Make Pakistan a secular Muslim state

[Gharib Aadmi]

In the subcontinent being a Muslim was not simply a follower of Islam, but it was a part of a culture which fused the Persian and Indian Cultures, also called Indo-Persian culture, or Indo-Islamic culture. The cuisine, architecture, language, clothes, etc, that Muslims of the subcontinent have was a product of this culture.

Most of the founders of Pakistan were liberal Muslims, in fact the Mullahs opposed the creation of the state. The problem with Pakistan being an Islamic State is that if you ask 100 people a question on Islam you might get 100 different answers. This is why Jinnah said the following:

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or 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."

Would it not be better for Pakistan to be a secular Muslim state similar to how Israel is a secular Jewish State? In Israel the symbols of the State reflect the Jewish history and culture, but the state itself is still secular. So in Pakistan the symbols of the state reflect the Muslim history of the subcontinent, why not keep those and preserve that rich history, but make the state itself secular.

This can hopefully reduce the power of the Mullahs, who can only cause Pakistanis embarrassment. At the same time so many Pakistanis of a Muslim background who are not religious, still still value their Muslim identity, and this will ensure that no Mullah gets to excommunicate them from their heritage.

So what do my fellow posters here think about this? Is it desirable to make Pakistan a secular Muslim state? Realistic?

 

[Pakistanian]

I agree, you can still have a state religion like most European and Latin American countries have a state church but separate "church and state", you can even have state funded religious schools as is the case in Canada but still be a liberal country.

 

[Suleiman]

Nobody has the balls to step up and take a stand against the extremist Mullahs. They have the support of the majority of uneducated folk. Evil religious folk use religion as a tool to control the uneducated masses. You’re looking at a potential civil war if talks of Pakistan ever becoming secular happen.

Sad reality.

 

[Stewie]

Nobody has the balls to step up and take a stand against the extremist Mullahs. You’re looking at a potential civil war if talks of Pakistan ever becoming secular happen.

Sad reality.

Pakistan was formed in the name of Islam.. a country for Muslims. I don’t see the point of us separating religion from state. We already run a form of British law and constitution. We don’t have the Islamic sharia law in the country and minorities rights on paper are as well as they can be.

People don’t understand that Our roots are in Islam but our country itself is not governed by Islamic laws. We are still very moderate compared to some middle eastern countries.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Nobody has the balls to step up and take a stand against the extremist Mullahs. They have the support of the majority of uneducated folk. Evil religious folk use religion as a tool to control the uneducated masses. You’re looking at a potential civil war if talks of Pakistan ever becoming secular happen.

Sad reality.

Well if what if for political reasons you simply call secular law Islamic. For example in inheritance if their is no will i believe the male receives more than the women per Islamic Law. So change the law that inheritance in cases where there is no will , will be divided equally. And simply call this law Islamic. I am sure some scholars will agree. Same thing with any other law which needs to be changed.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Pakistan was formed in the name of Islam.. a country for Muslims. I don’t see the point of us separating religion from state. We already run a form of British law and constitution. We don’t have the Islamic sharia law in the country and minorities rights on paper are as well as they can be.

People don’t understand that Our roots are in Islam but our country itself is not governed by Islamic laws. We are still very moderate compared to some middle eastern countries.

Well thats not true. There is sharia law and law from the British. I agree that the minortiy rights are good on paper, there is a quota for jobs, and parliament.

Also what i kind of said on the OP Pakistan was that it was not necessary formed in the name of Islam but formed for the Muslims of the subcontinent, and that Islam was an identity. There is this quote about that which i put below:

"Islam gave the Muslims of India a sense of identity; dynasties like the Mughals gave them territory; poets like Allama Iqbal gave them a sense of destiny. Jinnah's towering stature derives from the fact that, by leading the Pakistan movement and creating the state of Pakistan, he gave them all three. For the Pakistanis he is simply the Quaid-i-Azam or the Great Leader. Whatever their political affiliation, they believe there is no one quite like him."

 

[Zhasan]

Yes, I believe India offers a perfect example of secular values and ethos. A secular Pakistan run on the lines of Hindu secularism will be perfect.

Of course the government will be headed by Mullah Fazlullah of TTP.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Yes, I believe India offers a perfect example of secular values and ethos. A secular Pakistan run on the lines of Hindu secularism will be perfect.

Of course the government will be headed by Mullah Fazlullah of TTP.

I mentioned Israel as a comparison in the OP not India. And btw i am not Indian. Secular state run as per the vision of Jinnah, not some lunatic.

 

[Zhasan]

I mentioned Israel as a comparison in the OP not India. And btw i am not Indian. Secular state run as per the vision of Jinnah, not some lunatic.

Israel is irrelevant and too far removed from the Pakistani context. And I hope you realize it is a hyper nationalistic apartheid state with strains of fascism. India shares a common legacy with Pakistan and your premise about Jinnah is false on multiple levels.

Jinnah was an ardent Islamist, he termed Quran and Sunnah as sufficient in lieu of a constitution. You might be conflating him with Kemal Attaturk. And let's assume he was a secularist as you claim then ramming his supposed secular vision and down the throats of 220 million would render Pakistan an undemocratic fascist state because secularism remains highly unpopular among Pakistani masses.

And btw nobody accused you of being an Indian, perhaps it was a Freudian slip.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Israel is irrelevant and too far removed from the Pakistani context. And I hope you realize it is a hyper nationalistic apartheid state with strains of fascism. India shares a common legacy with Pakistan and your premise about Jinnah is false on multiple levels.

Jinnah was an ardent Islamist, he termed Quran and Sunnah as sufficient in lieu of a constitution. You might be conflating him with Kemal Attaturk. And let's assume he was a secularist as you claim then ramming his supposed secular vision and down the throats of 220 million would render Pakistan an undemocratic fascist state because secularism remains highly unpopular among Pakistani masses.

And btw nobody accused you of being an Indian, perhaps it was a Freudian slip.

Fair enough, if the people don't want it then no one should force them. Still interested to see what the posters on this forum think, since its an educated Middle/Upper Middle Class crowd.

 

[PakLFC]

Pakistan was formed in the name of Islam. Making it a secular state now would be lying to Allah leading to it's balkanisation in to many parts. What Pak needs to do is eradicate it's dominant Mullah culture who are like a disease brain washing and black mailing people in the name of Islam. Many so called liberal Muslims take Mullah Islam as the real one when calling for change. We need to educate ourselves.

 

[CricketCartoons]

We need more religion, not less. secularism is backdoor entry for drinkers, adulterers and the corrupt who hide their sins behind the modern day virtue of secularism. just look at the state of india, which has been pretending to be secular and is still a banana republic.

 

[mustang]

Based on what little I know about the history here, I do believe Pakistan as a national entity could cease to exist once you take Islam out of the equation. The Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun, Punjabi, Kalash ... and any other group I have left out have only Islam in common without which they may not have a strong binding force. Perhaps that is why general Zia (or was it Bhutto?) pushed the Islamization of Pakistan because they realized the badly need a strong national identity and Islam was the best choice.

It would be awesome if they make Pakistan secular since you would not have many of the social evils plaguing people there but it will not happen.

 

[Badsha]

Based on what little I know about the history here, I do believe Pakistan as a national entity could cease to exist once you take Islam out of the equation. The Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun, Punjabi, Kalash ... and any other group I have left out have only Islam in common without which they may not have a strong binding force. Perhaps that is why general Zia (or was it Bhutto?) pushed the Islamization of Pakistan because they realized the badly need a strong national identity and Islam was the best choice.

It would be awesome if they make Pakistan secular since you would not have many of the social evils plaguing people there but it will not happen.

Then you obviously don't know much.

 

[Mamoon]

Based on what little I know about the history here, I do believe Pakistan as a national entity could cease to exist once you take Islam out of the equation. The Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun, Punjabi, Kalash ... and any other group I have left out have only Islam in common without which they may not have a strong binding force. Perhaps that is why general Zia (or was it Bhutto?) pushed the Islamization of Pakistan because they realized the badly need a strong national identity and Islam was the best choice.

It would be awesome if they make Pakistan secular since you would not have many of the social evils plaguing people there but it will not happen.

Muslim propaganda was obviously the key to the creation of Pakistan, and perhaps Islam was the binding force in the formative years, but that is not the case anymore.

By brainwashing the masses over Kashmir and establishing India as our bogeyman, the Pakistani establishment have successfully ensured the development of patriotic and nationalistic sentiment.

If Pakistan establishes itself as a secular state, it will not disintegrate. However, it will never happen in a million years. Our society is intolerant, frustrated and incapable of understanding the core problems that have hampered the progress of this nation.

 

[uberkoen]

Pakistan was formed in the name of Islam.. a country for Muslims.

Pakistan was formed in the name of Islam.

This is a huge misconception.

It is said that Pakistan was created with the use of the slogans “Islam in danger” and “Pakistan ka matlab
kya, La illaha ilallah”, both slogans which — ironically — were never used by Quaid-e-Azam himself. Indeed Jinnah ruled out“Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La illaha illallah” when he censured a Leaguer at the last session of the All India Muslim League after partition in these words: “Neither I nor the Muslim League Working Committee ever passed a resolution — Pakistan ka matlab kiya — you may have used it to catch a few votes.

The Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition. What Jinnah was aiming for was what in recent years has been coined as ‘consociationalism’, a power sharing between disparate ethnic and communal groups in multinational and multi-ethnic states. Though the term was coined only a decade or so ago, consociationalism as a political system is quite old and is tried and tested in states like the Netherlands,Switzerland and Canada.

When the Quaid-e-Azam articulated the Two Nation Theory, he referred to language, culture, family laws and historical antecedents. He was, as an adroit lawyer, making the case for changing the status of a minority to that of a nation and not for separation of Islam from India as is alleged by his detractors

Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was not predicated on the partition of India. His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus. His Two Nation Theory did not, at least not until December 1946, suggest that the Hindus and Muslims must be separated and even then he spoke of Muslim India and Hindu India. Still, even in May 1947, Jinnah was pleading against the partition of Punjab and Bengal by arguing that a Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim.

Much of this is confirmed by one of the most extraordinary pieces of prescience left behind by H V Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in India in 1941. Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a“Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

 

[warcry]

you can be a secular state, you can be a muslim state. but you cannot be a secular muslim state.
However, before becoming a muslim state, one must crush the mullah parties altogether and reform madrassas.

 

[Sirris]

Making Pakistan officially a secular state isn't a magic wand trick you can pull and hope to get rid of the troubles plaguing the country. Your own motivation for a secular state is to reduce the power of the Mullahs but it's only going to give them more power since the majority of the population isn't educated enough or even mature enough to think for themselves. A top down approach is never going to work.

The top priority needs to be to make sure the average citizen has enough to eat and access to am education which liberates the mind and develops the skill of thinking rationally without the need to seek guidance from an authority figure.

Not only are many citizens, for the most part of their time pre-occupied by the struggle to put food on their plates but even those with access to schools and colleges are given subpar education and rarely posses the ability to think and reason for themselves.

Then you have a very big problematic where no alternative is given to those poor families which are forced to send their kids to madrassahs out of desperation.

When people start to think for themselves they will on their own come to see the ignorance, harm and destructive nature of Mullah's rhetoric. However if people can't think for themselves no matter what you do the Mullah will find a way to exploit the masses.

Malnourishment, poverty, poor education system, bad health care, high criminality rate, terrorist threats and garbage lying around are all things I find to be far more embarrassing and urgent to solve.

 

[yasir]

Some basic facts both Pakistanis and Indians often over look, Quaid, Ghandi, Neuru were all very old when partition happened(65+, Quaid was 70+). They were in bed with British Raj, they had no problem, infect help shape the framework provided by British to Indians to engage them in politics, without independence. They had 30 years of political career before 1947... They were happy working within the framework provided by British, infect they endorsed the British Raj, whatever little resistance provided by guys like Bhagat Singh, Ghandi helped crushed it, and give people of Indian Opium of non violence, what a brilliant idea by slave nation, let’s not try to get independence by fighting against oppressor, rather wait till they are tired of us ...During all this time Quaid was happy with his own little bubble of Muslim league... Independence was never in the picture ... In a similar way, for last 50 years, most political parties in Pakistan are happy working within the framework provided by Army, people who standup against establishment are out of politics( declared traitors etc) or murdered. Same situation was with Quaid and Ghandi, they were part of British system not fighting against it...

None of them started independence movement, actually there was no independence movement, we got freedom not because of Allah or all of a sudden we were tired of Brits but thanks to Hitler who disrupt immensely British empire during Second World War, that event let to the dismental of British empire and hence our independence as well. Infect during Second World War, 4 million Bangalis died because Churchill moved our grains to storage( not to Troops), rather just future storage while millions starve to death. What exactly Ghandi, Quaid and all Allah fearing Muslims and Bhagwan fearing:loving or whatever Hindus did for that?? - They all (.Hundu, Muslims and Sikhs) get excited at prospects of killing each other, did not had balls to fight British in 200 years. All the killing during partition happened within Indians, no white blood was spilled, it’s only the cheap brown blood we spilled ourselves, that was not even spilled by whites. Calling this independence is dishonestly

 

[yasir]

Making Pakistan officially a secular state isn't a magic wand trick you can pull and hope to get rid of the troubles plaguing the country. Your own motivation for a secular state is to reduce the power of the Mullahs but it's only going to give them more power since the majority of the population isn't educated enough or even mature enough to think for themselves. A top down approach is never going to work.

The top priority needs to be to make sure the average citizen has enough to eat and access to am education which liberates the mind and develops the skill of thinking rationally without the need to seek guidance from an authority figure.

Not only are many citizens, for the most part of their time pre-occupied by the struggle to put food on their plates but even those with access to schools and colleges are given subpar education and rarely posses the ability to think and reason for themselves.

Then you have a very big problematic where no alternative is given to those poor families which are forced to send their kids to madrassahs out of desperation.

When people start to think for themselves they will on their own come to see the ignorance, harm and destructive nature of Mullah's rhetoric. However if people can't think for themselves no matter what you do the Mullah will find a way to exploit the masses.

Malnourishment, poverty, poor education system, bad health care, high criminality rate, terrorist threats and garbage lying around are all things I find to be far more embarrassing and urgent to solve.

Again a big misconception about Mullahs, they don’t come from west or vacuum, strong conservative and literal Islamic culture breed them. Mullah is biproduct of religious culture. Like in US white nationalism or racism is strong in conservative and Bible culture. In strong pockets of liberal culture, racism is far less and people are lot more secular and progressive...

As long as Pakistan has very dominant religious culture, we are never going to make significant progress, even socially or economically. You don’t have to crush conservative culture, just let it compete it on equal grounds with liberals and seculars. Army is a very strong force in Pakistan and they are heavily invested in Islamic conservative culture. Infact they have made People believe the whole reason for country is Islam, without that there are no basis of Pakistan. This ** has made us lot more ignorant, violent and disconnected from rest of the world... Army has a business need to sell this crap, but somebody else has to sell the other stuff too, ideas need to compete, monopoly is never a good idea.

I see same issue in bible belt here is US(the trump land), they are more disconnected and living in their own bubble, still based on old economy, which makes them poor, rather than fixing it, they are blaming others(ak liberals) and becoming more isolated.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Based on what little I know about the history here, I do believe Pakistan as a national entity could cease to exist once you take Islam out of the equation. The Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun, Punjabi, Kalash ... and any other group I have left out have only Islam in common without which they may not have a strong binding force. Perhaps that is why general Zia (or was it Bhutto?) pushed the Islamization of Pakistan because they realized the badly need a strong national identity and Islam was the best choice.

It would be awesome if they make Pakistan secular since you would not have many of the social evils plaguing people there but it will not happen.

These groups have been inter marrying for the last 70 years at least, if not longer. Most people in urban Pakistan view them as Pakistani before they view themselves as Punjabi, Sindhi, etc. If India can have 100 different ethnicites and be one country why cant Pakistan?

Second there is still a Muslim culture of the subcontinent. For example given names are from Persian and Arabic, of all ethnic groups in the subcontinent who are Muslim.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Again a big misconception about Mullahs, they don’t come from west or vacuum, strong conservative and literal Islamic culture breed them. Mullah is biproduct of religious culture. Like in US white nationalism or racism is strong in conservative and Bible culture. In strong pockets of liberal culture, racism is far less and people are lot more secular and progressive...

As long as Pakistan has very dominant religious culture, we are never going to make significant progress, even socially or economically. You don’t have to crush conservative culture, just let it compete it on equal grounds with liberals and seculars. Army is a very strong force in Pakistan and they are heavily invested in Islamic conservative culture. Infact they have made People believe the whole reason for country is Islam, without that there are no basis of Pakistan. This ** has made us lot more ignorant, violent and disconnected from rest of the world... Army has a business need to sell this crap, but somebody else has to sell the other stuff too, ideas need to compete, monopoly is never a good idea.

I see same issue in bible belt here is US(the trump land), they are more disconnected and living in their own bubble, still based on old economy, which makes them poor, rather than fixing it, they are blaming others(ak liberals) and becoming more isolated.

I posted this on another thread, but let me share this from you.
Pakistan Army comes from Pakistan, not Switzerland, or Mars, or Westeros. Its a reflection of the society, you will have liberals, you will conservatives. They are is a diversity of opinion on religion within the army. A good example would be secular Ayub and Musharraf, and then look at conservative Zia.

As far as the Southern States/ Bible Belt states are concerned they are going economically because of capitalism. I think capitalism vs socialism has more an impact on economy than liberal vs conservative.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

This is a huge misconception.

It is said that Pakistan was created with the use of the slogans “Islam in danger” and “Pakistan ka matlab
kya, La illaha ilallah”, both slogans which — ironically — were never used by Quaid-e-Azam himself. Indeed Jinnah ruled out“Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La illaha illallah” when he censured a Leaguer at the last session of the All India Muslim League after partition in these words: “Neither I nor the Muslim League Working Committee ever passed a resolution — Pakistan ka matlab kiya — you may have used it to catch a few votes.

The Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition. What Jinnah was aiming for was what in recent years has been coined as ‘consociationalism’, a power sharing between disparate ethnic and communal groups in multinational and multi-ethnic states. Though the term was coined only a decade or so ago, consociationalism as a political system is quite old and is tried and tested in states like the Netherlands,Switzerland and Canada.

When the Quaid-e-Azam articulated the Two Nation Theory, he referred to language, culture, family laws and historical antecedents. He was, as an adroit lawyer, making the case for changing the status of a minority to that of a nation and not for separation of Islam from India as is alleged by his detractors

Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was not predicated on the partition of India. His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus. His Two Nation Theory did not, at least not until December 1946, suggest that the Hindus and Muslims must be separated and even then he spoke of Muslim India and Hindu India. Still, even in May 1947, Jinnah was pleading against the partition of Punjab and Bengal by arguing that a Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim.

Much of this is confirmed by one of the most extraordinary pieces of prescience left behind by H V Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in India in 1941. Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a“Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

Great post. Muslim leaders tried there best to share power.

Sir Syed stated that "Hindus and Muslims were the ‘two eyes of the beautiful Indian bride.’"
Iqbal wrote Saare Jahaan Se Achcha
Jinnah was an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity

It was only in the end when they realized they will never get a fair deal, and will be a permanent minority they agreed on partition. And i feel it was the right decision.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

you can be a secular state, you can be a muslim state. but you cannot be a secular muslim state.
However, before becoming a muslim state, one must crush the mullah parties altogether and reform madrassas.

Why can Israel be a secular Jewish State, and Pakistan cant be a secular Muslim state?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Muslim propaganda was obviously the key to the creation of Pakistan, and perhaps Islam was the binding force in the formative years, but that is not the case anymore.

By brainwashing the masses over Kashmir and establishing India as our bogeyman, the Pakistani establishment have successfully ensured the development of patriotic and nationalistic sentiment.

If Pakistan establishes itself as a secular state, it will not disintegrate. However, it will never happen in a million years. Our society is intolerant, frustrated and incapable of understanding the core problems that have hampered the progress of this nation.

They tried their best to share power, Congress was unwilling. In American sports, at least in Basketball, we have an analogy Batman and Robin, where the star player is Batman, and the sidekick is Robin. Muslims did not want to be Robin in the subcontinent, they would rather had a situation where it was like Batman and Superman, two equals.

Muslims contribute a lot to the subcontinent, from arts, architecture poetry, cuisine. It was not wrong of them to want to preserve their culture. The thing is that Hindus had no problem in giving Muslims religious freedom, but they saw the elements of Muslim culture that came from Persian as foreign, and did not understand why Muslims wanted to keep them. India is secular but their symbols come from pre Islamic Culture of the subcontinent, same way Muslims of the subcontinent look to the Muslim empires as inspiration.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

There was an article I read from which I will quote the following:

Therefore, the division between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia is nobody’s fault or plot, really, but a natural consequence of the emergence of a mass political culture. The reason for this divide is because Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent naturally have utilized different points of reference when drawing upon history to articulate their sociopolitical goals and build their modern identities. Such thinking is not rare. In 18th and 19th century Europe, thinkers looked back to different periods of European history for inspiration. While the Enlightenment was more neoclassical in nature, and drew upon Europe’s Greco-Roman heritage, the subsequent Romantic movement idealized the medieval period, and as such, was very different in its philosophy. Unlike in Europe, in South Asia, the thinkers and elites who looked back to their region’s respective classical and medieval periods were not the same individuals, and often belonged to different religious groups.

No matter how much syncretism and fluidity there may have been, it would have been difficult for India’s two sets of elites — the Hindu brahmin-kshatriya combine on one hand, and the Perso-Turkic Muslims — to have agreed upon which aspects of India’s history to draw upon to build modern identities. It is true that Akbar and several other Mughal rulers patronized brahmins and sages, while Muslims served in elite roles in the armies of Hindu states like Vijayanagara, Mysore, and the Maratha Empire. But the ultimate cultural orientations of Hindu and Muslims states were different, and invariably Hindu and Muslim rulers in modern India would cleave toward their own sectarian preferences.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/the-origins-of-hindu-muslim-conflict-in-south-asia/

 

[warcry]

Why can Israel be a secular Jewish State, and Pakistan cant be a secular Muslim state?

Israel is NOT secular,neither is israel a Jewish state. Israel is a zionist State.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Israel is NOT secular,neither is israel a Jewish state. Israel is a zionist State.

Israel may be a Zionist state, but they must still put some restrictions on theological interference. Similar to the US, while there might be a strong Judaic influence or Bible belt voice, the laws are geared to ensure capitalism flourishes first and foremost. Rabbis and Priests know their limits.

 

[Markhor]

Ultra-conservative societies cannot prosper. Even Saudi Arabia now realise some degree of liberalisation of women's rights is necessary in today's world. Yet recently the religious parties in the Pakistan Senate have been holding up legislation banning child marriage !

How can a society progress when such people have a disproportionate influence over politics despite never commanding a majority at the centre ? Many mainstream politicians can't even say they want the blasphemy laws reformed let alone scrapped for fear of extremist outrage.

You don't even have to declare Pakistan a secular state. Pakistan before the mid-1970s was a mainstream Muslim state before this Saudi-inspired ideology took over. Get back to that.

 

[Markhor]

Jinnah was an ardent Islamist

Jinnah described the Khalifat movement as a frenzied mob. He was no Islamist, but did use Islamic rhetoric to bind the Muslim movement which was a diverse mix of social classes, ethnicities, sects and tribes.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Declaring Pakistan a secular state is a liberal pipe dream that will never come to fruition. We can have a poll on this forum and not many would describe themselves as liberal. So any ideology that coincides with the liberal values will basically be rejected by the majority. Just take a look into the recent hoopla over anti-child marriage bill. Majority of individuals on social media labeled it as a un-Islamic liberal propaganda. So, I'm no that optimistic. Besides, it wouldn't do anything to change the fate of the nation.

 

[Sirris]

Again a big misconception about Mullahs, they don’t come from west or vacuum, strong conservative and literal Islamic culture breed them. Mullah is biproduct of religious culture. Like in US white nationalism or racism is strong in conservative and Bible culture. In strong pockets of liberal culture, racism is far less and people are lot more secular and progressive...

As long as Pakistan has very dominant religious culture, we are never going to make significant progress, even socially or economically. You don’t have to crush conservative culture, just let it compete it on equal grounds with liberals and seculars. Army is a very strong force in Pakistan and they are heavily invested in Islamic conservative culture. Infact they have made People believe the whole reason for country is Islam, without that there are no basis of Pakistan. This ** has made us lot more ignorant, violent and disconnected from rest of the world... Army has a business need to sell this crap, but somebody else has to sell the other stuff too, ideas need to compete, monopoly is never a good idea.

I see same issue in bible belt here is US(the trump land), they are more disconnected and living in their own bubble, still based on old economy, which makes them poor, rather than fixing it, they are blaming others(ak liberals) and becoming more isolated.

I agree that Mullahs come from the society and are part of the religious culture. However from my observations there are different degrees of religious Muslim culture in Pakistan. An average Pakistani rarely sees the Mullah or Maulvi in a positive sense. Before beards were fashionable one was taunted for having become a Maulvi if you let your beard grow.

While an average Bible fanatic in the USA reads his daily Bible and can quote verses, an average Pakistani Muslim can't. And if the Quran is read, it's read in arabic merely for gaining "rewards" and rarely is it read with translation and the intention of implementing the commands.

From my observation the average Pakistani with the focus on adhering to religious rituals such as Namaz, Roza, Hajj and Zakat is already practicing a secular version of Islam. They would rarely quote verses from Quran and say this is how the state should run. That's the Mullahs culture and that's what he is trying to spread amongst the ignorant and naive masses.

There is a huge gap between the kind of religious culture the Mullah has and the one an average Pakistani comes from. This explains the failure of religious political parties to gain support and bad results on the election day despite them being active in many humanitarian work country wide.

The Mullahs are aware of this gap and eager to bridge it. So far the best they can do is manipulate the masses on emotional and sensitive issues like "namoos-e-risalat" and "khatm-e-nabuwat".

The army has used Islam but that could be understood as a necessity, since the foot soldier identifies as a Muslim and needs the religious motivation to bring forth the ultimate sacrifice. The army generals and leaders however are secular and liberal in their mindset. The army has only as much interest in using the religious sentiments as long as it serves its interest. Hence the promotion of jihadist thoughts in the 80 and 90 and now fighting and destroying the same thought.

Can you elobrate the inequality in playing ground between religious people and the secular one? I don't see any. Infact each has their advantages. The elite, influential and rich people in Pakistan happen to be secular and liberal minded, while the religious upbringing of the population helps the Mullahs for recruiting purposes.

I also find the approach of liberals and seculars in Pakistan to be counterproductive. They need to realize that we just cant cipy paste western lifestyle and values. Pakistan has to develop its own unique progressive thought based on its cultural heritage. For this people need to be able to think and reason for themselves which requires a proper education system.

At the end of the day Mullahs and liberals in Pakistan have the same approach. Both blame the other party for the socio-economic troubles of Pakistan. The Mullahs calls for "Islami Nizam" as a magic spell which is going to rid us of all the troubles while the liberal side calls for a "secular state".

If both side continue the approach the Mulkahs are going to be the long-term winners. Simply because despite representing an unpopular opinion, they still seem authentic and part of the society and culture while the liberal side is perceived as inauthentic and a foreign element.

Just look at PPP, they are supposed to represent the liberal and progressive Pakistan. Now everyone can see that they are nit better than any other political party in the country and even worse their failures and shortcomings are then automatically associated with the failures and shortcomings of progressive values.

My approach is that focus should be on fulfilling the necessities of life while teaching the people to think for themselves. This way the Mullah cant come in and claim that a strict adherence to Islamic Shariah and fundaments is what's magically going to transform our society and bring golden days. When people are able to think for themselves they will automatically see through the facade.

 

[warcry]

Israel may be a Zionist state, but they must still put some restrictions on theological interference. Similar to the US, while there might be a strong Judaic influence or Bible belt voice, the laws are geared to ensure capitalism flourishes first and foremost. Rabbis and Priests know their limits.

"must?" using such words shows lack of research over the topic in question.

Anyway, emulating the Zionist state of Israel is not something I would want to aspire to. Unless of course you want to take the rights to vote from your minorities, kick them out of their land, while crying "holocast" and "antisemitism"

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Declaring Pakistan a secular state is a liberal pipe dream that will never come to fruition. We can have a poll on this forum and not many would describe themselves as liberal. So any ideology that coincides with the liberal values will basically be rejected by the majority. Just take a look into the recent hoopla over anti-child marriage bill. Majority of individuals on social media labeled it as a un-Islamic liberal propaganda. So, I'm no that optimistic. Besides, it wouldn't do anything to change the fate of the nation.

I think that is overly pessimistic. Due to the worldwide web and internet connection, the world has become a smaller place, much more difficult to keep it standing still. I have seen even in my own family in Pakistan that there is an impact with fashion and lifestyle. We will only see the real results a generation or two down the line. I am sure there will always be a religious influence, Pakistan is not going to let go of that in a hurry, but maulvis and Imams will have to adapt as education grows in the country. Same as happened in Europe during the middle ages, only it has taken the east a couple of centuries longer due to being left behind during the industrial age.

 

[the Great Khan]

define what you mean by a "secular" Pakistan. I will simply say that to reduce the Pakistan movement or the whole idea of Pakistan to modern conceptions of what is "secular" and what is "Islamic" is a gross misunderstanding of what iqbal and the other pioneers of the pakistan movement had in mind. Also Jinnah wasnt the only member of the pakistan movement.

Also define to me what you think is "secular" and what you think is "islamic"...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

"must?" using such words shows lack of research over the topic in question.

Anyway, emulating the Zionist state of Israel is not something I would want to aspire to. Unless of course you want to take the rights to vote from your minorities, kick them out of their land, while crying "holocast" and "antisemitism"

Pakistan isn't Zionist, doesn't mean they will emulate them to the letter. Look at the broader picture where Europe, USA and basically all the first world countries are still Christian by definition, but they have put restrictions on the power of the Church. Covered quite nicely in Game of Thrones actually, don't know if you are a fan of the show.

 

[warcry]

Pakistan isn't Zionist, doesn't mean they will emulate them to the letter. Look at the broader picture where Europe, USA and basically all the first world countries are still Christian by definition, but they have put restrictions on the power of the Church. Covered quite nicely in Game of Thrones actually, don't know if you are a fan of the show.

They may be "Christian" by some "definition". There was a whole move to "reform" christianity called the Reformation. which was basically states rebelling against the church. It was then decided that states have the right to reject the laws set by God in the Bible, as the states are now sovereign and are not answerable to God.

Therefore you now have "secular" states whose people are christian but in name.

As for Game of Thrones, I enjoyed the first 4 seasons, It just went downhill from there, they have messed up the story. George RR Martin has made the story so complex that he does not have the capability to write the next book in the series.

 

[warcry]

They may be "Christian" by some "definition". There was a whole move to "reform" christianity called the Reformation. which was basically states rebelling against the church. It was then decided that states have the right to reject the laws set by God in the Bible, as the states are now sovereign and are not answerable to God.




Therefore you now have "secular" states whose people are christian but in name.

As for Game of Thrones, I enjoyed the first 4 seasons, It just went downhill from there, they have messed up the story. George RR Martin has made the story so complex that he does not have the capability to write the next book in the series.

If you want to emulate that, then make a purely secular state. reject Islam in the name of "reformation" and write your own laws, like the Western have done.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If you want to emulate that, then make a purely secular state. reject Islam in the name of "reformation" and write your own laws, like the Western have done.

What I want is immaterial at the end of the day. I live in a western country and enjoy a lot of the benefits so can only recommend what I know. It could be that British wealth and progress has nothing to do with the reformation and is more down to two centuries of Imperialism, we may find out in the future. For all I know Pakistani people might be very happy with their Islamic nation, maybe they are going places and will be growing in a healthy and eco-sustainable method because of their beliefs. They would have a better idea than me so final decision lies with the people who live there.

 

[troodon]

You are either a secular state or Islamic state.

If you are a Islamic state, then you have to cutdown on a lot of secular stuff. Can all religions be equal or n a Islamic state? Leads to a lot of problems.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

I think that is overly pessimistic. Due to the worldwide web and internet connection, the world has become a smaller place, much more difficult to keep it standing still. I have seen even in my own family in Pakistan that there is an impact with fashion and lifestyle. We will only see the real results a generation or two down the line. I am sure there will always be a religious influence, Pakistan is not going to let go of that in a hurry, but maulvis and Imams will have to adapt as education grows in the country. Same as happened in Europe during the middle ages, only it has taken the east a couple of centuries longer due to being left behind during the industrial age.

That's another common misconception. West did not get to where it is now by changing its values. The West is here because they looted and subjugated the global South through colonization. Today, were are living in the re-branded version of colonization where the South is stripped off of all its decision making abilities by the selected few nations of the global north.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

You are either a secular state or Islamic state.

If you are a Islamic state, then you have to cutdown on a lot of secular stuff. Can all religions be equal or n a Islamic state? Leads to a lot of problems.

Its not about whether all religions are equal in Pakistan. Do Muslims have the same value as a christian or even an atheist in the West? No. Even the West isn't equal to all of its citizens. We've been sold a lie of equality by the powers that be so that they can maintain their hegemony over the world.

 

[warcry]

Alot of people have a misconception that pakistan is an Islamic state, and needs to be a secular muslim state.
The truth is that Pakistan is neither an islamic state nor is it secular. It is confused. Islam is practiced ritualistically and core rules and regulations are not implemented, that would be present in an Islamic state.
this state is has been malfunctioning for decades, because the implementation of pakistan as a state religious or secular has been improper.

 

[CricVet]

Pakistan unfortunately has been marred by hypocrisy and as long as we do not take care of illiteracy, nothing will change. Educate the society nourishing critical thinking, then we will have the state and religion separated.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Pakistan unfortunately has been marred by hypocrisy and as long as we do not take care of illiteracy, nothing will change. Educate the society nourishing critical thinking, then we will have the state and religion separated.

The only ppl we need to educate is ourselves. The more knowledge we gain, the more we reflect upon our own ignorance.

 

[KB]

There is of course a contentious debate on the role of Islam in the making of Pakistan. For many, it was used in purely instrumental ways for political purposes. Ayesha Jalal, a leading historian of Pakistan is a powerful proponent of this view. She once wrote, the use of Islam was merely “to amplify and dignify what remained from first to last a political struggle launched by the Muslim League under the secular leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah.”

There is no doubt that the rhetoric of the elite which spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan was filled with exaggerated religious rhetoric and that the political context forced unlikely alliances between the westernised elite and many Pirs and a section of the ulama. Politicians often must keep an eye on the gallery.

Yet I would caution against rushing to dismiss all references to religion by the modernist elite as mere window dressing. Muhammad Qasim Zaman in his outstanding recent history of Islam in Pakistan, states this rather clearly:

“the modernists, too, had some very particular ideas about Islam, and despite caricatures suggesting that they followed wherever their English masters led them, they were no less committed to their religious beliefs, to shaping everything around them in their light.

To these modernist politicians, far from there being any conflict between Islam and liberal values, Islam was their very embodiment. Tethering them to Islam was not to dilute them but instead to affirm the sincerity of modernist convictions: it was not just that such values were good in themselves, adhering to them meant nothing less than being true to Islam itself…. insomuch as Islam embodied ethical values that the entire world could relate to, enabling the country’s citizens to live in accordance with them held great promise for everyone.”

So the modernist elite that led the movement for Pakistan believed Islam to be an ethical ideal which would guide the Pakistani state. There was an emphasis in their statements on awakening the ‘spirit of Islam’ which had been deadened from excessively formalistic understandings of the religious establishment. There was the belief that as an ethical ideal, Islam could cure many of the world’s ills. When the modernists spoke of brotherhood, social justice, and equality, they were not grounding these ideas in some secular norms but seeing them as expressions of longstanding Islamic values. Such thinking differed from many of the ulama and the Islamists, and tended to emphasise the ethical rather than legal aspects of Islam.

However as Zaman clearly shows, the moral authority of the modernist elite has over the course of Pakistan’s life eroded. The ulama have done much to invest in their cause. None more so then the Deobandi ulama who have built a network of madrassas. In contrast, modernists having been in power have relied on top-down transformation and have done little to invest in modernist institutions. Many of the ulama, contrary to the stereotypes, have also gained exposure to Western education. Modernists on the other hand have not made the same commitment to understanding the Islamic tradition.

This was not always the case when one thinks particularly of the very early modernists in British India. On Sayyid Ahmad Khan, we note Christian Troll’s assessment in his book on the man:

“It can be concluded that Sayyid Ahmad Khan was rooted firmly in the religious tradition of Indian Islam…[which] contributed to a genuine concern for the purity and strength of Islamic belief and practice in India…His later works in the field of theology were therefore not produced for want of other, more effective means to achieve his (allegedly) secular aims. They grew out of a long-existing commitment to, and an ever widening knowledge of, the theological tradition of Islam.”

Consider, as Zaman does, the contemporaries of Sayyid Ahmad Khan: Muhsin al-Mulk translated a section of Ghazali’s, the Revival of Religious Sciences, Hali wrote a biography of the the thirteenth century Persian poet, Sa’di, Nazir Ahmad published an Urdu translation of the Qur’an.

This is in contrast the contemporary governing elite, that lacks engagement with the Islamic tradition and often therefore finds itself outflanked when it comes to religious debates.


 

[Musakhel]

How is Pakistan an Islamic state?, it mixes sharia with old British laws and secular laws, it's all a big mish mash.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Does it really matter what Jinnah and others back then thought?

Pakistan is a democracy and if the people living there want system A over system B, or system X over system Y then nothing else should matter.

For example, wasn’t the 1984 Pakistani Islamisation programme referendum a resounding win for the pro sharia camp?

If such a referendum were held today what would the result be?

 

[CricVet]

The only ppl we need to educate is ourselves. The more knowledge we gain, the more we reflect upon our own ignorance.

Education never ends...so what is your point?

 

[DeadBall]

Secular Muslim state or any other religion for that matter is an oxymoron. Religion and State may have worked together once upon a time (basically religion being the driving force) but with the advent of technology and information it will be gone soon. There is a reason that countries with transparent separation of religion and state function so well.

The religious uncles or already indoctrinated will surely pass it on to their kids and whomever they can and their kids to the next generation but it will surely not pass that.

We would be too engaged in other issues that really matter by then anyway.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Secular Muslim state or any other religion for that matter is an oxymoron. Religion and State may have worked together once upon a time (basically religion being the driving force) but with the advent of technology and information it will be gone soon. There is a reason that countries with transparent separation of religion and state function so well.

The religious uncles or already indoctrinated will surely pass it on to their kids and whomever they can and their kids to the next generation but it will surely not pass that.

We would be too engaged in other issues that really matter by then anyway.

Seeing the decline of atheism in China despite their best efforts to try to destroy religion, I wouldn't be so optimistic

 

[Tubs]

I think an ideal society is completely secular, with no religion at all connected to the state. However, if it's just cultural, then sure, I would be very happy to see Pakistan become a 'secular Muslim state'.

I highly doubt that this will become a reality for a long, long time. Remember the outrage when the oath was supposedly changed slightly? All the Mumtaz Qadri supporters? You'll have to rip the Quran out of their cold dead hands.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I dont mind a secular state.

I believe religion comes with realization and not by implenenting a few words in Consitutution.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Easier said than done with the people of this country

 

[sjahmed23]

Pakistan can probably have a single party communist type government like China, with help from China ofcourse. But I don't think liberalism will ever work in Pakistan, not because of Islam, but simply because of the people. In Pak people haven't let go of old hindu traditions and supersititions.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Education never ends...so what is your point?

My point is that if you educate yourself it will automatically benefit ppl around you. As you said, education never ends so the benefits of education are also never ending.

 

[Syed1]

"Dil behlanay ke liyay, ghalib, yeh khayal acha hai"



It will never happen. In an ideal world state should have no coupling with religion and most prosperous countries in the world follow that model.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Its upto the people of Pakistan who will reject this.

Pakistans issue isn't a religious one but one of a weak criminal justice system and a lack of social system due to corruption and poverty. Secular states have major issues too.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

"Dil behlanay ke liyay, ghalib, yeh khayal acha hai"



It will never happen. In an ideal world state should have no coupling with religion and most prosperous countries in the world follow that model.

In some ways true, but England's flag is still proud in it's religious affiliation perhaps.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Not going to happen

The religious elements have too much influence in the country to allow any such change.

It is a misconception that Islam is the binding force in Pakistan. No religion binds people, otherwise there would have been a Christian Union rather than the European Union. The US would not have fought with the Britain in 1812, Iraq and Iran would not have engaged in a war. Saudia would not have been involved in Yemen, etc.

Similarly, the myth of religion binding the citizens of Pakistan was busted the day Bangladesh was formed. There would not have been talks of separating Balochistan, KPK, and Sindh from Pakistan, etc. Regional bias exists. A Sindhi speaking person experiences racist behavior from the locals in Karachi and an Urdu-speaking experiences the same in Larkana.

Pakistan is an unnatural state in a sense that the cultural differences between the provinces are too significant to form a logical federation. The entire subcontinent needs to go back to the princely states model so that each unit can maintain its identity independently and the monopoly of the bigger provinces/states can be broken. If Sindh as a state wants to become secular then they will not need the approval from Punjab, KPK, etc.

 

[warcry]

Not going to happen

The religious elements have too much influence in the country to allow any such change.

It is a misconception that Islam is the binding force in Pakistan. No religion binds people, otherwise there would have been a Christian Union rather than the European Union. The US would not have fought with the Britain in 1812, Iraq and Iran would not have engaged in a war. Saudia would not have been involved in Yemen, etc.

Similarly, the myth of religion binding the citizens of Pakistan was busted the day Bangladesh was formed. There would not have been talks of separating Balochistan, KPK, and Sindh from Pakistan, etc. Regional bias exists. A Sindhi speaking person experiences racist behavior from the locals in Karachi and an Urdu-speaking experiences the same in Larkana.

Pakistan is an unnatural state in a sense that the cultural differences between the provinces are too significant to form a logical federation. The entire subcontinent needs to go back to the princely states model so that each unit can maintain its identity independently and the monopoly of the bigger provinces/states can be broken. If Sindh as a state wants to become secular then they will not need the approval from Punjab, KPK, etc.

Bangladesh didnot bust the myth of Pakistan. Bangladesh was formed because it was not possible to govern it from Islamabad, nor was it is feasible to govern Islamabad from Dhaka, the Distances involved made made semi independence inevitable.

Bangaldesh became independent because Bhutto didnt want Mujib to form a government, And Yahya Khan wanted to remain relevent in politics. The both of them should have been executed for treason then and there as they were responsible for the mess that was created. as that was the only way he could form a majority government.

Pakistan is an unnatural state, in European eyes, as the concept of a nation state was conceived by europe in the treaty of Westphalia 1648, and nationality is derived from language and ethnicity.

But we are not European, neither do we want a state based on European ideals. Hence Pakistan is an Unnatural State.

The reason why there is a European Union rather than a Christian Union, is because of something called the reformation, that formed the concept of states, It also ensured that Religion does not govern secular states.

The reason that there is no Islamic Union, is because the Previous one was forcibly dismantled back in world war 1. Anyone who tries to promote Muslim Unity suddenly has a sharp decrease in life expectancy.

 

[barah_admi]

Bangladesh didnot bust the myth of Pakistan. Bangladesh was formed because it was not possible to govern it from Islamabad, nor was it is feasible to govern Islamabad from Dhaka, the Distances involved made made semi independence inevitable.

Bangaldesh became independent because Bhutto didnt want Mujib to form a government, And Yahya Khan wanted to remain relevent in politics. The both of them should have been executed for treason then and there as they were responsible for the mess that was created. as that was the only way he could form a majority government.

Pakistan is an unnatural state, in European eyes, as the concept of a nation state was conceived by europe in the treaty of Westphalia 1648, and nationality is derived from language and ethnicity.

But we are not European, neither do we want a state based on European ideals. Hence Pakistan is an Unnatural State.

The reason why there is a European Union rather than a Christian Union, is because of something called the reformation, that formed the concept of states, It also ensured that Religion does not govern secular states.

The reason that there is no Islamic Union, is because the Previous one was forcibly dismantled back in world war 1. Anyone who tries to promote Muslim Unity suddenly has a sharp decrease in life expectancy.

Exceptional post and deserves POTW.

 

[yasir]

I posted this on another thread, but let me share this from you.
Pakistan Army comes from Pakistan, not Switzerland, or Mars, or Westeros. Its a reflection of the society, you will have liberals, you will conservatives. They are is a diversity of opinion on religion within the army. A good example would be secular Ayub and Musharraf, and then look at conservative Zia.

Pakistan Army did not came from Mars, but ironically from India. at Partition Combined Indian Army was around 400,000, we got 140k(35%) and India got 250k(65%). Population wise we were 17-18%... We were screwed by the Army from the very beginning... In order to feed that Army we are screwing ourselves up ever since

Also, I have no problem with Army, if it runs for election and get votes by the people. Army is the biggest political force in the country, who is not answerable to public...Democracy is never going to work in Pakistan, with this beefy Army running down the throat of the nation...

Also, Army was not so much in bed with religion back in 60s...But in last 40-50 years, thanks to even Bhutto(Who started this Islamic block alignment, since he want to be world leader), there after Army is heavily build around religion. Side effect of that progressive forces are wiped out of the country. No country can ever make progress without progressives and liberals, specially in modern world, where sword has no value infront of SCIENCE & TECH...Economic prosperity should be main focus not God or Army, those are midivil ideologies, have no place in 21C

As far as the Southern States/ Bible Belt states are concerned they are going economically because of capitalism. I think capitalism vs socialism has more an impact on economy than liberal vs conservative.

Bible Belt is running off of old economical model(not just economical, but educational, social and entire ECO system). In US top 20 counties in terms of education, economic prosperity are overwhelmly Blue(even purple), same goes for top 10 states...

Infact Texas(VA did that 20 years ago) is trying to bring High Tech Economy in their state, side effect of that is loosing conservative strong holds. New Economic models means liberals and progressive are getting strong hold of their urban centers. Austin is lot more blue than Old Texan ever wanted... VA was red, now flipped in last 3 elections thanks to Northern VA (where I live as well), which also happens to be heart of VA Economy!!

Most(if not all) of top Economic Centers, Educational Hub(universities, colleges, High Tech Centers etc) are blue, many of them are purple. Like NY, Valley, Boston, DC, CHI, even Austin etc are purple rather than blue...Conservatives are loosing big time!!

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Bangladesh didnot bust the myth of Pakistan. Bangladesh was formed because it was not possible to govern it from Islamabad, nor was it is feasible to govern Islamabad from Dhaka, the Distances involved made made semi independence inevitable.

Bangaldesh became independent because Bhutto didnt want Mujib to form a government, And Yahya Khan wanted to remain relevent in politics. The both of them should have been executed for treason then and there as they were responsible for the mess that was created. as that was the only way he could form a majority government.

Pakistan is an unnatural state, in European eyes, as the concept of a nation state was conceived by europe in the treaty of Westphalia 1648, and nationality is derived from language and ethnicity.

But we are not European, neither do we want a state based on European ideals. Hence Pakistan is an Unnatural State.

The reason why there is a European Union rather than a Christian Union, is because of something called the reformation, that formed the concept of states, It also ensured that Religion does not govern secular states.

The reason that there is no Islamic Union, is because the Previous one was forcibly dismantled back in world war 1. Anyone who tries to promote Muslim Unity suddenly has a sharp decrease in life expectancy.

Good post. I doubt most people here have ever heard of the Treaty of Westphalia.

However i disagree partly on Bhutto and Yahya. Ultimately Yahya had political control of the country. He is responsible not Bhutto for 71. Bhutto was not PM, or President, or Army Chief at the time. He should have handed over power to Mujib, and if an operation had to be done it should have been done in West Pakistan not in the East. Hamoodur Rahman Commission should be released in full. And an official apology should be done to Bengali's, if not done already.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Pakistan Army did not came from Mars, but ironically from India. at Partition Combined Indian Army was around 400,000, we got 140k(35%) and India got 250k(65%). Population wise we were 17-18%... We were screwed by the Army from the very beginning... In order to feed that Army we are screwing ourselves up ever since

Also, I have no problem with Army, if it runs for election and get votes by the people. Army is the biggest political force in the country, who is not answerable to public...Democracy is never going to work in Pakistan, with this beefy Army running down the throat of the nation...

I agree, but there is not quick fix to get them completely out of politics. It will take a couple of generations. Its unrealistic to expect someone who came in the army at 18 and for 35 years has served, where he has been told that they need to be in charge and the Civilians cant be trusted, and now is a general to completely get out of politics.

I like what IK is doing, in the sense to keep them out bring them in. There is no threat anymore of a coup with his strategy. And this way he gets to share in power in regards to foreign policy, defense, and interior, instead of having 0% control.

With that said when criticizing them, its best to say generals or officers instead of Army. Most of the soldiers are poor when they come and are poor when they leave. They serve for the most part honorably.

Also, Army was not so much in bed with religion back in 60s...But in last 40-50 years, thanks to even Bhutto(Who started this Islamic block alignment, since he want to be world leader), there after Army is heavily build around religion. Side effect of that progressive forces are wiped out of the country. No country can ever make progress without progressives and liberals, specially in modern world, where sword has no value infront of SCIENCE & TECH...Economic prosperity should be main focus not God or Army, those are midivil ideologies, have no place in 21C

Yea this goes back to them being a reflection of society. When Pakistan was more liberal in the 60's they were liberal then when the country became conservative they also followed the same way. I feel the trend is reversing now and the country is becoming more liberal in the Urban areas, so there policies will change as well.





Bible Belt is running off of old economical model(not just economical, but educational, social and entire ECO system). In US top 20 counties in terms of education, economic prosperity are overwhelmly Blue(even purple), same goes for top 10 states...

Infact Texas(VA did that 20 years ago) is trying to bring High Tech Economy in their state, side effect of that is loosing conservative strong holds. New Economic models means liberals and progressive are getting strong hold of their urban centers. Austin is lot more blue than Old Texan ever wanted... VA was red, now flipped in last 3 elections thanks to Northern VA (where I live as well), which also happens to be heart of VA Economy!!

Most(if not all) of top Economic Centers, Educational Hub(universities, colleges, High Tech Centers etc) are blue, many of them are purple. Like NY, Valley, Boston, DC, CHI, even Austin etc are purple rather than blue...Conservatives are loosing big time!!

I think most Urban areas are Democrat. So that includes nice places like Austin, and the DC area, but also rubbish places like Detroit, and Baltimore. These places are very diverse, so people are more tolerant of each other and hence they vote Democrat.

You have also to keep in mind that Republicans used to win the North while the Southern states used to be Democrats. The parties started to flip when Nixon did the Southern Strategy, which basically was appealing to the racist voters in the southern states. So you could have a debate whether the Republicans of the old days deserve some credit for why the blue states today are more prosperous.

I agree tho that Blue states, and urban areas are better today. I certainly would not want to live in Mississippi or Arkansas.

 

[warcry]

Good post. I doubt most people here have ever heard of the Treaty of Westphalia.

However i disagree partly on Bhutto and Yahya. Ultimately Yahya had political control of the country. He is responsible not Bhutto for 71. Bhutto was not PM, or President, or Army Chief at the time. He should have handed over power to Mujib, and if an operation had to be done it should have been done in West Pakistan not in the East. Hamoodur Rahman Commission should be released in full. And an official apology should be done to Bengali's, if not done already.

bhutto threatened that he would break the legs of anyone who attended that Parliament. Bhutto supported the imposition of emergency done by the army. Bhutto is as culpable as Yahya. Both should have been hanged.

No Apolgy needs to be made to the Bengalis though.

 

[the Great Khan]

Bangladesh didnot bust the myth of Pakistan. Bangladesh was formed because it was not possible to govern it from Islamabad, nor was it is feasible to govern Islamabad from Dhaka, the Distances involved made made semi independence inevitable.

Bangaldesh became independent because Bhutto didnt want Mujib to form a government, And Yahya Khan wanted to remain relevent in politics. The both of them should have been executed for treason then and there as they were responsible for the mess that was created. as that was the only way he could form a majority government.

Pakistan is an unnatural state, in European eyes, as the concept of a nation state was conceived by europe in the treaty of Westphalia 1648, and nationality is derived from language and ethnicity.

But we are not European, neither do we want a state based on European ideals. Hence Pakistan is an Unnatural State.

The reason why there is a European Union rather than a Christian Union, is because of something called the reformation, that formed the concept of states, It also ensured that Religion does not govern secular states.

The reason that there is no Islamic Union, is because the Previous one was forcibly dismantled back in world war 1. Anyone who tries to promote Muslim Unity suddenly has a sharp decrease in life expectancy.

Good post. What people need to understand is that the european model does not neccessarily work in the context of large Muslim states. The european experience is unique to europe. Their desire for separation fo church and state is also a unique european concept. Iqbal has articualted his vision of a Islamic state and that is the model (with additions and omissions) that Pakistan was supposed to embody. Even the concept of "secularism" is disputed in the Islamic perspective.

You see in a european context you can separate the church from the work of the state. Its shariah isnt as all encompassing and doesnt deal with the day to day life of a christian. for example what does Christian law say about the division of ones inheritance, the timings of the prayers, how to wash, how to divorce, how to fight a war, how to trade, etc etc..it does not give us anything concrete and thus the "state" needs to move in and fill in the gaps.

In Islam the law is not controlled by the state but by the judiciary, who rule hand in hand with the head of state and the military. In the old days the head of state was commander in chief too and would also lead the military at times. This was eventually devolved to sultans and then further devolved to amirs. To the point where the head of state eventually lost power to the generals and amirs and sultans.

People forget that in the 12th century we had states..one was a combined state of Egypt and Syria, they called them sultanantes but they were precursors to the modern Muslim state. Pakistan is a similar construct. Almost a mdoern throwback to those 12th/13th century sultanates. The head of state is a powerless fugurehead with a grand vizier who is in charge and a Amir who controls the army..You then have the Qadis dishing out the law..with other tribes and militia pledging allegiance to the head of state..

Iqbal and co wanted to take teh concept forward and get rid of teh shackles of british law and customs..but they all died and we are left with what we have..a half finished experiment..

secularism in the european context doesnt work for a country of Muslims..

 

[The_Odd_One]

Bangladesh didnot bust the myth of Pakistan. Bangladesh was formed because it was not possible to govern it from Islamabad, nor was it is feasible to govern Islamabad from Dhaka, the Distances involved made made semi independence inevitable.

Bangaldesh became independent because Bhutto didnt want Mujib to form a government, And Yahya Khan wanted to remain relevent in politics. The both of them should have been executed for treason then and there as they were responsible for the mess that was created. as that was the only way he could form a majority government.

Pakistan is an unnatural state, in European eyes, as the concept of a nation state was conceived by europe in the treaty of Westphalia 1648, and nationality is derived from language and ethnicity.

But we are not European, neither do we want a state based on European ideals. Hence Pakistan is an Unnatural State.

The reason why there is a European Union rather than a Christian Union, is because of something called the reformation, that formed the concept of states, It also ensured that Religion does not govern secular states.

The reason that there is no Islamic Union, is because the Previous one was forcibly dismantled back in world war 1. Anyone who tries to promote Muslim Unity suddenly has a sharp decrease in life expectancy.

I am not sure what do you mean by semi-independence. Bangladesh is a fully independent country from Pakistan.

The distance was never the major issue. It was the regional bias that played its role on both sides. Bengalis were never considered equal by the elites of Pakistan. There was also a lot of resentment for West Pakistan in Bangladesh just like small provinces have for Punjab now. Language was again a big issue. Urdu was not accepted by Bengalis as the official language of the state.

By the same logic, the US should not be able to govern Alaska from Washington but that is not the case. Alaska has been a US state since 1959. The reason is simple that there is no regional bias nor there is a language barrier.

Big countries are not practical. Ayub Khan had split Pakistan into two big units: West and East. No wonder, the country split. Even if you read Islamic history, the khalifa used to rule over the Muslim land which was again impractical. It did not survive long and Ali had to divide the land between himself and Maviya. If religion could unit people, there would not have been dozens of Islamic countries sharing borders with each other throughout Asia and Africa.

Considering all this, the whole subcontinent needs to go back to the smaller states model.

 

[Diffusion]

There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I am not sure what do you mean by semi-independence. Bangladesh is a fully independent country from Pakistan.

The distance was never the major issue. It was the regional bias that played its role on both sides. Bengalis were never considered equal by the elites of Pakistan. There was also a lot of resentment for West Pakistan in Bangladesh just like small provinces have for Punjab now. Language was again a big issue. Urdu was not accepted by Bengalis as the official language of the state.

By the same logic, the US should not be able to govern Alaska from Washington but that is not the case. Alaska has been a US state since 1959. The reason is simple that there is no regional bias nor there is a language barrier.

Big countries are not practical. Ayub Khan had split Pakistan into two big units: West and East. No wonder, the country split. Even if you read Islamic history, the khalifa used to rule over the Muslim land which was again impractical. It did not survive long and Ali had to divide the land between himself and Maviya. If religion could unit people, there would not have been dozens of Islamic countries sharing borders with each other throughout Asia and Africa.

Considering all this, the whole subcontinent needs to go back to the smaller states model.

Majorities don't want to secede from the minority, its usually the opposite case. Had Mujib been allowed to be PM no way that Bengali's would ever leave. Instead they would have been the dominant group of Pakistan, and their is a good change today we might have Hasina as the PM of a united Pakistan.

Also Bengali was an official language of Pakistan from 1956. Had Ayub never done his coup and Pakistan been a democracy things might have been different.

 

[warcry]

I am not sure what do you mean by semi-independence. Bangladesh is a fully independent country from Pakistan.

The distance was never the major issue. It was the regional bias that played its role on both sides. Bengalis were never considered equal by the elites of Pakistan. There was also a lot of resentment for West Pakistan in Bangladesh just like small provinces have for Punjab now. Language was again a big issue. Urdu was not accepted by Bengalis as the official language of the state.

By the same logic, the US should not be able to govern Alaska from Washington but that is not the case. Alaska has been a US state since 1959. The reason is simple that there is no regional bias nor there is a language barrier.

Big countries are not practical. Ayub Khan had split Pakistan into two big units: West and East. No wonder, the country split. Even if you read Islamic history, the khalifa used to rule over the Muslim land which was again impractical. It did not survive long and Ali had to divide the land between himself and Maviya. If religion could unit people, there would not have been dozens of Islamic countries sharing borders with each other throughout Asia and Africa.

Considering all this, the whole subcontinent needs to go back to the smaller states model.

anyone who uses Alaska as an example needs to get their head examined.

Alaska is Empty territory even today.
The American System is already autonomous, with all States able to make their own laws, and able to elect their own governers. These Elections are called gubernatorial elections.

You yourself have made this statement that over long distances, the muslim world split. In the same East pakistan split due to long distances.

My point was that East Pakistan becoming semi independent was inevitable due to the distances involved.
That East Pakistan became Bangladesh and fully independent, was because of Bhutto and Yahya Khan's lust for power. They broke the country, and they should have been hanged for it.

 

[warcry]

I am not sure what do you mean by semi-independence. Bangladesh is a fully independent country from Pakistan.

The distance was never the major issue. It was the regional bias that played its role on both sides. Bengalis were never considered equal by the elites of Pakistan. There was also a lot of resentment for West Pakistan in Bangladesh just like small provinces have for Punjab now. Language was again a big issue. Urdu was not accepted by Bengalis as the official language of the state.

By the same logic, the US should not be able to govern Alaska from Washington but that is not the case. Alaska has been a US state since 1959. The reason is simple that there is no regional bias nor there is a language barrier.

Big countries are not practical. Ayub Khan had split Pakistan into two big units: West and East. No wonder, the country split. Even if you read Islamic history, the khalifa used to rule over the Muslim land which was again impractical. It did not survive long and Ali had to divide the land between himself and Maviya. If religion could unit people, there would not have been dozens of Islamic countries sharing borders with each other throughout Asia and Africa.

Considering all this, the whole subcontinent needs to go back to the smaller states model.

States are formed due to a multitude of reasons, geography plays a major role in forming countries. I will argue that was harder for one state to rule over all of islamic territories back in the day due to shear size of the land and technology was a handicap.

Today, with High Speed rail, air travel and The Internet, it would be significantly easier to rule over all of dar ul islam today than a thousand years ago.

 

[Zhasan]

They tried their best to share power, Congress was unwilling. In American sports, at least in Basketball, we have an analogy Batman and Robin, where the star player is Batman, and the sidekick is Robin. Muslims did not want to be Robin in the subcontinent, they would rather had a situation where it was like Batman and Superman, two equals.

Muslims contribute a lot to the subcontinent, from arts, architecture poetry, cuisine. It was not wrong of them to want to preserve their culture. The thing is that Hindus had no problem in giving Muslims religious freedom, but they saw the elements of Muslim culture that came from Persian as foreign, and did not understand why Muslims wanted to keep them. India is secular but their symbols come from pre Islamic Culture of the subcontinent, same way Muslims of the subcontinent look to the Muslim empires as inspiration.

Muslims saw a preview of what would transpire under Hindu domination in post independence India during the Calcutta riots of 1946, where thousands of Muslims were massacred. This single incident solidified Pakistan's raison d'etre. Muslims didn't want to live under the rule of majority Hindus and bear the brunt of the pogroms, discrimination and state sanctioned killings/massacres, something Indian Muslims have had to endure to this day.

 

[IAJ]

If every citizen in Pakistan followed religion properly there would have been no issues at all and the country would have been successful.

The Western and prosperous countries you are talking about have based their welfare system on the system which Chaliph Umar (ra) implemented 1400 years ago. I have lived almost my whole life in the most successful country in the World and I see many things here which sync with Islam.

The corruption, the killings, the frauds you see in Pakistan have nothing to do with Islam, as I mentioned earlier this would not have happened if people followed the rulings of Islam.

Take the leaders in country as example, they have stolen everything from the land and become rich and their families as well. True Islamic leaders will think otherwise.

So blaming Islam for Pakistan’s state of affairs is not valid. But people who misuse Islam and create problems in the society, well that is another thing. Education needs to be the biggest priority in the country. When people have enough knowledge they can challenge the wrongdoers.

Today you place any fake Peer in a villige and hundreds of people will just sit there and agree with him on everything because they don’t know better, education is a must.

 

[Bigboii]

Should/Can Pakistan be a secular state?

Can we become a secular state, if so is it possible
NAPA got me thinking but I don't think we can sustain it tbh with so many ethnicities how can you justify our exsistance without a common bond

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Can we become a secular state, if so is it possible
NAPA got me thinking but I don't think we can sustain it tbh with so many ethnicities how can you justify our exsistance without a common bond

It’s possible to be secular as a government while the religion still unites the country

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't think being a secular state is going to do much good. Besides, secularism is faulty anyway.

 

[andy0204]

The concept of secularism was bought by Jews for their own benefit.

 

[Savak]

Not possible if the vast majority of the population is highly religious. I don't consider India to be a secular state in spirit either.

 

[Nadeemp]

The concept of secularism was bought by Jews for their own benefit.

How so