In recent months we have seen a lot of discussion on different news channels as well as on this forum where Pakistanies who do not want to practice our complete and wonderful deen Islam, still want to call themselves muslims, and pakistanies, they try to somehow make up that Pakistan has to be secular state because Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinah wanted it to be secular.
Although so many times in those discussions, opponents of this stance (and proponents of Pakistan being and remaining a Islamic State) always clearly rejected this idea. Today I saw a message in news paper Jang on this subject, which I would like to share with you guys.
There are some principles and values common to shariah and secular states that if adopted would enable us to at least stand on our feet and then think what is the way forward. Both Islamic Welfare State and a Secular Welfare State would requires transparent government, responsible use of authority, provision of justice and basic human rights for all. We are far away from these.
If we least somehow guarantee education and healthcare for all and a somewhat reliable judicial system, then we can produce people who can think clearly and provide leadership about what way to adopt later.
^ So was Egypt at the times of Pharaohs, but that's not the point. The proponents of Islamic Welfare State would claim that material success in this world is not the objective but the ultimate success in the afterworld.
The idea is that we do not even follow the basic basic tenants of Islamic Haqooq-ul-Ibaad, how can we impose Shariah in such a climate?
Depends on what Pakistanis actually want, if we go opposite to what majority wants then it will be disastrous, not sure if it will be worse from where we are or not :D
well if you look in general, countries that are secular are way more successful.
History has seen both types of successful states (secular and religious). You can not snap-shot history to 100 years and declare one successful over other. BTW, as of today, Pakistan is neither Islamic nor Secular.
So Why All Mullah Parties were aginst Quaid e Azam`s dream about an independent land for muslims? under the umberlla of Al Ehrar and Jamat e Islami~! and was sitting under the foots of secular Hindu Congress?
why now they remembered Quaid in good words while back in time they called him Kafire Azam and Pakistan Paladistan!....
Ki mere Qatal ke baad usne Jafa se Touba
Hae uss Pesheman ka Pesheman hona..
and BTW what make you think that the peoples who have different opinion than you, are not true muslims?
There are some principles and values common to shariah and secular states that if adopted would enable us to at least stand on our feet and then think what is the way forward. Both Islamic Welfare State and a Secular Welfare State would requires transparent government, responsible use of authority, provision of justice and basic human rights for all. We are far away from these.
If we least somehow guarantee education and healthcare for all and a somewhat reliable judicial system, then we can produce people who can think clearly and provide leadership about what way to adopt later.
Not going to debate this old useless debate but here it is, just as presenting the fact:
Not very different than what is in the pamphlet.
On January 25, 1948, Jinnah spoke to the Bar Association of Karachi, and said:
“Why this feeling of nervousness that the future constitution of Pakistan is going to be in conflict with Shariat Laws? Islamic principles today are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago.”
Jinnah also said all religious people should be free to excercise their religion. The true secularism. Unlike the ‘French’ definition.
