Religious parties may or may not have been part of the various governments in pakistans history so what, does that mean they implement islamic law answer is No they implemented the law of the land which is totally secualr so this argument is a non starter.
the ayah that you quoted along with another which i will quote:
“There is no compulsion in religion.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah:256]
“Whoever wants to believe, let them believe, and whoever wants to disbelieve, let them disbelieve.” [TMQ Al-Kahf:29]
these two ayahs are in reference to non muslims, Muslims cannot force the non-believer to believe in Islam, and the non-believers can accept Islam or reject it, as individuals, so Muslims should not force them to believe in Islam.Such rules do not apply to Muslims because they have no option after embracing Islam to disbelieve in it and to renounce it.The rule regarding the Muslim who becomes apostate is to require his repentance. If he insists on his disbelief, the capital punishment is applied on him.
^ what are you smoking? the law of the land in pakistan is totally secular? you and musharaf are of same mentality then. he thinks army is the cure and you think religion i sthe cure. Neither of you believe in laws of any kind.
Iam simply responding to your earlier incorrect observation:
“The secualr state is a failure 50 years this experiment has carried on in pakistan and what has it done caused more confusion and more fighting than anyone could have imagined”
Pakistan has always been ruled by authroitarian regimes sometimes bordering on totalitarian form of governments. To imply this is a failure of secularism is false and based on popular propaganda by our religious right which has always been part of the system ie part of the problem.
Your previous statement: “Also secualrism reduces islam to just a set of rituals” can aslo be read as follows: “Religious intolerance, sycophancy, political expediency, obscuranticst ideas, Taqleed and sectarianism has reduced Islam to a set of rituals”
Bhai, separate religion from the corridors of power through secularism. Allow the gates of Ijtehad to be opened. Let the ppl feel free to discuss, debate and question. Critical minds need freedom of thought and expression, secularism exercised and honored has shown to be a workable formula. Whereas, religious extremism, orthodoxy, fundamentalism have shown to be the most narrow minded, intolerant and repressive form of governemnts (Iran, SA, Israel, Pakistan).
Principle of respecting others faith is universal, nowhere does it say such principles cannot be applied on Muslims of differing opinions. Such were the attributes offered by islam which attracted ppl by the hordes to this religion, while attitudes of exclusion and inclusion by virtue of sect/race/differing practices are the reason why Muslims today suffer from such narrow minded tunnel visions.
I do not agree with your interpertation of apostasy either, but this is not the issue being discussed here, we leave it for another day.
Ok its easy to refute your argument has pakistan been an islamic state in its history yes or no?
If the answer is no then what has it been for past 50 years and if you want proof just read the constitution and you will find your answer.
Your idea that islam is to blame for its being reduced to a set of ritual is not because of islam. If a state and its laws are secular how do you expect another ideology i.e islam to to implemented it is like saying United states is implementing communism same time as capitalism this is ridiculous statement and shows two ideologies cannot co-exist.
Ijtihad was not closed due to non discussion the islamic state closed ijtihad because the had too much and too many solutions on their plate they where so powerful they decided to close the doors on ijtihad and this was a mistake which they paid for later. I don’t know how on earth you comparing secualrism to ijtihad this is silly.
Islam allows thinking and debates within the islamic framework this is why it was such a powerful force you cannot rule the world on an ideology that is closed. you want to discuss ideas no problem islam says bring it any ideology you think is better than islam open challenge come on we waiting intellectual challenge not like the west today with capitalism where by amerikka says you choose our way or we nuclear bomb you they lost the intellectual battle long time ago now they trying brutal force!
Muslims of differing opinion what are you saying here? Muslim is muslim if muslim become non muslim then he is murtad there is no middle spot where person says oh well maybe im this and maybe im that if you not sure or don’t understand then discuss and make your choice.
People where attracted in there hundreds to islam in its beggining when there was a fully functioning state that people could see how people lived and how the state worked thats when the hundreds turned into hundreds of thousands.
And one famous example of many is when the mongols wipped the islamic state totally overan them in places like baghdad they where the conquerors of islamic state what happened when they saw how islam is implmented they became islamic and they in turn became part of the islamic state first time in whole history when the conquerors chose the way of life of the conquered.
Iam afraid you are not reading what Iam writing, read it again. Pakistan has been a @Authoritarian@ state for the major part of its history. Kapeesch!!! If u think authoritarian means secular well then there is no discussion possible here.
What hv u been smoking dude? Instead of putting up an argument to substantiate your views you are distorting and misrepresenting what I hv said. This is unacceptable.
Where hv I said Islam is the cause of the problem? This is classic right wing fundamentalist propaganda who hv no problem in distorting the truth and misrepresenting facts. Sharam naheen aathee?
Where hv I compared Ijtihad to secularism? Prove it or sock it.
There is no point in carrying out discussions with blinkered mindsets who have no morality or ability to distinguish right from wrong.
Its ironic, people say that Pakistan is to be a secular state but the raison d'etre of Pakistan was and is Islam and for Muslims. Pakistan is an Islamic state and for 800 years christains and Jews lived under Islamic Shariah Law without any problems. Hell they lived better than they did under Christain rule. So this whole minorities issue is bull.
really? then what happened to the teacher in pakistan who begged to differ? what happened to the sunnis and shiites who can’t get over their caste disputes? there’s nothing beautiful in the worldwide terrorism, is there?
Look mr fact of the matter pakistan a secualr state i know you love secualrism so much but it is a big failure and you are too scared to admit it called it a dictatorship call it a police state secualr it is and even you cannot deny this basic fact even though you keep trying to dodge this fact.
if you are going to resort to childish name calling then you have lost already good day to you.
My mistake. I sud not hv debated with someone who has no idea what he/she is talking about. Baba, go read about political sciences and learn to differentiate btw various form of governments.
Name calling? Whoa boy, where did that happen? If you resent my use of the word kapeesch, please do not feel offended cause this Italian word (Capeesh) means “Do you understand” Now if I had called you a moron, idiot or imbecile those would hv been construed as name calling. Thus it wud be better if you did some soul searching, reading and improve language understanding abilities so in the future u dont make a fool of yourself…
CM,
why do you want to give Islam a bad name? Pakistani performance in human rights, political rights, religious freedom, developing civil society, intelelctual rights etc tec has been nuthin but dismal. Yet you want ppl to believe that Pakistan=Islam? Either you have a very low bar to judge Islam and its ppl or u r simply regurgitating right wing propaganda. Give it a break.
Remember nothing is constant. 200 years ago slavery was not a violation of human rights. Times change and people change. Very few former colonies have good civil rights. Heck Europe has poor civil rights and human rights if you look into it.
It is very simple, Pakistan was created for muslims. Pakistan's sole reason for existance is the religion of Islam. If it weren't for that we would still be part of India.
Pakistan has very poor standards indeed, but everything will inshallah will get better. Just because it doesn't represent a certain view of Islam it doesn't change the fact that Pakistan basic foundations are based on religion and Islam.
Will you give it a rest please? since when Pakistan is a football being kicked around by MAToos on one hand, and show-shaw-lists (or commies and pinkos) on the other.
Raiwind on the other hand was created for Lota brathree, so go spend as much time time as you want.
For the rest of us (the sane people), Pakistan was created for justice and it ain’t coming from the beardo-wierdos.
Quite aside from the issue of whether Pakistan should be an Islamic state (which I believe it should), there is a more pressing problem in that there is no unified definition of what an Islamic state is.
Case in point. Assuming the MMA gets free reign to run Pakistan, there will be a lot of debate within the parties because all the different components of the MMA have different ideas about what exactly an Islamic state is.
Now let us assume that the Jamaat-i-Islam's vision wins out in the MMA, and they attempt to create an Islamic state as outlined in Maududi's speeches in the late 1940s. Let us assume that they successfully create such a state.
The problem is that I know of at least one, albeit miniscule and tiny, group in Pakistan that will state that this is not an Islamic state - the Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They have a very different view of what an Islamic state is to the Jamaat-i-Islam, and they will agitate that the JI is not running an Islamic state and that the state is in fact Unislamic.
And given the sheer passion with which religion is held by many segments of Pakistani society, I find it hard to believe that a single faction's view of an islamic state would be accepted lying down by the other factions.
Of course, the non-religious parties all have different views about what kind of state pakistan should be too . The PML-Q hold that Pakistan should be a state with significantmilitary influence in politics, whereas the PPP and other parties believe Pakistan should be a country where the military is prevented from enableing civilians Prime Ministers from looting the country...