Re: Getting rid of seculars
You can already see the DEMOCRATIC mindset of these people. If you differ with them they can declare you kafir, ahmedi, Islam hater etc etc. Look at the name this guy has given to the thread " Getting rid of the seculars".
Re: Getting rid of seculars
You are so far off from reality, my friend. You have no idea about Iran and its internal politics. I shall try to get some of my Iranian friends to come and write here and let you know the truth.
i dont want theocracy..but still they have many good things...
Re: Getting rid of seculars
and u still cant spell his name properly, kitnay sharam ki baat hai..
forget about spelling..see..how bravely he is facing US ..and whole europe....not like Musharraf...who ....oh sorry..i am fed up of writting his "brave move" of 9/11 again and again...
Re: Getting rid of seculars
i am fed up of writting his "brave move" of 9/11 again and again...
Koi baat nahi, cut and paste kardain :D
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Dear shamraz bhai,
For your personal belief system there should be no compromise....
I agree, but problem with religious minded people is that you cannot reason with them. They believe whatever they say, no matter what the evidence, human logic or commonsense say. This fellow is a perfect example...
Re: Getting rid of seculars
i dont want theocracy..but still they have many good things...
I am not talking about theocracy. You have to talk to real Iranians (not Pakistani Shias) to understand the issues in Iran. The religio-political leadership has used the name of religion to suppress people and fill up their own pockets to such an extreme extent that their younger generation has started hating Islam.
When there is a difference in action and words of the people who are projecting a philosophy, ultimately the philosophy becomes at stake, in addition to the people projecting the philosophy.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
He was secular... He only wanted a secular country where the Muslims were the majority. Read your history.
This is blatantly false.
Jinnah, although personally secular, did indeed put on a Muslim public face, and invoked Islam more often than not.
His one or two speeches, designed to comfort minorities, in no way shape or form changes the fact that what he wanted, he himself referred to as an "modern Islamic" state.
To suggest that Jinnah wanted a secular state in sprit suggests the man did not know of the word itself. Again, one is challenged and confused by, at best, Jinnahs characterization of the state he wanted, and his invocation of Islam.
Jinnah being an exponent of a secular Pakistan is revisionist history, if that....but is definitely an ahistorical claim.
Further, the distinction of a "state for Muslims" and a "state for Islam" was never clearly defined. It certainly was not understood by the masses of People who bought the idea of Pakistan on the basis of TNT (NOT pakistan being a so-called secular state for Muslims...whatever that is - TNT was predicated on the protection of an Islamic culture and values...it was itself not a secular movement by any means).
Jinnah did not want a theocracy, but among the modernist thinkers of India at the time, a modern Islamic state was not meant to be ruled by clerics, and to their mind there was no contradiction by lying within the strictures of Islamic law, and having a democratic state. Not a single significant Muslim Leaguer of any worth was a critic of Islam or Islamic law.
One wonders what would have happened to the movement if such people were in prominent positions.
But Islam did indeed have a role in the state...there was no separation of state and religion. Yes, inspite of his claim that all cease to be Muslim, Hindu, or whatever within a united Pakistan. Again, after that speech, he gave another speech to the military staff exhorting them to be defenders of Islam.
Jinnah is dead. Pakistan is an Islamic Repblic. Let's go from here...
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Name me all islamic states which are a true democratic and free state!!!
Name my any Muslim state where the majority wants democracy and "freedom", instead of the preservation of their Islamic identity, culture, and values at a communal level.
Secularism is a bad word in most of the Muslim world.
Mixing politics and religion may be bad...but the militant suppression of public expressions of religion (and please do name me those secular Muslim states that do NOT do this) is even worse.
Pakistan is fine, more or less. The militancy problem was blowback from a failed foreign policy. Corruption is a bigger problem, as well as the fact that the biggest threats to the civil institutions come from the army, or crony politicians. Not from Islam, or it's introduction.
Pakistan is a "dirty" Islamic state...let us move from there. But asking for Islam to be divorced from the state is just plain counter productive.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Secularism is a bad word in most of the Muslim world.
You're right and this is one big reason why muslim world is in the gutter right now.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Truth be told, the Muslims of Hindustan were secular. They were the ones who controlled the power and the zamindars. The controlling ruling elite was indeed very secular.
Jinnah was secular too. He was a Secularist Muslim; which you will find many in Pakistan.
A Secularist Muslim is a Muslim who has a nationalistic tone of Islam in him. Of course no one can really judge Jinnah’s faith, except Allah. We dont even know if he slowly evolved in faith as the Pakistan Movement progressed.
What we do know is Jinnah had a sense of his Muslim identity. We also know Jinnah fought for Pakistan from a very rationalist and political minded reason instead of a religious reasons. He knew about the Hindu power, and he needed a safer area for Muslims.
Now good or bad Muslim, we are all Muslims. As the last Asif Jah of the Hyderabadi Sultanate proclaimed: “I may not be the best Muslim, but im not Hindu!” {not his words, i forgot his words but that was his attitude} Asif Jah actually wanted Hyderabad to be part of Pakistan as this book details:
Essence is Jinnah wasnt religious in the sense of praying and fasting and such. He was heavily influenced by Western Humanist Philosophy and more than likely he didnt want Pakistan to end up a Islamic Shariah based nation.
More than anything he wanted Pakistan to work whatever it oriented itself to be. Unfortunately it doesnt work.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Jinnah did not want a theocracy, but among the modernist thinkers of India at the time, a modern Islamic state was not meant to be ruled by clerics, and to their mind there was no contradiction by lying within the strictures of Islamic law, and having a democratic state. Not a single significant Muslim Leaguer of any worth was a critic of Islam or Islamic law.
How can you have strict Islamic laws and be democratic at the same time? The idea of democracy is based on freedom, something that is not very encourage under the sharia laws.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
You're right and this is one big reason why muslim world is in the gutter right now.
Hardly, considering much of the Muslim world was run by secular regimes. Islamism didn't evolve into an actual poltical force until the 70's. They didn't have any real impact until the 80's. By then, the failed socialist policies of most secular regimes in the Muslim world began to fuel Islamism even more.
People falsely suggest that it was the appearance of Islamism that ushered in a demise to the seeming "prosperity" of the 60's...the assertion is blatantly false.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
How can you have strict Islamic laws and be democratic at the same time? The idea of democracy is based on freedom, something that is not very encourage under the sharia laws.
Democracy does not equate to "freedom". That's not even a value in the Muslim world, in the sense that the vast majority of Muslims are not only willing to restrict, but even *give up, *personal freedom for one reason or the other.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
So, have any of the goats managed to get rid of the "seculars" yet?
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Hardly, considering much of the Muslim world was run by secular regimes. Islamism didn't evolve into an actual poltical force until the 70's. They didn't have any real impact until the 80's. By then, the failed socialist policies of most secular regimes in the Muslim world began to fuel Islamism even more.
People falsely suggest that it was the appearance of Islamism that ushered in a demise to the seeming "prosperity" of the 60's...the assertion is blatantly false.
However, strictly religious regimes of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan have only brought the severest of the repression to the masses. The money still flows in the pockets of the people sitting on the top regardless of how religious they are. These regimes has used the stick of religion to bring the masses in to subjugation.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
However, strictly religious regimes of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan have only brought the severest of the repression to the masses. The money still flows in the pockets of the people sitting on the top regardless of how religious they are. These regimes has used the stick of religion to bring the masses in to subjugation.
This is also false. Fair minded Iranis will concede that the socialist-inspired post-revolutionary social programs brought much relief to the non-elite masses, most importantly rural women.
Naturally, people who were once in charge, and had tried imposing a regime of "modernization"/westernization, would feel repressed in a more conservative environment. I suggest they follow their own advice to Muslims in the west....adapt or move.
Sudan has serious race issues that an Islamist polity could not overcome, but is certainly not an ideological foundation of the state. Rather, Islamist rhetoric has been undermined, in much the same manner democratic value shave been undermined to demonize a people in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute Monarchy, and again the idea that it's Shariah or Islam that is what people are agitating against is simply false. It was their populist policies that encouraged lack of education, and gave no incentive for the typical Saudi to seek employment that came back to haunt them this decade. They are changing.
On the other hand, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and the former Iraqi regime (all secular) are some of the most oppressive regimes on earth, be it on religous or ehtnic grounds (or both). Should I take it you approve of that?
It's not all roses in those countries you mentioned, but it's certainly not all bad. Is there corruption? Sure. That's a constant...how is secularism going to fix that? It's not. Are there ethnic problems? Sure. how is secularism going to fix that? It's not. We have too many counter-examples.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
IRAN:
Your selection of words is indeed ironic, "Fair Minded". I am not talking out of reading from GS or internet, or my own perception of reality. These are three countries I have worked in for substantial periods and my observations are made out of direct dealing with people of these countries.
What you are calling post-revolutionary social programs were no social programs. The government money in the banks were directly handed to the -like minded people-, without understanding the long term impacts of such actions. It was not tried to establish and improve a system which will let people earn money, respectably, on their own.
When you will go to Iran you will see that only the extremely poor still support their regime, because being uneducated they were easily brain washed with their Ayatoullah's religious chants. It is quiet common to hear from Iranians that Khomeni was a CIA or French Intelligence Agencies agent.
SUDAN:
Ideological foundation of the state is not on question here. My point on focus was the religious affiliation of the regimes in these countries. Sudan adopted its own interpretation of Shariah law in 1983/1984 and since then Sudan's Islamist government which harbored Al-Qaeeda for significant period has committed extreme atrocities on its own population for many years now, for one reason or another.
SAUDI ARABIA:
Regardless of being a monarchy, SA has implemented Shariah for the masses as well. Again only those people who are the most poor are supporting their implementation, because of being uneducated they easily got emotional brain washed. For the rich there are no restrictions. In their oil company compounds, women can drive, dress as they like, and people can drink if they want.
I don't approve of any oppression and I acknowledge it where I see it, instead of being selective where it suites me. The current batch of countries which were not secular were an equal failure compared to secularized countries. The suppression and exploitation of masses has been extreme.
The success of a few Muslim countries like Malaysia lies in educating and empowering the masses, so that they can make their own valid decisions.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
IRAN: Your selection of words is indeed ironic, "Fair Minded". I am not talking out of reading from GS or internet, or my own perception of reality. These are three countries I have worked in for substantial periods and my observations are made out of direct dealing with people of these countries.
Look, you're not the only one with contacts with people in these countries.
'Fair-minded' is one who isn't beholden to any negative opinion for ideological, or personal reasons. I do in fact know many apolitical Iranis who are willing to admit to the merits of the theocracy, and what it brought, even though they are critical for the most part. This strikes me as impressive; nuanced views always do.
[quote]
What you are calling post-revolutionary social programs were no social programs. The government money in the banks were directly handed to the -like minded people-,
[/quote]
No there was much more substance to it, and did involve mobilization of volunteers. The increase in literacy levels in rural areas again speaks to something more than buying the public off.
[quote]
Sudan adopted its own interpretation of Shariah law in 1983/1984 and since then Sudan's Islamist government which harbored Al-Qaeeda for significant period has committed extreme atrocities on its own population for many years now, for one reason or another.
[/quote]
Relation to Shariah specifically? Zip. Would these problems arise even if Sudan was not an "Islamic" regime...you bet.
[quote]
SA has implemented Shariah for the masses as well. Again only those people who are the most poor are supporting their implementation, because of being uneducated they easily got emotional brain washed.
[/quote]
I see no significant move to remove Shariah...though there is much talk of reform, which is just as cultural as anything else.
[quote]
I don't approve of any oppression and I acknowledge it where I see it, instead of being selective where it suites me. The current batch of countries which were not secular were an equal failure compared to secularized countries. The suppression and exploitation of masses has been extreme.
[/quote]
Thank you for admitting that. So, really....secularization or Islamization really isn't the issue here, is it?
[quote]
The success of a few Muslim countries like Malaysia lies in educating and empowering the masses, so that they can make their own valid decisions.
[/quote]
Interesting. Malaysia is distinctly not a secular country, at least by Western definitions.
Re: Getting rid of seculars
I agree, but problem with religious minded people is that you cannot reason with them. They believe whatever they say, no matter what the evidence, human logic or commonsense say. This fellow is a perfect example...
Exactly true, these guys need to be more logical and use their common sense..
Do you think the likes of Bin Laden or these suicide bombers have not read history. They are just willing to give up their lives without reading history as our mullah minded friends are suggesting...
The problem is not about knowing the history, the problem is correctly understanding and learning from history.
I totally agree with you a lot of things practised at that time were from Arab traditions for that time only..
The only way to join the civilized world today is to totally separate religion and state. It is for the benefit of the religion as well, and to save it from massive corruption....
Re: Getting rid of seculars
Interesting. Malaysia is distinctly not a secular country, at least by Western definitions.
Malaysia is by all means a secular country with 45% non-muslim population.