak !!

we still have those things but maybe you're Not at the right places ;)

[Amoeba]

Ah Dawn and its agenda. Btw who is Paul McCartheney?

[humzy]

Originally Posted by Amoeba Ah Dawn and its agenda. Btw who is Paul McCartheney?

your joking right ?

[humzy]

funny how if you compare photos of then and now, you would think that back then was really now, and now is back then lol de-evolution!

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer As if Looney came here to sell alcohol

hahahhaha


sounds like Looney, alright!

[Cricketismylife]

Great thread BTW

Awesome pics!

I have always wanted to visit Pakistan- should have done it sooner as well. lol

[Amoeba]

Heard of Paul McCartney but not this fellow. Was he part of the Irish Beatles?
If you are gonna worship the West get it right.

[humzy]

lol sorry i didnt realise you were being ironic

[Amoeba]

Originally Posted by humzy lol sorry i didnt realise you were being ironic

Ironic is probably the wrong word......It would be ironic if the paper was owned by McCartney publishers who also printed dictionaries.

This probably comes under sarcasm......the lowest form of wit I am well aware .....but as Oscar Wilde said "we are all in the gutter but some of us are looking up at the stars..............."

Meanwhile drug addict Nadeem F. Paracha is in the gutter face down.

[QazzarFan]

Originally Posted by Dolphins Pakistan today could have been a tourist paradise had it not become islamized but unfortunately right now it is a jihadi terrorist paradise.

Hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, people will fail to recognize this and current state will continue for years to come. If you're not willing to change yourself and your society from within and ready to blame external forces...change will never come, dictators like Zia Ul Haq will use the religion, the people to further his own demonic agenda and you as a country will be staring further down the abyss.

Someone posted in the comments section:

What a stark difference, 1972 to 2012

1972- people traveled to see latest Movie to Kabul and come back same day,

2012- people go to mosque/temple/shrine or church in their own city and wonder if they will ever come back !!!

[humzy]

Originally Posted by Amoeba Ironic is probably the wrong word......It would be ironic if the paper was owned by McCartney publishers who also printed dictionaries. This probably comes under sarcasm......the lowest form of wit I am well aware .....but as Oscar Wilde said "we are all in the gutter but some of us are looking up at the stars..............." Meanwhile drug addict Nadeem F. Paracha is in the gutter face down.

cool story bro

[Pahari]

Originally Posted by Amoeba Ironic is probably the wrong word......It would be ironic if the paper was owned by McCartney publishers who also printed dictionaries. This probably comes under sarcasm......the lowest form of wit I am well aware .....but as Oscar Wilde said "we are all in the gutter but some of us are looking up at the stars..............." Meanwhile drug addict Nadeem F. Paracha is in the gutter face down.

[shahrukh619]

Originally Posted by dolphins pakistan today could have been a tourist paradise had it not become islamized but unfortunately right now it is a jihadi terrorist paradise.

+1

[Pahari]

^South Pakistan, sort yourselves out please

[PetroDollars]

Paracha as always is full of lies and his blind, confused followers will believe every word of it.

Secular brigade highly exaggerate what went on in the 60s and 70s only to show how good Pakistan was when alcohol and nightclubs where open, but its all lies.

FACT NO.1 - There was never such as openness of alcohol and clubs in pakistan, Bhutto had opened a casino at clifton beach and it was the islamic movement of Al Mustapha that took Bhutto down as he legalized gambling and was going to do the same to alcohol. As for clubs there were parties the elite threw at there farmhouses, which is quite different to nightclubs, THERE ARE EVEN MORE HAPPENING TODAY, so i dont know what the secular brigade is trying to prove here.

FACT NO.2 - The secular brigade want us to believe that Pakistan's economy was sooo good because of their secular faggots like Bhutto, but i'm sorry to say Pakistan was economically much better under Musharaf and stats will prove that. Ofcourse the secular brigade want to spread lies to support secularism and what better to lie about a era much people have not lived in.

FACT NO.3 - If you are talking about parties, alcohol, music bands then Pakistan has much more of it today then there was in the 60s or 70s.

As always the secular brigade are giving fantasy tales and which fool reads Paracha.

Pakistan can only be what its people want and if 0.01% want to free alcohol and have nightclubs it wont ever happen, only the people can decide what a country becomes and when the founders of the country visioned an islamic state why should we make a secular state.

As always secular intellectuals are so good at debate so i assume i will also get called a retard and fool by them like they have shown in the thread.