Will Pakistan become a secular state and if so, when?

[Ronaldo7]

I came across a show by Waqar Zaka yesterday called "Champions" and I looked it and wondered "Is this actually Pakistan?".

Some of the stuff on that show would have never been shown in the 80s. Some of the stuff that was being said actually surprised me. I realised that Pakistan is no longer Islamic. This kind of stuff would never be allowed in an Islamic State and rightly so.

I've always been proud of us being an Islamic State but it looks like we're only an Islamic Republic by name and no Islamic laws are actually being followed. So what's the point of us calling ourselves an Islamic Republic?

I've also noticed that in the last 5 years, secularism has really gained popularity in Pakistan. We're becoming a lot more western than we were 10-15 years ago and it's maybe because of the exposure we're getting of the western world though the internet. Around 20% of Pakistanis have access to internet which was around 11% 5-10 years ago and is predicted to go up to 70% by 2030. So if this trend continues, I'm sure that a lot more people will be influenced by the west and their qualities.

So that begs the question:

Will Pakistan become a secular state?

And if so, when may that be and how?

 

[MenInG]

Impossible - Dont think it will happen.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It will end up being like Turkey Inshallah. Might take another 20 years or so, but it's headed in that direction.

 

[AdamM97]

Most western nations only became truly secular after overthrowing the medieval feudal system in the early 20th century even though secular ideas were popular since the 1600s, this is because religion and feudalism go hand in hand. Theocracy was still going strong in Europe even though the enlightenment ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau were popular amongst the masses and liberal thinkers.

For example: France became officially secular 1905, 106 years after the end of the French Revolution which was highly influenced by liberal and secular ideas.

Look at India, it was formed on the basis of secularism and still a Hindutva party has managed to dominate Indian politics 72 years after independence.

Pakistan is still a quasi-feudal country where landowners-cum-politicians, preachers and the army has huge influence over the masses, very similar to Europe in the 1600s.

So no, I don’t think Pakistan will become secular anytime soon.

Besides, even the west is becoming more ”feudalistic” and less democratic now (Look up neo-feudalism).

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

I came across a show by Waqar Zaka yesterday called "Champions" and I looked it and wondered "Is this actually Pakistan?".

Some of the stuff on that show would have never been shown in the 80s. Some of the stuff that was being said actually surprised me. I realised that Pakistan is no longer Islamic. This kind of stuff would never be allowed in an Islamic State and rightly so.

I've always been proud of us being an Islamic State but it looks like we're only an Islamic Republic by name and no Islamic laws are actually being followed. So what's the point of us calling ourselves an Islamic Republic?

I've also noticed that in the last 5 years, secularism has really gained popularity in Pakistan. We're becoming a lot more western than we were 10-15 years ago and it's maybe because of the exposure we're getting of the western world though the internet. Around 20% of Pakistanis have access to internet which was around 11% 5-10 years ago and is predicted to go up to 70% by 2030. So if this trend continues, I'm sure that a lot more people will be influenced by the west and their qualities.

So that begs the question:

Will Pakistan become a secular state?

And if so, when may that be and how?

Jailing people on blasphemy charges.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Its certainly heading towards Secularism and its not necessarily such a bad thing. Just ask yourself, are people in current day Pakistan more liberal , more educated and less religious than they were in 1947 ? No matter how slow the process maybe it, its heading towards a less religious society.

In Pakistan, we have Secular, Liberal, Atheist factions in cities where people do not strictly follow Islam, Drinking Culture is rampant and people do a lot of things that will be considered Un-Islamic yet everything is brushed under the Carpet of Islam where everyone is still Muslim on Paper. More people are getting educated today, women have more rights and freedom, families have better resources and improved standard of living, so the society is naturally gravitating towards a less religious atmosphere. Its unfortunate that most of population is still uneducated hence free thinking and liberal culture is still in its infancy.

Considering the religious extremism in Pakistan, Secularism will not be a bad counter method to neutralize it.

Pakistan may or may not have been established in name of Islam but its not compulsory that all future generations will comply with the same ideology. 50 Years down the line, the then population of Pakistan has full rights to decide whether they want Pakistan to be an Islamic Republic or opt for separation of Religion and State.

 

[AdamM97]

Its certainly heading towards Secularism and its not necessarily such a bad thing. Just ask yourself, are people in current day Pakistan more liberal , more educated and less religious than they were in 1947 ? No matter how slow the process maybe it, its heading towards a less religious society.

In Pakistan, we have Secular, Liberal, Atheist factions in cities where people do not strictly follow Islam, Drinking Culture is rampant and people do a lot of things that will be considered Un-Islamic yet everything is brushed under the Carpet of Islam where everyone is still Muslim on Paper. More people are getting educated today, women have more rights and freedom, families have better resources and improved standard of living, so the society is naturally gravitating towards a less religious atmosphere. Its unfortunate that most of population is still uneducated hence free thinking and liberal culture is still in its infancy.

Considering the religious extremism in Pakistan, Secularism will not be a bad counter method to neutralize it.

Pakistan may or may not have been established in name of Islam but its not compulsory that all future generations will comply with the same ideology. 50 Years down the line, the then population of Pakistan has full rights to decide whether they want Pakistan to be an Islamic Republic or opt for separation of Religion and State.

I think you’re mistaking western culture for liberalism. The educated masses of Pakistan are westernized and not necessarily liberal. You can be a liberal and still not drink alcohol and party. The drinking culture is something they’ve imported from the west. Educated Pakistanis have had a tendency to imitate westerners since colonial era.

 

[Ronaldo7]

I think you’re mistaking western culture for liberalism. The educated masses of Pakistan are westernized and not necessarily liberal. You can be a liberal and still not drink alcohol and party. The drinking culture is something they’ve imported from the west. Educated Pakistanis have had a tendency to imitate westerners since colonial era.

The West are seen as "the civilised" so do you blame them?

 

[AdamM97]

The West are seen as "the civilised" so do you blame them?

Not at all! In fact, westerners are arguably more civilized than most Pakistanis (sorry, not sorry).

My point is that most Pakistanis confuse liberalism as the same thing as westernization. Simply drinking alcohol and following American pop culture doesn’t make you a liberal. Not the same thing.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Not at all! In fact, westerners are arguably more civilized than most Pakistanis (sorry, not sorry).

My point is that most Pakistanis confuse liberalism as the same thing as westernization. Simply drinking alcohol and following American pop culture doesn’t make you a liberal. Not the same thing.

People also confuse being secular with being anti-religion which is why a lot of people don't like secularism in Pakistan

 

[The_Odd_One]

It is inevitable.

You will be surprised to know how many people already believe in secularism. A large number of people have either completely lose their faith or have become non-practicing Muslims. Some do practice religion but only out of fear because otherwise, they may experience severe backlash from their family and society.

I visited Pakistan 2 years ago and I saw nothing that even remotely looks Islamic. It is just a matter of a time when people will have the courage to admit it openly.

 

[Ronaldo7]

It is inevitable.

You will be surprised to know how many people already believe in secularism. A large number of people have either completely lose their faith or have become non-practicing Muslims. Some do practice religion but only out of fear because otherwise, they may experience severe backlash from their family and society.

I visited Pakistan 2 years ago and I saw nothing that even remotely looks Islamic. It is just a matter of a time when people will have the courage to admit it openly.

Aren't you an Indian?

 

[The_Odd_One]

Aren't you an Indian?

No, born in Pakistan and immigrated to the US. Visited India only once for a week when I was 2.

 

[Ronaldo7]

No, born in Pakistan and immigrated to the US. Visited India only once for a week when I was 2.

I see. Always thought you were an Indian.

 

[amax]

I will eventually become , Pakistani society is too vibrant for religion, they will start finding nationalism in indus/gandhara.

 

[world cup captain]

Religion itself will only be taught in history books one day, like Greek mythology. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Pakistanian]

Hopefully Pakistan becomes a pluralistic country in the next 20 years.

 

[moghul]

Hopefully soon but does not look like.

 

[troodon]

Reading this thread is giving me hope for a better future in Indian subcontinent.

 

[ARK Rafay]

It will become Falahi Riyasat of Medina. In Sha Allah

 

[ahsan17]

Jailing people on blasphemy charges.

If there's a silver lining, it's that these incidents are quite rare and happen once every 1-2 years (in the grand scheme of things, that's not terribly common). I am still firmly against blasphemy and strongly favour a secular state, but given the trends, I think blasphemy law will be on the chopping black (or at least significantly watered down) in the not too far off future. I think in 20 or so odd years, I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan is a secular state. And I would give it 5-10 years before the blasphemy law is killed or watered down significantly.

 

[Pakistanian]

If there's a silver lining, it's that these incidents are quite rare and happen once every 1-2 years (in the grand scheme of things, that's not terribly common). I am still firmly against blasphemy and strongly favour a secular state, but given the trends, I think blasphemy law will be on the chopping black (or at least significantly watered down) in the not too far off future. I think in 20 or so odd years, I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan is a secular state. And I would give it 5-10 years before the blasphemy law is killed or watered down significantly.

What's worse than the law is the mob culture. It doesn't matter if Pakistan abolishes the blasphemy laws, mobs and even individuals will lynch anybody that blasphemes Islam. People think changing the law will change the people when in reality people will just take things into their own hands. Pakistan needs a change of culture.

 

[Mamoon]

People come from abroad once in a few years, spend a couple of weeks in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad and think Pakistan is becoming secular.

 

[szrana]

Never, Insha Allah.

 

[ahsan17]

What's worse than the law is the mob culture. It doesn't matter if Pakistan abolishes the blasphemy laws, mobs and even individuals will lynch anybody that blasphemes Islam. People think changing the law will change the people when in reality people will just take things into their own hands. Pakistan needs a change of culture.

Agreed, and I don't see a solution for that any time soon. I can see a large minority in Pakistan forming mobs and killing anyone accused of blasphemy. I suppose you can start by improving law enforcement, although that in itself is a big problem of its own that's not going to get solved anytime soon.

 

[ManFan]

People come from abroad once in a few years, spend a couple of weeks in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad and think Pakistan is becoming secular.

I just visited in Punjab and the spirit is changing but it is very subtle.

There is definitely a lack of religious commitment or attachment; those who use it are doing so only for appearances.

 

[Mamoon]

I just visited in Punjab and the spirit is changing but it is very subtle.

There is definitely a lack of religious commitment or attachment; those who use it are doing so only for appearances.

Punjab has always been relatively more secular than KP.

“Ramzaan janay Pathan janay”

 

[ahsan17]

Punjab has always been relatively more secular than KP.

“Ramzaan janay Pathan janay”

Most of the blasphemy-related mob killings happen in Punjab, AFAIK.

 

[Ronaldo7]

People come from abroad once in a few years, spend a couple of weeks in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad and think Pakistan is becoming secular.

I went 2 years ago to Lahore for 6 weeks. I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Most of the blasphemy-related mob killings happen in Punjab, AFAIK.

Wdym by most?
Only 75 have happened since 1987 and a lot of those accusations have been made in KPK.

A lot of honour killings happen in KPK too (per capita wise)

 

[Mamoon]

I went 2 years ago to Lahore for 6 weeks. I think I know what I'm talking about.

You clearly don’t. Lahore and other major cities do not represent the entire country. For example, Peshawar is more secular than the rest of KP, but you cannot label KP as secular because of Peshawar.

Pakistan is still a deeply intolerant and religious country. As long as there is extreme poverty and the illiteracy rate is high in the country, it cannot become secular and religion will remain a core tenant of the society.

When you are poor, uneducated, unemployed, religion is your only hope. Moreover, over 80% of the destitute people live in rural areas.

Going to posh areas of Lahore and seeing girls with skinny jeans and crop tops does not represent the sentiments of the public. These people live are in the tiniest of minorities and live in a bubble of their own.

This bubble has and always will exist. The rich and educated section of the society will always project more secular values on the whole.

 

[ManFan]

Punjab has always been relatively more secular than KP.

“Ramzaan janay Pathan janay”

True.

 

[Mamoon]

Most of the blasphemy-related mob killings happen in Punjab, AFAIK.

Not necessarily, but of course extremism is everywhere as long as their is poverty and illiteracy. However, in general, we the people of KP are more backward and intolerant. A lot of that has to do with the pakhtun culture itself.

 

[ManFan]

Not necessarily, but of course extremism is everywhere as long as their is poverty and illiteracy. However, in general, we the people of KP are more backward and intolerant. A lot of that has to do with the pakhtun culture itself.

Here in NY, a lot of close Pakhtun family friends who were very liberal when young, have become more and more conservative as the time has passed.

The general pattern remains the same.

 

[Pakistanian]

Not necessarily, but of course extremism is everywhere as long as their is poverty and illiteracy. However, in general, we the people of KP are more backward and intolerant. A lot of that has to do with the pakhtun culture itself.

That's an interesting phenonemon because other Iranic groups like Persians, Kurds and Baloch tend to be more open minded. What do you think is the difference?

 

[Jin Chacha]

Increasing westernization is not the same as secularism or liberalism. Our westernized elite or even urban middle classes that seem eager to adapt Western trends turn religious on the drop of a hat when their interests are threatened. The same people you see drinking and dancing will never accept a non-Muslim head of state and will react violently to any mention of blasphemy. We are no where close to being secular and increasing westernization is just a reflection of our dr jeckyl and mr Hyde character.

 

[IAJ]

I have been on this forum for a while now, and it’s really sad to see the hate against Islam here. True Islam is the only way forward, otherwise not much hope for this country.

 

[Pakistanian]

I have been on this forum for a while now, and it’s really sad to see the hate against Islam here. True Islam is the only way forward, otherwise not much hope for this country.

Wouldn't you want Pakistan to be more like Norway? Scandinavian countries are some of the best in the world to live in.

 

[amax]

That's an interesting phenonemon because other Iranic groups like Persians, Kurds and Baloch tend to be more open minded. What do you think is the difference?

pakistani pashtuns and balochs dont associate much with pan iranic identities like persians and kurds , also they are genetically quite different from latter. Also persian diasporas might be liberal but country is theocracy for 40 years now , so it is clear that masses arent that liberal as some diaspora iranians want to portray to get some brownie points from west as oppossed to suadis.

 

[IAJ]

Wouldn't you want Pakistan to be more like Norway? Scandinavian countries are some of the best in the world to live in.

Well, Norway have adopted some of the values from Islam. So if Pakistan followed proper Islam it would have not had looters as rulers, who have only looted the wealth and given nothing back to the pakistani people.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I will eventually become , Pakistani society is too vibrant for religion, they will start finding nationalism in indus/gandhara.

Religion will be a part of Pakistan for a long time to come yet, but it needs to take a back seat like they have done in Turkey. Turks are still proud Muslims but they don't tend to walk around looking like bin Laden.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Religion will be a part of Pakistan for a long time to come yet, but it needs to take a back seat like they have done in Turkey. Turks are still proud Muslims but they don't tend to walk around looking like bin Laden.

What do you mean "looking like Bin Laden"?

I don't see people walking around with ak47s in their hands in Pakistan

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What do you mean "looking like Bin Laden"?

I don't see people walking around with ak47s in their hands in Pakistan

Which goes to prove that Pakistan is becoming more secular.

 

[mustang]

Most western nations only became truly secular after overthrowing the medieval feudal system in the early 20th century even though secular ideas were popular since the 1600s, this is because religion and feudalism go hand in hand. Theocracy was still going strong in Europe even though the enlightenment ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau were popular amongst the masses and liberal thinkers.

For example: France became officially secular 1905, 106 years after the end of the French Revolution which was highly influenced by liberal and secular ideas.

Look at India, it was formed on the basis of secularism and still a Hindutva party has managed to dominate Indian politics 72 years after independence.

Pakistan is still a quasi-feudal country where landowners-cum-politicians, preachers and the army has huge influence over the masses, very similar to Europe in the 1600s.

So no, I don’t think Pakistan will become secular anytime soon.

Besides, even the west is becoming more ”feudalistic” and less democratic now (Look up neo-feudalism).

This is a fantastic point! A country being secular or not is more rooted in it's underlying economic structure than the faith based inclination of the masses.

Feudalism and more concentration of economic power = less secular
Higher economic power to the masses = more secular

I mentioned before in another thread last year - at it's core even India's partition was more rooted in this economic division. Pakistan retaining more of the feudal system (I believe they also had or maybe have some version of the zamindari system) while India went the route of land ceiling acts. Interestingly both India and Pakistan are going in the opposite directions now.

If Pakistan progresses enough towards higher economic power for the masses, then secularism will better hold. End of the day it is all about $$$

Every rule has exceptions and some of the possible exceptions here
1. North Korea - secular to the point of atheism but less power for masses.
2. Iran - Theocratic state but possibly also has some level of economic power for the masses

 

[KB]

I think it is worth making a distinction between secularisation and secularism. In a rough and ready manner, we might say secularisation is the process of declining religiosity in society, whereas secularism is a political belief in limiting the role of religion in the public sphere. On secularisation, I would make two points:

Firstly, I would suggest that if we look at society over a very long historic trajectory within South Asia, there would be grounds for seeing greater ‘Islamisation’ than secularisation.

To understand this we must first acknowledge that the conversion to Islam in South Asia was much more complex than many people perceive. It was not an instant acceptance or understanding of the central Islamic tenets. Local custom and practices were initially maintained. In the words of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, writing in the Indonesian context, "Islamic conversion is not as a rule, sudden, total, overwhelming illumination but a slow turning to toward a new light." In South Asia, we can identify many examples. It was as late as the nineteenth century in Bengal that many Muslims no longer referred to God as ‘Sri Sri Iswar’ and adopted Muslim surnames. Richard Eaton has indicated that “it was as early as the fifteenth century, Muslim names began to appear among Jat tribes associated with Baba Farid’s shrine, but they did not become dominant among those tribes until the early eighteenth, indicating a very slow and apparently unconscious process of Islamization.”

We could argue that this process of Islamisation has accelerated in the last two hundred or so years. It is in this period that holy men become more prominent. The work of influential teachers is complemented by the spread of institutions such as madrassas. Knowledge became more readily available through expansion of print. In India the Quran was translated into Urdu in the early nineteenth century. Then there is the increasing connections facilitated by more frequent travel. Of particular note is the pilgrimage to Mecca, of which an increasing number partook in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and which the research indicates deepened Islamic knowledge and raised standards of Islamic practice.

Secondly, turning to contemporary Pakistan, there is some work to suggest that at least among some sections there is evidence of increasing religiosity. Ammara Maqsood published a book on the upwardly mobile, new middle class in Pakistan, which she argued were more visibly religious than the old middle class. The new middle class represent a shift towards “personalised piety” and ethical self-cultivation. She argues “This shift toward personalized piety has been accompanied by increased participation in a broader culture of religious consumption, which includes Islamic television programs, banking services, and veiling fashions, that both fosters and displays a global Muslim identity.” It is a class that seeks material progress, better education but also a desire “to become a better Muslim.”

 

[moghul]

Never, Insha Allah.

You want to keep it an "Islamic state" but problem is that every party/group/gang and moulvi has his own brand of "islam" and won't agree with anyone else's brand, that's why it better to have no religion involved in state matters.

 

[AdamM97]

This is a fantastic point! A country being secular or not is more rooted in it's underlying economic structure than the faith based inclination of the masses.

Feudalism and more concentration of economic power = less secular
Higher economic power to the masses = more secular

I mentioned before in another thread last year - at it's core even India's partition was more rooted in this economic division. Pakistan retaining more of the feudal system (I believe they also had or maybe have some version of the zamindari system) while India went the route of land ceiling acts. Interestingly both India and Pakistan are going in the opposite directions now.

If Pakistan progresses enough towards higher economic power for the masses, then secularism will better hold. End of the day it is all about $$$

Every rule has exceptions and some of the possible exceptions here
1. North Korea - secular to the point of atheism but less power for masses.
2. Iran - Theocratic state but possibly also has some level of economic power for the masses

Feudalism gave the church a lot of authority. It was only once the west managed to break free from the state church that they could move towards becoming more secular. When I say feudalism, I mean the medieval class system that is still alive in Pakistan.

I may have phrased it wrong but my point is that Pakistan will never truly secularize until you get rid of the class system that is currently prevailing in Pakistan. It is holding back any steps towards the creation of a secular state.

Look at India, Hindutva found its way back despite the so-called secular constitution that Indians love to brag about. The same goes for Turkey which was created as a secular state by Ataturk, and yet here we have Erdogan.

Even though I believe that most Pakistanis will become more secular by 2040-2050, a secular Pakistani state is still a too far-fetched dream. Religion will always find its way back in our countries.

 

[AdamM97]

I think it is worth making a distinction between secularisation and secularism. In a rough and ready manner, we might say secularisation is the process of declining religiosity in society, whereas secularism is a political belief in limiting the role of religion in the public sphere. On secularisation, I would make two points:

Firstly, I would suggest that if we look at society over a very long historic trajectory within South Asia, there would be grounds for seeing greater ‘Islamisation’ than secularisation.

To understand this we must first acknowledge that the conversion to Islam in South Asia was much more complex than many people perceive. It was not an instant acceptance or understanding of the central Islamic tenets. Local custom and practices were initially maintained. In the words of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, writing in the Indonesian context, "Islamic conversion is not as a rule, sudden, total, overwhelming illumination but a slow turning to toward a new light." In South Asia, we can identify many examples. It was as late as the nineteenth century in Bengal that many Muslims no longer referred to God as ‘Sri Sri Iswar’ and adopted Muslim surnames. Richard Eaton has indicated that “it was as early as the fifteenth century, Muslim names began to appear among Jat tribes associated with Baba Farid’s shrine, but they did not become dominant among those tribes until the early eighteenth, indicating a very slow and apparently unconscious process of Islamization.”

We could argue that this process of Islamisation has accelerated in the last two hundred or so years. It is in this period that holy men become more prominent. The work of influential teachers is complemented by the spread of institutions such as madrassas. Knowledge became more readily available through expansion of print. In India the Quran was translated into Urdu in the early nineteenth century. Then there is the increasing connections facilitated by more frequent travel. Of particular note is the pilgrimage to Mecca, of which an increasing number partook in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and which the research indicates deepened Islamic knowledge and raised standards of Islamic practice.

Secondly, turning to contemporary Pakistan, there is some work to suggest that at least among some sections there is evidence of increasing religiosity. Ammara Maqsood published a book on the upwardly mobile, new middle class in Pakistan, which she argued were more visibly religious than the old middle class. The new middle class represent a shift towards “personalised piety” and ethical self-cultivation. She argues “This shift toward personalized piety has been accompanied by increased participation in a broader culture of religious consumption, which includes Islamic television programs, banking services, and veiling fashions, that both fosters and displays a global Muslim identity.” It is a class that seeks material progress, better education but also a desire “to become a better Muslim.”

Good post.

I remember reading somewhere that Hindu practices are still common in Punjabi villages in Pakistan even though most of the population are Muslims, whereas Punjabis living in urban areas are more ”arabized”.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

People come from abroad once in a few years, spend a couple of weeks in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad and think Pakistan is becoming secular.

Exactly. Absolutely clueless

 

[mustang]

Feudalism gave the church a lot of authority. It was only once the west managed to break free from the state church that they could move towards becoming more secular. When I say feudalism, I mean the medieval class system that is still alive in Pakistan.

I may have phrased it wrong but my point is that Pakistan will never truly secularize until you get rid of the class system that is currently prevailing in Pakistan. It is holding back any steps towards the creation of a secular state.

Look at India, Hindutva found its way back despite the so-called secular constitution that Indians love to brag about. The same goes for Turkey which was created as a secular state by Ataturk, and yet here we have Erdogan.

Even though I believe that most Pakistanis will become more secular by 2040-2050, a secular Pakistani state is still a too far-fetched dream. Religion will always find its way back in our countries.

Yep, I agree overall. When you say class system in Pakistan - are you referring to the socio-economic strata? Interestingly throughout the world all of the right wing religious parties (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist ...) also promise more pro-business legal/economic structure. Pro-business eventually translates into more concentrated economic power. This correlation will be true throughout the world if we take notice.

You are right that religion will always find its way back - not just in India/Pakistan but in any country with an open market driven currency model (hence countries like China do not fit this narrative). With a market driven currency, a country's economy is slave to metrics like currency value, forex reserves, inflation rate (and thus interest rate), import/export balance, etc. These will require pro-business type policies that also concentrate economic power in fewer hands. This is also why we see the rise of far right parties even in the so called Scandinavian utopia.

Typically these non-secular entities will rise to power under the guise of boosting economy (creating jobs etc). After 1-2 terms, the masses will realize the bad effects of concentrated economic power even though there are more businesses, jobs etc and they will rise up. This is when there is change in power to a more secular entity.

You will see every country swinging between a certain bandwidth of secular-religious every 10-12 years. Now, the median of this bandwidth is different for each country to the point where "secular" in one country can be more right wing than "religious" in another.

As of now Pakistan is in its secular swing of the pendulum and US/India/Turkey/UK/Australia are all in the religious swing of their pendulums. The "John Doe" masses (including us) in all of these countries always naively believe that the status quo is the new direction in which our respective countries will now go but that is not the case. Secular-religious-secular transitions of a country are a periodic swing reflecting pro-people -- pro-business -- pro-people swing of the economic pendulum.

In the case of Pakistan, the mid-point of this pendulum is more on the religious side than say US/UK (or dare I say even India) as it stands because constitutionally Pakistan has declared itself Islamic. Once the legal/constitutional framework is also made religious then the mid-point of secular-religious shifts. If the Indians end up changing the constitution to be more Hindu then their mid-point will also shift more to the right. So, you are absolutely right - a secular Pakistani state is a far fetched dream as things stand.

 

[Greenstorm]

This whole 'separation of state and religion' thing will never take place in Pakistan. Islam is the only thing that binds us and is therefore an integral part of our identity.

 

[saeedhk]

Most overseas Pakistanis do not understand that extremism has seeped into every segment of Pakistan’s society. There is no turning back.

Pakistan is a gigantic version of the Lal Masjid.

 

[Syed1]

Most overseas Pakistanis do not understand that extremism has seeped into every segment of Pakistan’s society. There is no turning back.

Pakistan is a gigantic version of the Lal Masjid.

You have a knack of spreading false info and generalization. Just because folks in your circle are paindu and dying for a foreign spouse you extended that to the entire country. Now again you are using the experience of your friends and family to make it seem that Pakistan is an extremist hell hole. I suggest you improve your knowledge before stepping out of your auqaat. Also for the record I'm in Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

This whole 'separation of state and religion' thing will never take place in Pakistan. Islam is the only thing that binds us and is therefore an integral part of our identity.

I agree. Pakistan has no identity without religion.

 

[Sidilicious]

Feudalism gave the church a lot of authority. It was only once the west managed to break free from the state church that they could move towards becoming more secular. When I say feudalism, I mean the medieval class system that is still alive in Pakistan.

I may have phrased it wrong but my point is that Pakistan will never truly secularize until you get rid of the class system that is currently prevailing in Pakistan. It is holding back any steps towards the creation of a secular state.

Look at India, Hindutva found its way back despite the so-called secular constitution that Indians love to brag about. The same goes for Turkey which was created as a secular state by Ataturk, and yet here we have Erdogan.

Even though I believe that most Pakistanis will become more secular by 2040-2050, a secular Pakistani state is still a too far-fetched dream. Religion will always find its way back in our countries.

Your premise is completely wrong. Secularism has nothing to do with feudal system.

In fact, India has its zanindari abolished just after independence. And hindutva never played a major part in Indian politics until the last decade or 2. During the fight for independence, it was mostly Congress for non-violence which was a secular party. Even those who indulged in violence, bhagat Singh and co, Bose etc were all secular. The hindutvas played a very small role. In fact, it was a hindutvadi who killed the mahatma.

Why hindutva has taken hold of India is an interesting question, and one I haven’t been able to find an answer to, yet. I reckon it’s part of global movement to the right, but I am not sure of it.

But secularism and hindutva has nothing to do with feudalism or zamindari.

 

[saeedhk]

You have a knack of spreading false info and generalization. Just because folks in your circle are paindu and dying for a foreign spouse you extended that to the entire country. Now again you are using the experience of your friends and family to make it seem that Pakistan is an extremist hell hole. I suggest you improve your knowledge before stepping out of your auqaat. Also for the record I'm in Pakistan.

I have answered the first part of your post already. You probably belong to the top 1% of the country and are better off so you and your friend circle do not represent the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis.

Coming back to the topic, if Pakistan was such a welcoming and tolerant nation, we would not have killings in the name of religion, honor killings, acid attacks, forced conversion of Hindu girls, killings of Shias and Christians.

There are shops in Pakistan that openly forbid the entry of people of a certain sect. In fact, when applying for a Pakistani ID card, you have to declare a certain sect as non-Muslims. There is institutionalised discrimination against minorities in this country.

Since you belong to the educated class and are well-off - in other words, you are privilege- so you do not understand the mindset of the average Pakistani.

No matter how much Pakistani portray Pakistan as a tolerant nation, it is not. You have to actually live in Pakistan for extended periods to experience the intolerance.

 

[ElRaja]

no. as economic development improves the country will become less religious, however secularisation would require constitutional changes.

anyone who makes that stand is putting a bounty on their own head. it takes a small group of extremists to hijack this argument and guilt everyone into not following it.

look at israel, its for the most part considerably socially secular, however no one would dare talk about removing the jewish nature of its laws and politics.

pakistan, if it sorts out its economic problems is most likely to become like israel, a country identified by religion, regardless of the religiosity of its populace

 

[sindhiboy]

You have a knack of spreading false info and generalization. Just because folks in your circle are paindu and dying for a foreign spouse you extended that to the entire country. Now again you are using the experience of your friends and family to make it seem that Pakistan is an extremist hell hole. I suggest you improve your knowledge before stepping out of your auqaat. Also for the record I'm in Pakistan.

I think about 80% of pakistani men are dreaming of marrying a foreign spouse, even if she is non-muslim. kind of goes against the notion that pakistanis are extremists. they are just greedy.

also, extremism has spread in recent years.

 

[Tubs]

It will happen when the people want it to happen, which will very probably be never. There are too many jahil log about, and with the overwhelming support for blasphemy laws, I don't think that will change any time soon.

 

[FearlessRoar]

The question of whether Pakistan should be a secular country or an Islamic republic is complicated. Some people think Pakistan should be secular, meaning it separates religion from the government. This would treat everyone equally, no matter their religion. Those in favor of this say it would create a fair and inclusive society, especially considering Pakistan has people of various religions.

On the other hand, Pakistan was created as a nation for Muslims, and its Islamic identity is crucial. Supporters of an Islamic republic argue that it aligns with the country's foundation and represents the beliefs of the majority. They believe it's essential to maintain this Islamic identity in the government.

The debate about whether Pakistan should be secular or an Islamic republic involves finding the right balance, careful thought, considering the diverse views within Pakistan.

 

[KB]

Looking forward to the publication next year of Sherman Jackson’s book, Islamic Secular. Description:

The basic point of the secular in the modern West is to "liberate" certain pursuits—the state, the economy, science—from the authority of religion. This is also assumed to be the goal and meaning of "secular" in Islam. Sherman Jackson argues, however, that that assumption is wrong. In Islam the "secular" was neither outside "religion" nor a rival to it. "Religion," in Islam was not identical to Islam's "sacred law," or "shari'ah." Nor did classical Muslim jurists see shari'ah as the all-encompassing, exclusive means of determining what is "Islamic." In fact, while, as religion, Islam's jurisdiction was unlimited, shari'ah's jurisdiction, as a sacred law, was limited. In other words, while everything remained within the purview of the divine gaze of the God of Islam, not everything could be determined by shari'ah or on the basis of its revelatory sources. Various aspects of state-policy, the economy, science, and the like were "differentiated," from shari'ah and its revelatory sources, without becoming non-religious or un-Islamic. Given the asymmetry between the circumference of shari'ah and that of Islam as religion, not everything that fell outside the former fell outside the latter. In other words, an idea or action could be non-shar'i (not dictated by shari'ah) without being non-Islamic, let alone anti-Islam. The ideas and actions that fall into this category are what Jackson terms "the Islamic Secular."

Crucially, the Islamic Secular differs from the Western secular in that, while the whole point of the Western secular is to liberate various pursuits from religion, the Islamic Secular differentiates these disciplines not from religion but simply from shari'ah. Similarly, while both secularization and secularism play key roles in the Western secular, both of these concepts are alien to the Islamic Secular, as the Islamic Secular seeks neither to discipline nor to displace religion, nor expand to its own jurisdiction at religion's expense. The Islamic Secular is a complement to religion, in effect, a "religious secular." Nowhere are the practical implications of this more impactful than in Islam's relationship with the modern state. In this book, Jackson makes the case for the Islamic Secular on the basis of Islam's own pre-modern juristic tradition and shows how the Islamic Secular impacts the relationship between Islam and the modern state, including the Islamic State.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Looking forward to the publication next year of Sherman Jackson’s book, Islamic Secular. Description:

What is Islamic secularism? Islam and secularism are two different topics. I can't digest the description of this book.

 

[KB]

What is Islamic secularism? Islam and secularism are two different topics. I can't digest the description of this book.

Jackson is comparing what he calls the “Western secular” with the “Islamic secular.”

Western secular = domesticating religion, controlling and defining the boundaries of religion. The aim is to free “various pursuits from religion.” Therefore a rival to religion. Essentially, comes from a position ‘outside’ of religion.

Islamic secular = the realm not grounded in “concrete revelational sources” i.e. differentiated from the shari’a, that is the non-shari’a sphere. However, it remains religious “in its rejection of the notion of proceeding ‘as if God did not exist’.” Therefore, a complement rather than rival to religion. Emerges from a position ‘within’ Islam.

Not sure if this helps, or if I have caused more confusion, but that is my effort to try to boil down his argument, as I (no doubt imperfectly) understand it.