Pakistan Islamic or Secular?

[Tasavur]

Re: Pakistan Islamic or Secular?

@kchughtai

^ In your dream state based on your shariah, would Ahmadis be given freedom to practice their faith freely without any danger of hanging sword over their heads of XX laws. Will they be allowed to define their own beliefs and not the state. Will they be given rights of a common citizen? doesn’t matter whether you call them kafir or not but will your state not force them to act like a kafir?

Firstly, it isn’t my dream state, nor my Shariah. I’m not a Mirza Ghulam Ahmed that I come up with my own deen =) Shariah is a tradition that is inseperable from Islam and certainly doesn’t belong to any one person, just as democracy doesn’t belong to any one person.

With regards to your question:

1. Ahmedis will be allowed to practise their religion freely, have their own place of worship, meet, have religious events etc. They will, however, not be allowed to openly preach their faith, which would stand true with any other religion. It’s similar to laws in Pakistan which forbid the preaching of material which threatens the ideological foundations of the state (i.e. the two-state theory); similarly, an Islamic State would not permit speech which threatens the foundations of the state. That doesn’t mean that differences of opinions wouldn’t be tolerated. They would, but these differences must be contained within the ambits of the ideological foundation of the state.

2. Ahmedis will be allowed to define their own beliefs, yes. The silly laws Pakistan has with regards to Ahmedis (e.g. them not being allowed to say ‘Asaalamu Alikum’) would also not exist.

3. All Ahmedis, other non-Muslims groups as well as Muslims citizens will be treated equally under the eyes of the laws. Non-Muslims would be exempt from many of the obligations that are placed on Muslims. For example, the laws under Shariah relating to personal law do not even apply to non-Muslims. For the most part, non-Muslims would enjoy more freedom and protection under an Islamic State than the system currently in place in Pakistan. That protection is incumbent upon the Muslims because it is an injunction straight from God, so we cannot change it. In a secular society, though, you realise that the mechanisms are in place for society to democratically decide that (for example) black people should be made slaves? The emancipation proclomation in America could be withdrawn, Congress could pass laws declaring that Slavery should be brought back into law, the President could sign any such laws into power; the Supreme Court could be filled with like-minded judges and all of this could be done legally and lawfully.

4. Your last question doesn’t make sense: *kafir *refers to anyone who rejects Islam. In that sense, all non-Muslims are kafirs (it simply means 'non-believer); it isn’t mean to be an offensive term but rather a description. So I’m not sure what you mean when you say whether the state would ‘force them to act like a kafir’…?