Sudan ends 30 year rule of Islamic law, separating religion and state

[uberkoen]

Sudan’s transitional government has agreed to separate religion from the state, ending 30 years of Islamic rule in the country.

Leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North rebel group Abdel-Aziz al-Hilu and Sudanese Prime minister Abdalla Hamdok signed the declaration in Addis Ababa on Thursday.

“For Sudan to become a democratic country where the rights of all citizens are enshrined, the constitution should be based on the principle of ‘separation of religion and state,’ in the absence of which the right to self-determination must be respected,” the declaration stated.

This comes less than a week after the government signed a peace deal with rebel forces, raising hopes of an end to the violence that had crippled the Darfur region and other parts of Sudan under ousted president Omar al-Bashir.

Sudan is emerging from international isolation that began soon after Bashir seized power in 1989 and implemented a hard-line interpretation of Islamic law that sought to make the nation the “vanguard of the Islamic world”.

The United States labeled Sudan a terror sponsor in 1993 and later imposed sanctions until 2017.

Source: https://africa.cgtn.com/2020/09/04/...f-islamic-rule-separating-religion-and-state/

 

[uberkoen]

What an amazing move. Hope the country turns itself around and starts progressing into the modern world now. Sudan has all the makings of a strong developing country in the medium future. In a country that has had a recent history of Civil Wars, Islamist movements, Coup's and insurgency I hope this decision doesn't lead to a further prolonged conflict but I'm sure that in the long run it will turn out to be a good decision.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Inshallah they will soon catch up to the rest of Africa. countries like Wakanda for example which have led the way for those free from restrictions of Sharia rule.

 

[Giannis]

So do they get South Sudan back?

 

[sweep_shot]

So do they get South Sudan back?

I believe South Sudan is a completely different country.

I doubt they will be reunited.

 

[uberkoen]

So do they get South Sudan back?

South Sudan is a different country. Like Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are all different countires.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to someone.

 

[Giannis]

I believe South Sudan is a completely different country.

I doubt they will be reunited.

South Sudan is a different country. Like Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are all different countires.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to someone.

I believe South Sudan is a completely different country.

I doubt they will be reunited.

I'm aware it's a separate country, you clearly lack comprehension skills [MENTION=107753]uberkoen[/MENTION] . South Sudan was part of Sudan for most of history and only became a separate country in 2011. The main reason for the separation was because South Sudan is majority Christian whereas the rest of Sudan is majority Muslim, also the Dinka ethnic group who are the majority in South Sudan are culturally different from the Arabs who are the majority in Sudan, they complained of religious and ethnic discrimination which resulted in South Sudan becoming a separate country.

 

[moghul]

Great news for Sudanese, breath of fresh air, congratulation and hats off to the leaders making this happened.

Wish we could see the same in Pakistan, but it will remain a distant dream , unfortunately.

Nothing wrong with religion but when religion gets involved in state's matters, everyone has his/her own interpretation of the religion for his/her own personal interest hence its not applicable to run state affairs.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Great news for Sudanese, breath of fresh air, congratulation and hats off to the leaders making this happened.

Wish we could see the same in Pakistan, but it will remain a distant dream , unfortunately.

You are congratulating cruel dictators? You would back dictators in Pakistan, as long as they make Pakistan secular? Keep in mind there is no Zia in Pakistan without Secular Ayub.

Nothing wrong with religion but when religion gets involved in state's matters, everyone has his/her own interpretation of the religion for his/her own personal interest hence its not applicable to run state affairs.

Completely agree with that. And This is why the founders of Pakistan wanted a Muslim state, and not a Islamic state. A Muslim state where the symbols of Pakistan reflected the Muslim heritage of the subcontinent, but not a theocracy.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

What an amazing move. Hope the country turns itself around and starts progressing into the modern world now.

Nice to see you backing dictators once again. You also praised dictators in UAE, and said they were a role model for a progressive Muslim state.

Its because of this attitude that Pakistan got Zia.

This is one of the reasons its hard for Pakistan to be a complete democracy, because people will back dictators as long as they support their policies.

Sudan has all the makings of a strong developing country in the medium future. In a country that has had a recent history of Civil Wars, Islamist movements, Coup's and insurgency I hope this decision doesn't lead to a further prolonged conflict but I'm sure that in the long run it will turn out to be a good decision.

Is today the first of April?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Inshallah they will soon catch up to the rest of Africa. countries like Wakanda for example which have led the way for those free from restrictions of Sharia rule.

Unfortunately alot of Muslim liberals are shameless people, and will back dictatorships if they are secular, and curse democracies if they elect Islamic parties. They have zero respect for the will of the majority.

 

[miandadrules]

Unfortunately alot of Muslim liberals are shameless people, and will back dictatorships if they are secular, and curse democracies if they elect Islamic parties. They have zero respect for the will of the majority.

A majority that is brutally indoctrinated from birth.

 

[moghul]

You are congratulating cruel dictators? You would back dictators in Pakistan, as long as they make Pakistan secular? Keep in mind there is no Zia in Pakistan without Secular Ayub.



Completely agree with that. And This is why the founders of Pakistan wanted a Muslim state, and not a Islamic state. A Muslim state where the symbols of Pakistan reflected the Muslim heritage of the subcontinent, but not a theocracy.

A secular dictator is better than a Mulla dictator, a double whammy. If I had to pick one between Ayub and Zia, Ayyub would have been my pick.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

A majority that is brutally indoctrinated from birth.

Nice. Another poster with zero respect for the majority.

There was no Zia without Ayub. Muslims from subcontinent are more liberal than the Middle Eastern ones. Most likely Pakistan would be more liberal today if Secular Ayub did not takeover.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

A secular dictator is better than a Mulla dictator, a double whammy. If I had to pick one between Ayub and Zia, Ayyub would have been my pick.

The founding fathers of Pakistan were already liberal. Pakistan would never get Zia without Ayub. Pakistan would be more liberal today had it not been for him.

A secular dictator is better than a Mulla dictator, a double whammy. If I had to pick one between Ayub and Zia, Ayyub would have been my pick.

Thats the thing though. Who are you to decide? There can be people who think that the Mullahs would be better. Should they get to decide?

 

[miandadrules]

Nice. Another poster with zero respect for the majority.

There was no Zia without Ayub. Muslims from subcontinent are more liberal than the Middle Eastern ones. Most likely Pakistan would be more liberal today if Secular Ayub did not takeover.

I don’t respect them because I acknowledge the abuse they are subjected to?

 

[miandadrules]

The founding fathers of Pakistan were already liberal. Pakistan would never get Zia without Ayub. Pakistan would be more liberal today had it not been for him.



Thats the thing though. Who are you to decide? There can be people who think that the Mullahs would be better. Should they get to decide?

Any references?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I don’t respect them because I acknowledge the abuse they are subjected to?

So you want a system where you, or people like you decide who gets to run the country?

Then liberal Muslims, or people from a Muslim background should not cry then about the following:

Secular Shah imposing his will on the people, Mullahs of Iran doing the same.

Secular Attaruk imposing his will on the people now you have Islamist Erdogan doing the same.

Secular Ayub imposing his will then Islamist Zia imposing his will

Any references?

Ayub appointed Bhutto Foreign Minister. Without that he would never have had the platform to became PM. Bhutto appointed Zia. And then we got Islamization. So Ayub Kutta hai.

Also the Mullahs have never won a democratic election in Pakistan at the federal level.

The founding fathers were liberal. Mullahs opposed creating Pakistan. They called Jinnah Kaffir-e-Azam.

 

[miandadrules]

So you want a system where you, or people like you decide who gets to run the country?

Then liberal Muslims, or people from a Muslim background should not cry then about the following:

Secular Shah imposing his will on the people, Mullahs of Iran doing the same.

Secular Attaruk imposing his will on the people now you have Islamist Erdogan doing the same.

Secular Ayub imposing his will then Islamist Zia imposing his will





Ayub appointed Bhutto Foreign Minister. Without that he would never have had the platform to became PM. Bhutto appointed Zia. And then we got Islamization. So Ayub Kutta hai.

Also the Mullahs have never won a democratic election in Pakistan at the federal level.

The founding fathers were liberal. Mullahs opposed creating Pakistan. They called Jinnah Kaffir-e-Azam.

That’s not a reference.

 

[miandadrules]

So you want a system where you, or people like you decide who gets to run the country?

Then liberal Muslims, or people from a Muslim background should not cry then about the following:

Secular Shah imposing his will on the people, Mullahs of Iran doing the same.

Secular Attaruk imposing his will on the people now you have Islamist Erdogan doing the same.

Secular Ayub imposing his will then Islamist Zia imposing his will





Ayub appointed Bhutto Foreign Minister. Without that he would never have had the platform to became PM. Bhutto appointed Zia. And then we got Islamization. So Ayub Kutta hai.

Also the Mullahs have never won a democratic election in Pakistan at the federal level.

The founding fathers were liberal. Mullahs opposed creating Pakistan. They called Jinnah Kaffir-e-Azam.

Who said the country should run on my whims? I believe in addressing all underlying issues from nutrition to education to religion.

I’m not a Muslim.

You seem to be struggling to differentiate authoritarian secularism and democratic secularism.

 

[Syed1]

Our liberal losers keep shouting democracy democracy but then forget that overwhelming majority of Pakistanis have consensus on two three things. They want Islamic democratic system. They don't want any relations with Israel. People of occupied Kashmir are Pakistanis and all of Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.


All these three points cause heartburn to liberals.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Who said the country should run on my whims? I believe in addressing all underlying issues from nutrition to education to religion.

Sorry then. I guess i mixed you up with another poster.

I’m not a Muslim.

You seem to be struggling to differentiate authoritarian secularism and democratic secularism.

No i support democracy. Some posters above stated or implied that they support a secular dictatorship vs a democracy.

I support the will of the people, even though i am personally a liberal.

 

[miandadrules]

Our liberal losers keep shouting democracy democracy but then forget that overwhelming majority of Pakistanis have consensus on two three things. They want Islamic democratic system. They don't want any relations with Israel. People of occupied Kashmir are Pakistanis and all of Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.


All these three points cause heartburn to liberals.

And why do they have that consensus?

 

[miandadrules]

Sorry then. I guess i mixed you up with another poster.



No i support democracy. Some posters above stated or implied that they support a secular dictatorship vs a democracy.

I support the will of the people, even though i am personally a liberal.

To support the will of the people you have to give them free reign to decide.

That means no indoctrination.

Be it on religion or politics.

The developing world and especially the Muslim world brutally indoctrinates it’s population so they serve a selected group of elites.

To not acknowledge this is a crime in its self.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

That’s not a reference.

What references did you want? If it was if Pakistan founding fathers wanted a secular state see below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/pakistan-jinnah-ideals-abandoned.html

https://dailytimes.com.pk/639674/jinnah-and-secular-state/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24034873

To see how Jinnah was called Kaafir-e-Azam see below

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/12/21/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/

 

[miandadrules]

What references did you want? If it was if Pakistan founding fathers wanted a secular state see below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/pakistan-jinnah-ideals-abandoned.html

https://dailytimes.com.pk/639674/jinnah-and-secular-state/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24034873

To see how Jinnah was called Kaafir-e-Azam see below

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/12/21/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/

Those are opinion pieces.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

To support the will of the people you have to give them free reign to decide.

That means no indoctrination.

Be it on religion or politics.

The developing world and especially the Muslim world brutally indoctrinates it’s population so they serve a selected group of elites.

To not acknowledge this is a crime in its self.

The European countries that became secular, was because the elites at gun point forced that on the masses. You can say that the people there have been indoctrinated as well then. They have been indoctrinated that's it ok to mock religion as freedom of speech, but dont you dare say anything on the holocaust o anything anti semitic, other wise you go to jail.

Thats also indoctrination. Every country has taboo topics. In US its race. If one says anything thats racist there career is over.

And they have that consensus due to what, Genius?

Because Pakistanis are Muslim from subcontinent so they naturally support Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan. And as Palestine is a holy land for Muslims they dont support Israel.

And i understand that you are not a Muslim but you are from a Pakistani Muslim background, so i would assume that at least on Kashmir you would support the Pakistani viewpoint.

And out of curiosity do you have an issue with the symbols of Pakistan reflecting the Muslim heritage of the subcontinent? As even if Pakistan becomes secular, the majority of liberal Muslims still want our cultural symbols to reflect the Muslim history.

 

[sweep_shot]

South Sudan was part of Sudan for most of history and only became a separate country in 2011. The main reason for the separation was because South Sudan is majority Christian whereas the rest of Sudan is majority Muslim, also the Dinka ethnic group who are the majority in South Sudan are culturally different from the Arabs who are the majority in Sudan, they complained of religious and ethnic discrimination which resulted in South Sudan becoming a separate country.

The problem is, South Sudan has already joined UN and African Union. It has been an independent country for almost a decade. I doubt they will rejoin now.

 

[uberkoen]

Nice to see you backing dictators once again. You also praised dictators in UAE, and said they were a role model for a progressive Muslim state.

Its because of this attitude that Pakistan got Zia.

This is one of the reasons its hard for Pakistan to be a complete democracy, because people will back dictators as long as they support their policies.



Is today the first of April?

Is the caliphate system adopted by Islam based on the foundations of Democracy? Can you name one Islamic Caliph who was elected by the majority of the people? There is no basis of democracy in Islam so if you're a Muslim why are you supporting a system which goes against the command of Allah and the teachings of the Prophet?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

There is no basis of democracy in Islam so if you're a Muslim why are you supporting a system which goes against the command of Allah and the teachings of the Prophet?

Is there anything in Islam which says that democracy is not allowed? Is there any proof that Allah or the prophet said no democracy?

Is there one basis of supporting democracy in the Old Testament or New Testament? If Christians or Jews can have democracy, why not for Muslims? Do you hold them to the same standards? What about Hindus? Are they not following their religion by having a democracy? And not to mention enacting laws which are against the caste system? Should i start quoting from the manusmriti?

There is no basis of democracy in Islam so if you're a Muslim why are you supporting a system which goes against the command of Allah and the teachings of the Prophet?

As for as why i support democracy two reasons. One the founder of Pakistan wanted a democracy. Two i live in a western democracy now. As i enjoy a decent life there, i would like the people of my country of birth to also have that system.

Seems better than posters who live in the west then advocate for a dictatorship for Pakistan.

 

[uberkoen]

Is there anything in Islam which says that democracy is not allowed? Is there any proof that Allah or the prophet said no democracy?

Is there one basis of supporting democracy in the Old Testament or New Testament? If Christians or Jews can have democracy, why not for Muslims? Do you hold them to the same standards? What about Hindus? Are they not following their religion by having a democracy? And not to mention enacting laws which are against the caste system? Should i start quoting from the manusmriti?




As for as why i support democracy two reasons. One the founder of Pakistan wanted a democracy. Two i live in a western democracy now. As i enjoy a decent life there, i would like the people of my country of birth to also have that system.

Seems better than posters who live in the west then advocate for a dictatorship for Pakistan.

So you enjoy living in a country which allows people to practice their religion freely without any prejudice, does not enforce laws that result in moral policing and keeps state and religion separate but don't want the same for others?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

So you enjoy living in a country which allows people to practice their religion freely without any prejudice, does not enforce laws that result in moral policing and keeps state and religion separate but don't want the same for others?

I do want that for Pakistan. I would love to see Pakistan as a secular state, with only its cultural symbols reflecting its subcontinent Muslim heritage. I have mentioned on this forum multiple times the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan is shameful. As well as for gays.

However its up for the people residing in Pakistan to decide what kind of system they have. The only way to do that is through a democratic system. Vote ko izzat do.

I rather Pakistan have Mullahs in power, even though i am a liberal, if that's what the people of Pakistan want. However i hope that people in Pakistan will become more liberal as time goes on.

 

[Giannis]

The problem is, South Sudan has already joined UN and African Union. It has been an independent country for almost a decade. I doubt they will rejoin now.

Yeah but they've been facing a lot of issues lately, was wondering if they might accede to Sudan now that it's a secular state.