Secular Pakistan. Liberal Pakistanis.

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes I am. Post 26



No one is deluded that it will produce sudden results; some sort of technological renaissance out of nowhere.

Ideally as Captain Rishwat implied it is an evolutionary process.

Now look particularly at Pakistan's case which is bit different there are some important aspects.

Firstly a new very diverse nation, Establishment thought it can be united under some common faith blanket and tried to "inject" a sense of common nationhood based on particular ideologies of religion.
e,g Maududi having such a big influence on urban middle class that in addition to getting more conservative, it started looking down upon/considering unislamic the brand of religion, it followed during its rural part(before moving to cities as a result of economic progress) e.g. going to shrines, not following Hijab (prevalent in rural areas) etc. This also shows that the point that rural urban divide will be equivalent to conservative/liberal(with rural being conservative) is wrong, its not that simple.

Secondly and importantly, One of major reason for rise of passive/active extremist organisations in Muslim world is a sentiment post/during colonization in Muslim World that decline is not because of lack of progress evolution it is because of not following the religion in true spirit(and renaissance will only be achieved by following religion in true(puritanical) spirit, this school of thought also peddled the hate against anything west). Attaturk prevented this from festering in Turkey by state sanction "injections".(not correct ideally according to liberalism principles but ironically helped in achieving the very thing in Turkish Society, vision is beyond popular sentiment), Considering that Turkey faced the worst decline(from Ottommon empire to....) it was very much prone to face this phenomena most alongwith hatred against west(its culture, Knowledge etc).

Probably you are doubtful of its effect on Pakistan considering India in mind, India's case is different;for such a large population with so big numbers residing in each class/ethnic/economic fault lines it is not possible for pluralism to produce ideal/instant effect.

Now again no one is delusional about "instant revolutionary results" but it will pave the way toward future progress. There is a reason that top brains produced by country from Faiz to Eqbal Ahmad to PerveZ Hoodbhoy emphasized on the matter because the effect of religious conservatism/extremism is very widespread from a small level of Lahore Marathon, tourism resort in a country to intellectual stagnation and pressurising Jinnah.

Therefore I think that notion that it will not change any thing, there are other issues etc is causing confusion and is probably more a part of problem than solution.

amax,

I don't really know the areas except as an outsider but what are the prospects of the more tribal areas like FATA and Balochistan accepting secular rule? Khyber areas in particular have a history of not accepting imposed solutions which is why I am skeptical about army action as a long term answer. My view has always been that the biggest recruitment card of the Jihad mindset is conflict and warfare. Given the history of that region, do you believe that it will accept secular rule under the barrel of a gun? If anything, from a distance it seems that the fundamentalist mindset has flourished in these times rather than diminished.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Yes I am. Post 26



No one is deluded that it will produce sudden results; some sort of technological renaissance out of nowhere.

Ideally as Captain Rishwat implied it is an evolutionary process.

Now look particularly at Pakistan's case which is bit different there are some important aspects.

Firstly a new very diverse nation, Establishment thought it can be united under some common faith blanket and tried to "inject" a sense of common nationhood based on particular ideologies of religion.
e,g Maududi having such a big influence on urban middle class that in addition to getting more conservative, it started looking down upon/considering unislamic the brand of religion, it followed during its rural part(before moving to cities as a result of economic progress) e.g. going to shrines, not following Hijab (prevalent in rural areas) etc. This also shows that the point that rural urban divide will be equivalent to conservative/liberal(with rural being conservative) is wrong, its not that simple.

Secondly and importantly, One of major reason for rise of passive/active extremist organisations in Muslim world is a sentiment post/during colonization in Muslim World that decline is not because of lack of progress evolution it is because of not following the religion in true spirit(and renaissance will only be achieved by following religion in true(puritanical) spirit, this school of thought also peddled the hate against anything west). Attaturk prevented this from festering in Turkey by state sanction "injections".(not correct ideally according to liberalism principles but ironically helped in achieving the very thing in Turkish Society, vision is beyond popular sentiment), Considering that Turkey faced the worst decline(from Ottommon empire to....) it was very much prone to face this phenomena most alongwith hatred against west(its culture, Knowledge etc).

Probably you are doubtful of its effect on Pakistan considering India in mind, India's case is different;for such a large population with so big numbers residing in each class/ethnic/economic fault lines it is not possible for pluralism to produce ideal/instant effect.

Now again no one is delusional about "instant revolutionary results" but it will pave the way toward future progress. There is a reason that top brains produced by country from Faiz to Eqbal Ahmad to PerveZ Hoodbhoy emphasized on the matter because the effect of religious conservatism/extremism is very widespread from a small level of Lahore Marathon, tourism resort in a country to intellectual stagnation and pressurising Jinnah.

Therefore I think that notion that it will not change any thing, there are other issues etc is causing confusion and is probably more a part of problem than solution.

Tbf

Pakistan has stagnated under the secular philosopher of bb and her clan

and it's time to give shariah reform a try in pakistan in terms of taxation and welfare
They couldn't possibly do any worse than what's transpired to the economy in the last few years and the pakistan awaam wouldn't have to be so heavily depedent on others either

It is a dream, iA

 

[DW44]

i see the bangladeshis commenting on our pathetic growth rate..its not bad considring we've been fighting a war for ten years. before that it was 7-8% steadily. what was sri lankas growth rate during the war with the tamils? by the way manufacturing has seen a growth rate of around 13%.

No, it was not. Average growth rate since 1960 has been well under 6%, let alone in the 7-8% range. Only time it went that high was for a brief period in the 60s before the war in 65 and then for 3 years in the early 2000s at the height of the global economic boom. Had it been consistently 7-8%, Pakistan wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel with a per capita GDP of $1300(evil America is at $53000 and poor South Korea, who used to emulate our policies in the 60s when they were poorer than Ghana and CAR are at $34800.

 

[amax]

cool, i cant argue with the nitty gritty of the situation in pak since i have only been back for 4 weeks in the last 15 years since i left, but since you made the effort to write a decent counter ill reply.

so how is the secularisation implemented to combat this phenomenon in a way as to be effective, given the lack of education provided by the state and ethnicity based support of political parties who could never pull it off.

compare the apparatus of the state to "inject" this secularisation with the network of religious organisations ready to fight it. if bought into affect it would be quashed in weeks leaving the whole idea of liberalism or secularism as a joke.

for a grass level movement you need thinkers who have the security to voice opinions, for which you need to deal with education, corruption and security, secularisation before the pakistan is ready is a recipe for disaster, imo.

i agree with you on that, in my experience you are right, as i found out some villagers from my pind are well fond of kronenberg, lol.

again, as i said to aashiqmizaaj, you cannot draw such wide parallels to other historical groups of people who just happened to be muslim. the turks were a global super power and force to be reckoned with as a religious imperial state, and when faced with rebuilding the nation, the forged a economically powerful, modern state without islam.

the common denominator is the turkish national identity which is not present in pakistanis, and the pride in identification with that national identity, for many like ataturk even before their religious identity. the turks understand there place in the world, before and after islam, yet in pak people believe mohamad bin qasim was the first pakistani and have heart felt reverence for foreign conquerors.

yes you can force a common identity on a people, but again pakistan simply does not have the educational infrastructure to replace religion with some other commonality, just look at pakistani prejudices, after nearly 70 years people are still arguing about ethnicity and languages.

as i have mentioned before, the intellectual classes will always be drawn to liberalism, secularism, the key is in the developing those classes to the number where they exert political influence, and the evolution and its effects will follow.

I think now our discussion boils down to simple argument/point; that should it be a completely organic process or "mechanical force" is required at some point.

I raised the point about establishment/govt "mechanical" involvement as in Past it did play its role in changing the religious orientation (specially of an emerging urban middle class) when it required(in 70s,80s), so I think establishment(as it has been discussed in another thread that conservatism in masses cant be changed overnight but things can be soften by propagating {passive/less rigid} state sanctioned aspects of religion etc in conservative areas, though ideally this feeding is against principles of liberalism see post 4-6 [http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=197626] ), can play a somewhat reverse(softening) role.

Secondly I mentioned turkey because of a similarity; many Islamic revival movements that have strong influence on Muslims of SC originated during colonial rule in SC. Mughal and Ottomon Empire were major Muslim forces before colonial spree. So there is one similarity of being prone to reactionary/revivalist extremist religious movements post decline in both regions.

IMO the transfer of Pakistani society from conservative to liberal with economic progress is not that linear(also considering that the very thing is playing its part in hampering fast economic growth) because of some ground realities I have discussed in previous post. Finally the biggest question is do we have time on our side to let this evolution happen "completely" organically? morso considering we know (beforehand) that what is better;secular/liberal nations are doing far better in every field.

amax,

I don't really know the areas except as an outsider but what are the prospects of the more tribal areas like FATA and Balochistan accepting secular rule? Khyber areas in particular have a history of not accepting imposed solutions which is why I am skeptical about army action as a long term answer. My view has always been that the biggest recruitment card of the Jihad mindset is conflict and warfare. Given the history of that region, do you believe that it will accept secular rule under the barrel of a gun? If anything, from a distance it seems that the fundamentalist mindset has flourished in these times rather than diminished.

This is very tricky and important point specially for Fata and adjacent KPK areas . Baluchistan is bit different as we know that many Baluch sardars have been secular etc and there are not cases of emergence of active extremism from the province.
Considering Fata I think state authority needs to be established before the soft work(curriculum changes, development) can give optimum result. A good solution will be combo of Operation+[dialogue with the local populace/elders to detach them completely from TTP]. Here I think that across border Afghanistan is very Important(because of bonds etc) as I said somewhere else that strong Coalition control and weak Taliban(ideologically+in strength) will make operation in Fata more successful.

In KPK there is still strong presence of what you can say "ANP school of thought" that will be important in this regard.

One important aspect that will reduce the breathing ground for extremisim with ethnic base in province( and region) will be highlighting the diversity of the province(and the whole region) that it belongs to all; to non Muslims Kalash People,people of Ismaeli sect and Hindku people, not to particular ethnicity/lingual group etc. Diversity always favor secularism.

 

[akheR]

Peoples are seriously deluded if they think there's "liberalism" (a complex ideology with a whole history, an economic programs and some seminal ethical principles, depending on the geographical context) in Pakistan, or any Third World nation for that matter.
Rise of liberalism as ideology is firstly linked with either a cosmopolitan bourgeoisie (Western Europe) or a conservative middle-class (USA), please do tell me where you could find such elements in a country with under $2000 GDP/capita.
Liberalism in Pakistan is just about preferring cheeseburgers over roti, reading NFP and enthusiastically justifying drone attacks in FATA over purely humanistic grounds.

Pakistan's a Third World basket case with no left and right consciousness because its peoples are in an intellectual gutter... in which civilized country would Bilawal Zardari, the product of a feudal aristocracy, be hailed as the ambassador of a "new Left" (@amax) ? That's like expecting Henry Ford - or some powerful industrialist - to be a sincere Marxist-Leninist!

I'm against liberalism as an ideology, but I do respect some of the intellectuals who described themselves as liberals, but Pak liberals are just a bad parody and give it a bad name.

In fact, if the definition of social class itself is nebulous in Pakistan it's because the country isn't industrialized (that's why Stalin and Mao did what they did when they first came to power, as Russia and China were both in Pakistan's case), before that to even talk of "right" and "left" is ridiculous.

 

[amax]

In fact, if the definition of social class itself is nebulous in Pakistan it's because the country isn't industrialized (that's why Stalin and Mao did what they did when they first came to power, as Russia and China were both in Pakistan's case), before that to even talk of "right" and "left" is ridiculous.

That is one of the good arguments, for a "homogeneous" not developed country of over 1 billion or probably any under developed/developing country of 1 billion "Chinese hegemony" is best system as it can force critically important decisions like birth control. Though I agree (somewhat) with you If you are implying that at this initial stage(under developed/developing) Pakistan need somewhat "forced" mechanism on critical matters over "purely democratic" ?? are you implying this??. But now coming to Pakistan and liberalism, liberalism comes into Pakistani scene because of some similarities with western Europe and USA; 1) Pre Enlightenment age like situation with religious conservatism that gave rise to initial liberal Phenomena.(to put in daily routine words Russia and China will not face problems holding a track and field event) 2) diversity make it more similar to US(different ..... combine for collective economic growth) than homogeneous China; "strong hegemonies" in Pak's history have caused friction(separation movements during dictatorships??) . I agree with you partially on left/right part ; Pakistan just(mostly) (in start) need "strong" "liberal" spectrum around ([center left, center, or even center right]).

 

[Badsha]

One thing I don't understand is when people give examples of how Turkey is doing such an awesome job ect.

Until recently, the headscarf was banned because it didn't look progressive. How is that not stealing away someones religion?

 

[mani1]

No, it was not. Average growth rate since 1960 has been well under 6%, let alone in the 7-8% range. Only time it went that high was for a brief period in the 60s before the war in 65 and then for 3 years in the early 2000s at the height of the global economic boom. Had it been consistently 7-8%, Pakistan wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel with a per capita GDP of $1300(evil America is at $53000 and poor South Korea, who used to emulate our policies in the 60s when they were poorer than Ghana and CAR are at $34800.

Hasn't India's growth rate been consistently over 6% for around 3 decades? Yet India is scraping the bottom of the barrel with a per capita GDP of around $1400?

 

[Saeed]

Come on now at least adopt the system before declaring it useless. As long as such system doesn't interfere in somebody's private life it shouldn't bother anybody.

 

[DW44]

Hasn't India's growth rate been consistently over 6% for around 3 decades? Yet India is scraping the bottom of the barrel with a per capita GDP of around $1400?

India started off the 21st century with a per capita GDP(PPP) 20% lower than Pakistan's. Between 2000 and 2010, their per capita GDP(PPP) grew at an average 8.4% per year, from $1548 in 2000 to $3466 in 2010, surpassing Pakistan in 2007. During the same period, Pakistan's per capita GDP grew at an average of 3.97% per year, from $1922 in 2000 to $2836 in 2010. Since then, growth rates have been closer (5% for India, 3.2% for Pakistan) and right now, their per capita GDP is about 24% higher than ours.

With that out of the way, remind me why we're comparing ourselves with India? Is India really the standard to aspire to? The cricketing equivalent would be a budding pacer aspiring to emulate Ishant Sharma. There are better examples to follow. Korea for one.

 

[the Great Khan]

No, it was not. Average growth rate since 1960 has been well under 6%, let alone in the 7-8% range. Only time it went that high was for a brief period in the 60s before the war in 65 and then for 3 years in the early 2000s at the height of the global economic boom. Had it been consistently 7-8%, Pakistan wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the barrel with a per capita GDP of $1300(evil America is at $53000 and poor South Korea, who used to emulate our policies in the 60s when they were poorer than Ghana and CAR are at $34800.

i should clarify, during a brief period in mushy's time..rest your right about..

 

[ElRaja]

I think now our discussion boils down to simple argument/point; that should it be a completely organic process or "mechanical force" is required at some point.

yes, your right

I raised the point about establishment/govt "mechanical" involvement as in Past it did play its role in changing the religious orientation (specially of an emerging urban middle class) when it required(in 70s,80s), so I think establishment(as it has been discussed in another thread that conservatism in masses cant be changed overnight but things can be soften by propagating {passive/less rigid} state sanctioned aspects of religion etc in conservative areas, though ideally this feeding is against principles of liberalism see post 4-6 [http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=197626] ), can play a somewhat reverse(softening) role.

but you ignore that the madrassas present provided the logistics to propogate that ideological transition. there is no analogous institution, i.e. an effective schooling system to propogate a message of secularism today.

Secondly I mentioned turkey because of a similarity; many Islamic revival movements that have strong influence on Muslims of SC originated during colonial rule in SC. Mughal and Ottomon Empire were major Muslim forces before colonial spree. So there is one similarity of being prone to reactionary/revivalist extremist religious movements post decline in both regions.

the turks limited there secularism to the lands of ethnic turks, the mughals were not ethnic pakistanis or indians to have any demographic which recognised with the mughal identity to counter ideology based on propogating a homogeneous arab centric islamic identity.

Finally the biggest question is do we have time on our side to let this evolution happen "completely" organically?

no, i highly doubt there will be any serious change in our lifetime. the transition from the "dark ages" to the renaissance took roughly 300 years at a low estimate.

morso considering we know (beforehand) that what is better;secular/liberal nations are doing far better in every field.

it comes down to our cause and effect disagreement, societies do not achieve more by imposing secularism, but the democracy that allows the society to prosper eventually leads to secularism imo.

 

[KB-24]

Islam and Secular Liberalism are incompatible, the two cannot co-exist. In fact no two ideologies have ever co-existed peacefully. There's always a conflict. Capitalism vs Communism is one example. Islam too is an ideology and thus only personal practice of individual ibadaat and akhlaaq are not enough as Islam is a complete system of life. It is meant to be followed in all areas of life not just in personal life.

So in a secular society, Islam is practiced partially, suppressing rights of Muslims and heck even Non-Muslims because no system other then Islam allows for plurality to exist. The political component of Islam through which justice and peace is established in society is absent when ruled by secular law.

Muslims really need to understand that Islam is a holistic system which provides solutions to all human problems in all areas of life. To limit it to the spiritual practice only is a costly error. Once you get this, you will see right through the hoax of secularism.

 

[KB-24]

Imposing Shari'ah, a must read article for all:

http://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/12/07/imposing-sharia-law/

 

[KB-24]

Just to make one thing clear, I'm not a proponent of Sharia law at all. It is an outdated practice that doesn't need to be implemented in terms of Islam anyway.

But I agree. These "half way" laws are really poor.



You make a lot of valid points

And maybe take a trip to Pakistan. You'll notice some of the polarity.


Anyway, if liberals focused on human rights, equality and work force I'd be happy. Sadly, most liberals I see here want almost an end to religion being the deciding factor in anything.

If the strictness of Pakistan bothers you, you can always leave the country because guess what, that's what I did. But I can't force my opinion on everyone over there.

So you are a liberal, against implementation of Shari'ah and think it's outdated yet you had the audacity to question authenticity of ahadith without knowing zilch? And then you claim to be a 'Muslim'! Classic! ) ) )

Thanks for your exposing your true self. Now your outlandish statements from other thread make complete sense and give a true account of where you are coming from. You're confused dude.

 

[Saeed]

KB could you please explain both Islam and Secular Liberalism and why they can't be one?

 

[KB-24]

people who think secularisation will some how rid pakistan of all its ills are deluding themselves, im not going into details since i cant be bothered but these are the base realities.

feudalism is a far greater weight on pakistani economic development than religion, nothing will change for the better until the political aristocracy that runs pakistan like a collection of personal fiefdoms is broken.

where secularisation plays a role is in freeing the intellectual classes from dogmatic restrictions, which in turns catalyses the technological development of a nation making it a productive and respected member of the international community.

pakistan in economic terms is way behind where it would need to be to avail any benefits of technologically advanced economy. when pakistan is in the position to avail these benefits secularisation and liberalism will take root itself, as it has done in the intellectual and academic class of every secular nation without any need for "injecting" it.

p.s. is there any resident pakistani actually commenting in this thread?

Fuedalism and Corporatocracy are the bloodlines of secular democracy and they cannot be separated as money is at the heart of politics in this system.

Economic progress cannot come from a system dominated by interest. You can have all the gadgets but what good are they when people are living an artificial lifestyle dominated by debt & misery?

 

[KB-24]

KB could you please explain both Islam and Secular Liberalism and why they can't be one?

Check out the article I posted, you'll be informed.

 

[Saeed]

Check out the article I posted, you'll be informed.

I read it and its talking about other things which I already know. I don't want to know what western media does and how is eastern world. I just want to know what secular liberalism is? What Islam is? And how do they go against each other? Please don't include west or this and that. I think both of them could be explained without adding geographical terms.

 

[KB-24]

I read it and its talking about other things which I already know. I don't want to know what western media does and how is eastern world. I just want to know what secular liberalism is? What Islam is? And how do they go against each other? Please don't include west or this and that. I think both of them could be explained without adding geographical terms.

Islam is a divinely revealed system for life which defines man's relationship with his Creator, his relationship with self, other human beings, universe and his purpose of existence.

Whereas Secular liberalism is a flawed system of life which originates from limited intellect of man. It leaves the relationship of man with his Creator to personal discretion, same with self, other human beings, universe and gives him a materialistic purpose of existence which leaves him miserable.

A society ruled by Islam submits to Shari'ah whether it has Muslims or Non-Muslims living in it whereas in a secular liberal society, divine law is not part of policy making instead driven by man made legislation which is bound to suppress some community's right since human mind cannot cater to needs of all because not every human being has the same beliefs and values they subscribe to. This is the main problem which leads to mischief in the land because man seeks to impose his concept of right and wrong upon rest of the society even if it's not representative of their worldview.

Islam allows for plurality as in Non-Muslim communities have the right to their own judiciary but they also have the option of settling disputes through Shari'ah if they so wish. Islam also doesn't interfere with or spy on private life of its citizens like we know all secular societies do.

Secularism defines the motive of all actions for benefit whilst Islam defines all actions for pleasure of the Creator. Now secularism doesn't necessarily reject absence of a Creator it just doesn't believe that the Creator should dictate legislation.

You can see why Islam and Secularism cannot co-exist. Former takes Allah SWT as the Sovereign & Legislator whilst the latter takes man as sovereign & legislator. That's the fundamental difference and therefore, the conflict between these 2 ideologies will carry on till Islam is dominant again Insha Allah.

 

[Chacha_junior]

Islam is a divinely revealed system for life which defines man's relationship with his Creator, his relationship with self, other human beings, universe and his purpose of existence.

Whereas Secular liberalism is a flawed system of life which originates from limited intellect of man. It leaves the relationship of man with his Creator to personal discretion, same with self, other human beings, universe and gives him a materialistic purpose of existence which leaves him miserable.

A society ruled by Islam submits to Shari'ah whether it has Muslims or Non-Muslims living in it whereas in a secular liberal society, divine law is not part of policy making instead driven by man made legislation which is bound to suppress some community's right since human mind cannot cater to needs of all because not every human being has the same beliefs and values they subscribe to. This is the main problem which leads to mischief in the land because man seeks to impose his concept of right and wrong upon rest of the society even if it's not representative of their worldview.

Islam allows for plurality as in Non-Muslim communities have the right to their own judiciary but they also have the option of settling disputes through Shari'ah if they so wish. Islam also doesn't interfere with or spy on private life of its citizens like we know all secular societies do.

Secularism defines the motive of all actions for benefit whilst Islam defines all actions for pleasure of the Creator. Now secularism doesn't necessarily reject absence of a Creator it just doesn't believe that the Creator should dictate legislation.

You can see why Islam and Secularism cannot co-exist. Former takes Allah SWT as the Sovereign & Legislator whilst the latter takes man as sovereign & legislator. That's the fundamental difference and therefore, the conflict between these 2 ideologies will carry on till Islam is dominant again Insha Allah.

Utter nonsense

 

[Chacha_junior]

These people do not want to practice their religion/Islam in private which is more than sufficient imo. By saying that " Islam should be an integral part of Pakistan " they actually mean that they want the country to be run as a Mullah Regime , bullying those who do not agree with their viewpoint , control the society to live as per what they think is right or wrong, denying freedom to different schools of thought which may challenge their position in the future.

If Islam can be practiced by living in a secular western country then what difference would it make if Pakistan also adopts the secular way of living ? Those who wish to follow their religion can continue to do so , others too will have the option to decide whats best for them.

True

 

[Chacha_junior]

Are you not a liberal Badsha? :/

The only way Pakistan will prosper is if it becomes a liberal state. You need to make them think with their minds and not their faith. If somebody can name me 3 successful muslim countries (NON LIBERAL) then I will shut up, and no the gulf states that are run by oil do not count, take that away from them and they become bigger savages than those in the subcontinent.

Did anyone answer that question yet

 

[Chacha_junior]

to simply blame all of the problems in the Muslim world on Islam is short sighted, and quite ignorant. WHy ignorant? well because you ignore the historical reality of the Muslim world and why we are where we are. For example Sykes Picot, balfour and partition.

when the christians were in their dark ages (800 odd years almost), the Muslims used to say the same about them..

And than the christians separated state and religion and many issues got resolved

 

[Chacha_junior]

Complete and utter tosh.

Ditto

 

[Chacha_junior]

Excellent insights Raja, couldn't agree more.

Great post

 

[Badsha]

So you are a liberal, against implementation of Shari'ah and think it's outdated yet you had the audacity to question authenticity of ahadith without knowing zilch? And then you claim to be a 'Muslim'! Classic! ) ) )

Thanks for your exposing your true self. Now your outlandish statements from other thread make complete sense and give a true account of where you are coming from. You're confused dude.

You know I'm not a fan of these liberal secular pakistanis but when I see people like you I really understand where they are coming from.

Why don't you just take care of your own religion rather than judging if I'm Muslim or not? Are you insecure about your beliefs?


95 percent of Sharia law is man made and some laws were made regarding that time. But like I said, you're too thick to understand. You probably also think shaving is haraam.

And yes I have the audacity to question hadith. In front of the Holy book of Allah Bukhari and his work is worthless.

Time to go to your brainwashing sessions

 

[Chacha_junior]

Ooooh snap

 

[KB-24]

Shari'ah vs Secular Democracy, which is more tolerant? Find out in this explosive debate.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yguuIVNYlwk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[KB-24]

You know I'm not a fan of these liberal secular pakistanis but when I see people like you I really understand where they are coming from.

Why don't you just take care of your own religion rather than judging if I'm Muslim or not? Are you insecure about your beliefs?


95 percent of Sharia law is man made and some laws were made regarding that time. But like I said, you're too thick to understand. You probably also think shaving is haraam.

And yes I have the audacity to question hadith. In front of the Holy book of Allah Bukhari and his work is worthless.

Time to go to your brainwashing sessions

95% eh, how about you actually provide proof for your asinine claims instead of making blanket statements. Calling Shari'ah outdated absolutely exposes your real views, you cannot hide behind ad hominems which have no relevance.

You cannot claim to be Muslim and then turn around and call Law of Allah irrelevant and in your dubious words, man made Subhan Allah!

And no I'm quite secure in my beliefs Alhamdulillah which is why I'm able to back my claims up with substantial proof instead of coming up with emotional rants rooted in conjecture.

Let me remind you why it's not enough to be content in following Islam myself because Allah SWT says:

"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." - [9:71]

So if a Muslim sees another Muslim in danger of losing his/her imaan, they are obliged to correct them through nasihah. If you're done making foolish remarks without having an iota of an idea of what you're saying then please make tawbah.

 

[Badsha]

95% eh, how about you actually provide proof for your asinine claims instead of making blanket statements. Calling Shari'ah outdated absolutely exposes your real views, you cannot hide behind ad hominems which have no relevance.

You cannot claim to be Muslim and then turn around and call Law of Allah irrelevant and in your dubious words, man made Subhan Allah!

And no I'm quite secure in my beliefs Alhamdulillah which is why I'm able to back my claims up with substantial proof instead of coming up with emotional rants rooted in conjecture.

Let me remind you why it's not enough to be content in following Islam myself because Allah SWT says:

"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." - [9:71]

So if a Muslim sees another Muslim in danger of losing his/her imaan, they are obliged to correct them through nasihah. If you're done making foolish remarks without having an iota of an idea of what you're saying then please make tawbah.

Right and your "Nasiha" was judging other muslims and laughing at them for being muslim?

Let me tell you this. Look at yourself through the eyes of others. It's people like you that have created these weird liberals. Do you think anyone has found true Islam by your fake brainwashed preaching? You defame Islam and give this beautiful religion a bad name by attaching laws that have no bearing to the religion but Muslim culture.

If these liberals meet people like you in real life I don't blame them. Again, I ask you to judge yourself. Do you think you're doing any good for society?

Here's my advice to you: stop attending your brainwashing sessions, shave of your beard, listen to some nice music to relax your mind and then read the beautiful Quran. understand its meaning. Understand that Allah wants humans to live a life that will give them spiritual peace.

It's useless to argue with you. You'll follow your distorted version of Islam that you have created.

 

[DHONI183]

The thread started with a script and story-line, then the film was filmed in the thread itself. Poetic!!

 

[the Great Khan]

And than the christians separated state and religion and many issues got resolved

for them..but many issues still remain..

but you cannot apply the same rules to Islam and Muslims. The methodology and language is totally different. christian europe was mired in the dark ages for almost 700 years. in this time the church was all powerful..Kings were rpactically subserviant to teh pope...knowledge was horded, "heretics" burnt, the poor kept poor, while the "nobles" did what they wanted by and large..

then you got the emergence of Islam and the re transmission of knowledge began again, from aristole to ibn tufail. From socrates to ghazali. Through conduits like sicily and andalucia, the chrisitan world started to question the oppression of the church.

this eventually lead to the split between protestants and catholics. The catholics with their dogmatic interpretations and priest worship, in contrast you had the protestants who didnt believe in a pope and the priestly class..

Eventually this lead to the establishment of oxford and other institutions modelled on the the great madrassa's of the east where knowledge was open to all and debated openly.

It lead to great names like Pockock (sp) and Locke who transmitted the ideas of ibn tufail and ghazali among others. Pocok was actually chair of the study of islam in oxford and locke was heavily influenced by him. We all know that lockes ideas lead to the enlightenment and the emergence of the United states constitution.

Islam came as a reformist movement and still is a reformist movement, you can't reform reform. You can go back to the essence of what made it reformist and then do a comparative analysis.

Muslims currently tend to follow the path of the slave mind, the conquered person. "Be like the conqueror and you will suceed". Well they tried that and look around you.

No, what we need is to go back interpret the teachings of over a thousand years, look at what the scholars had to handle (trust me theyve answered alot of the questions that keep getting asked), and then look at our current societies and ask the question " is this really how we want to live"..

Alot of blame falls at the feet of our scholars both secular and religious, they are wrapped up in their own prejudices and dogma, unable to inspire, unable to move forward and unable to innovate..hence the malaise we find our selves in.

So in short, separating "church" from state wont work in the Islamic world because there is no chruch to separate.

 

[KB-24]

Right and your "Nasiha" was judging other muslims and laughing at them for being muslim?

Let me tell you this. Look at yourself through the eyes of others. It's people like you that have created these weird liberals. Do you think anyone has found true Islam by your fake brainwashed preaching? You defame Islam and give this beautiful religion a bad name by attaching laws that have no bearing to the religion but Muslim culture.

If these liberals meet people like you in real life I don't blame them. Again, I ask you to judge yourself. Do you think you're doing any good for society?

Here's my advice to you: stop attending your brainwashing sessions, shave of your beard, listen to some nice music to relax your mind and then read the beautiful Quran. understand its meaning. Understand that Allah wants humans to live a life that will give them spiritual peace.

It's useless to argue with you. You'll follow your distorted version of Islam that you have created.

I was laughing at the sheer stupidity of your arguments because they aren't consistent with Islam. You were the one who made outrageous claims and continue to do so which are nothing but figment of your warped imagination.

I don't see myself through others' eyes because I'm not trying to please the creation instead trying to present what Islam is and not what people want it to be. As for doing good, sure I am. I'm presenting a superior alternative to the ailings of society which is Islam that seeks to solve human problems and bring tranquility in society.

Anyhow you are right, it's futile to reason with you since you are confused and your comments prove that. You really need to learn the foundational basics of Islam from a learned person. May Allah SWT give you hidayah.

 

[Badsha]

I was laughing at the sheer stupidity of your arguments because they aren't consistent with Islam. You were the one who made outrageous claims and continue to do so which are nothing but figment of your warped imagination.

I don't see myself through others' eyes because I'm not trying to please the creation instead trying to present what Islam is and not what people want it to be. As for doing good, sure I am. I'm presenting a superior alternative to the ailings of society which is Islam that seeks to solve human problems and bring tranquility in society.

Anyhow you are right, it's futile to reason with you since you are confused and your comments prove that. You really need to learn the foundational basics of Islam from a learned person. May Allah SWT give you hidayah.

I've learned about Islam from some of the best muslims not some brainwashing sessions you've attended. They've made me love Islam and I am thankful to them and to Allah for guiding me this way.

Don't please the creation, but remember that this creation is the work of Allah.

 

[Chacha_junior]

for them..but many issues still remain..

but you cannot apply the same rules to Islam and Muslims. The methodology and language is totally different. christian europe was mired in the dark ages for almost 700 years. in this time the church was all powerful..Kings were rpactically subserviant to teh pope...knowledge was horded, "heretics" burnt, the poor kept poor, while the "nobles" did what they wanted by and large..

then you got the emergence of Islam and the re transmission of knowledge began again, from aristole to ibn tufail. From socrates to ghazali. Through conduits like sicily and andalucia, the chrisitan world started to question the oppression of the church.

this eventually lead to the split between protestants and catholics. The catholics with their dogmatic interpretations and priest worship, in contrast you had the protestants who didnt believe in a pope and the priestly class..

Eventually this lead to the establishment of oxford and other institutions modelled on the the great madrassa's of the east where knowledge was open to all and debated openly.

It lead to great names like Pockock (sp) and Locke who transmitted the ideas of ibn tufail and ghazali among others. Pocok was actually chair of the study of islam in oxford and locke was heavily influenced by him. We all know that lockes ideas lead to the enlightenment and the emergence of the United states constitution.

Islam came as a reformist movement and still is a reformist movement, you can't reform reform. You can go back to the essence of what made it reformist and then do a comparative analysis.

Muslims currently tend to follow the path of the slave mind, the conquered person. "Be like the conqueror and you will suceed". Well they tried that and look around you.

No, what we need is to go back interpret the teachings of over a thousand years, look at what the scholars had to handle (trust me theyve answered alot of the questions that keep getting asked), and then look at our current societies and ask the question " is this really how we want to live"..

Alot of blame falls at the feet of our scholars both secular and religious, they are wrapped up in their own prejudices and dogma, unable to inspire, unable to move forward and unable to innovate..hence the malaise we find our selves in.

So in short, separating "church" from state wont work in the Islamic world because there is no chruch to separate.

Religion and State have to be separated . There is no other way forward

 

[Cochin_wala]

Secularism, Liberalism are all enemies of religions. don't accept my words? then, look at Christian Europe going(gone?) for Atheism. so called "Judeo-Christian" influence in western/American culture are also fast getting eliminated for suiting feminist agenda - just an e.g.

India is a example of fast influence of Western style Liberalism and Secularism disguised as "tolerant to others belief". today, many people does not take religions seriously and non-religious people numbers will see an increase especially among educated, intellectual ones. this is why Rightwing Hindus along with their paramilitary RSS is focussing on making India, Hindu's nation so as to recover the losses made due to secularism. A very good example for theocratic countries to follow IMO.

 

[Robbie]

Many 'non seculars' would have a problem if western countries and India turns into christian and hindu countries respectfully and treat minorities like second grade citizens as done in Islamic countries. Double standards? Hell yes.

 

[Chacha_junior]

Many 'non seculars' would have a problem if western countries and India turns into christian and hindu countries respectfully and treat minorities like second grade citizens as done in Islamic countries. Double standards? Hell yes.

Yup

 

[venomousx]

Many 'non seculars' would have a problem if western countries and India turns into christian and hindu countries respectfully and treat minorities like second grade citizens as done in Islamic countries. Double standards? Hell yes.

Nailed it!

 

[Indiafan]

Secularism, Liberalism are all enemies of religions. don't accept my words? then, look at Christian Europe going(gone?) for Atheism. so called "Judeo-Christian" influence in western/American culture are also fast getting eliminated for suiting feminist agenda - just an e.g.

India is a example of fast influence of Western style Liberalism and Secularism disguised as "tolerant to others belief". today, many people does not take religions seriously and non-religious people numbers will see an increase especially among educated, intellectual ones. this is why Rightwing Hindus along with their paramilitary RSS is focussing on making India, Hindu's nation so as to recover the losses made due to secularism. A very good example for theocratic countries to follow IMO.

There is a huge difference between people being exposed to an ideology and preferring that to the current one and forcing something on someone. This is nothing to do with any enmity and is just about human beings getting more enlightened and moving on from superstitions. Just like many have stopped putting nimbu-mirchi on the door (though many still do) . The RSS way is of course the forceful one

Once again you show a surprising lack of knowledge about the actual ground realities in India. No matter who comes to power, these RSS, etc will always be fringe group who are not going to make any changes in anything. They always make big speeches before every election. That's simply not the way India rolls

 

[speed]

It is the secular liberal types who of are ruling pakistan whether it's through the military, the media, the Presidential office or the judiciary.

 

[IMMY69]

Pakistan is a proper Islamic country in the purest sense... All the trial and tribulations, the threat to life, the corruption and the thieving put upon this country to test the good people so that they may enjoy heaven in the next life! Amen

 

[Myrmidon]

Did anyone answer that question yet

No because you will be hard pressed to find many, they are all in turmoil.


It has been conveniently ignored because people are in serious denial

 

[Myrmidon]

It is the secular liberal types who of are ruling pakistan whether it's through the military, the media, the Presidential office or the judiciary.

That is a lie, those apparent liberals at every opportunity will pretend to be religious and praise god when it suits them, to score some points.

 

[speed]

That is a lie, those apparent liberals at every opportunity will pretend to be religious and praise god when it suits them, to score some points.

Religious by your definition is something like zardari visiting some shrine in india or nawaz doing umrah and hajj, zardari can visit as many shrines as he want's and nawaz can do a 100 hajjs but that does not make them religious, if nawaz was religious he would not do hajj on sood money, If nawaz was religious he would know that Prophet Muhamamd( PBUH) cursed 4 people with regards to riba the lender, the giver, the scribe and the witness. And if you got the curse of Prophet Muhammad on you than you can kiss bye jannah Unless of course one repents and Allah Forgives them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Many 'non seculars' would have a problem if western countries and India turns into christian and hindu countries respectfully and treat minorities like second grade citizens as done in Islamic countries. Double standards? Hell yes.

Why would a secular person advocate western countries or India turning Christian or hindu in the first place? Quite a strange comment.

 

[Robbie]

^^ I am not advocating that, just saying that many non seculars would have a problem if it happened, not that it should happen.

 

[shakil]

Secularism != Liberalism

Liberalism: A political*orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution.

Secularism: A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

Basically secularism is a more specific form of liberalism. In order to work effectively, Secularism requires liberals. Liberals is the opposite of conservatism which means liberals are the one who challenge prevalent ideas, cultural positions and laws. For Pakistan's society, we definitely need a move towards liberalism as far as acceptance of sects and other religions is concerned. Therefore, I am content being a fascist (forceful) liberal who force people to be neutral

 

[Saqs]

The country's loudest voices are the Wahabis (Fundos/Pro-Religion) and Sharabis (Liberals/Anti-Regligion).

The majority are just chilled out dudes who just want to get along and make a decent living.

 

[Loralai]

A liberal, tolerant Pakistan is the only kind of Pakistan that progress.

We can't move forward with this current mess.

I look forward to the day when we have a liberal Pakistan that we can be proud of. Right now, we are just going more and more backwards thanks to the Molvi - Military alliance.