Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

[Spock]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

Well, the people who want a secular Pakistan claim its Islamc right now, and the Matooz and the khalifah wallaz say its secular, what exactly do we have?

[picoico]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@PaKpatriot1

To win the over to his side, he had to transform himself into what they would be most receptive to. But, there is Jinnah the leader, and Jinnah the Man, and you cannot deny the fact that through out his life, Jinnah was an Avid secularist.

This is not a flatering view of the man. No, not all politicians lie to such an extent…in fact, I would be dumbstruck if, say, a republican pretened to be a democrat or vice versa. Or a Communist a Capatalist. On matters of ideologies, politicans are supposed to be open…it’s a matter of transparency.

Jinnah may have been irreligious (or secular if you like). That’s his individual choice. He knew a Pakistan without Islam would be still born. I honestly think he didn’t give the matter much attention. Indeed, if he started to preech a secular policy, I think he’d rapidly become unpopular. Jinnah, the Quaid, may have been a myth. But it was that myth people followed. So, for all intents and purposes, that was the REAL Jinnah.

The wisky dirinking secularist was his personal identitty, and had nothing to do with the public except at the odd speech.

Attaturk turned his back on Islamic culture completely, Jinnah sought to incorporate Islam into his plan for the sake of winning Muslims to his side.

Talking creating an Isalmic welfare state sounds more than just a plan to win mindshare. Again, Jinnah the man may have been a liar, but why do the people of Pakistan have to remain true to his desception? Forget it.

“When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago..” I dont think that necesarilly means he wanted a Theocracy. He simply meant that he wanted a society that was influenced by Islamic precepts, but not one that relies solely on Islam or refers to it as the official religion.

Impossible to tell. All that matters is what the people EXPECT. I’m sure Jinnah didnt’ want the break up of Pakistan either…tough luck I suppose. It’s just how things work out.

Now, one can make the assumption that the opposite of secularism is theocracy. Both are perhaps extreme. A state which respects and does not contradict Islam may be a theocracy to you, and it certainly isn’t secular…but it’s not neccessarily a bad thing. Basically, any state that uses Islam as a source of inspiration isn’t secular anyhow. So really, why dablle in extremes?

but I dont think he wanted to be directly connected with the state.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly he did not envision a bunch of Mullahs in power. But, as far as not contradicting the religious sentiments of the people…I don’t think he was that foolish.

You see this in America where Bush is obviously influenced by Born Again Christianity, but this doesnt mean that there is no seperation of Church and State.

Actually, I think it’s more complex than that. There may be no overt mixing of the two, but how far is America’s foreign policy guided by Bush’s faith (for example)? A country like Turkey or France would probably never let that kind of person in power. Since those are the paradigms of secularism that Paksistan would (need) to follow to be imposed on society, I don’t think the American example is a good one.

Islamic Democracy only works if everyone is Muslim and have the same views. Equality can only be given at the expense of political equality in the eyes of the govt and state.

Similarily a secular democracy only works if everyone is Secular and have the same views…no? So long as there is uniformity in law, and that it is applied evenly across the board (not the tribal model of seperate laws for different peoples)…then there should be no problem.

I dont think that a country which professes one relgion as the state religion can ever be truly equatable towards those that dont belong to that relgion.

I don’t know. One could say that about any state that professes some set of principles…

A democracy is a representative govt, so how can a govt be representative govt that only represents a single community be representative?
Pakistan is the example, where only Muslims may become head of state!

Now, for sake of argument, let say if we extend this so that anyone could BUT they have to abide by, and enfroce, Islamic law and principles. Would that be acceptable? A representative govt. really doesn’t represent everyone equally…so long as the minorities aren’t shut out then they do have some representation.

I have no problem with a state viewing all citizens equally. It’s just that all citizens have to then understand and respect the prime principles of the state. Minorities may feel a disconnect, but then it’s their job to assimilate or to sit out by their own choice. This is the Muslim experience in the West.

Realistically speaking, democracy is hardly about catering to minorities. Democracies are concerned about minorities, but are not willing to bend key principles to accomodate them. Why should Muslims be any different?

The problem is that your assuming this is ok. A group that isnt being represented has a right to demand more representation.

Sure, but only to a certain extent. A Muslim group demanding to have aspects of their religous law recognized will simply get looked over. In a secular state this makes sense. The analog to this would be religous minorities asking for special rights outside of the law in Muslim states. The difference is, Muslims typically comply.

Now, on the one hand they want exemption from Islamic culture and law…but to request a complete seperation of Islam from the public life (which is really the end goal of secularism) on their behalf is perhaps unfair to both them (as it makes minorities a scape goat) and to Muslims who simply don’t want to have a government that makes it a point to overlook religious concenrs and sentiments.

This is the logic behind secularist, by not professing any relgion or any creed, you are trying to level the political playing field for ALL groups.

Now hold on, aren’t we confusing pluralism with secularism? The idea of secularism is that the state will have NOTHING to do with religion, and will make no descision that involves religion. It is a complete shutting out of religion from the state machinery. That is unacceptable to a people who follow a religion that has a strong sense of society, and is not strictly self-centered.

Thus, the secular state in it’s purist sense is inclusive to all groups except religious ones.

I think you’re overstating the case of secularism as a means of leveling the playing field for minorities. Originally, it was intended as a means of checking the power of the Church. Then, it became a way of circumventing highly charged issues along religous lines. But the end result, as we can see in the West, is a complete barring of religous values and sentiment from society.

There must be a balance.

All religous groups are equal in the eyes of the US govt. Non are given preferential treatment. And yet Muslim are represented through secular leaders who are willing to represent their cinstituency as long as it is not at the expense of any other religous group or does not infringe on the secular principles of the state.

Well, I’ll forget about the patriot act. In theory, yes. But then, the only people this seems fair to are people who have no agendas as part of a religious community. In fact, a Muslim could care less if anyone else gets represented or not…al that matters is that they don’t. Yet, gays are…now when was the last time you saw a Gay person worrying about Muslim interests

As for france, they are starting to take it to far.

Perhaps…but many would argue that they have it right!

As for the will of the Majority in Pakistan, this is very dangerous thought.. You saying that a if the Majorirty wills it, any group can be singled out? Isnt this what lead to the holocaust?

Actually, the holocause was a result of government misinformation and incitement…I see the patriot act as being more dangerous in this sense. What I was saying is that the Pakistan government does not as a rule follow majority sentiments. But democracy is about respecting majority rule. I don’t think the majority would opt for secularism, therefore implementing a secular paradigm would be more of a matter of imposition, by force if neccessary.

If Pakistan were a secular society the Ahmedis would not have been allowed to be discriminated against in this way. Even if they were labeled as non Muslims, the injustices hoisted on them would have been avoided.

A secular society is different than a secular polity. A secular government in contemporary Pakistan would have to treat the average citizen as the majority treat the Ahmedis right now.

I think its a dark ages brought upon by our inablitity reconcile with changing times. Its a struggle between the moderates, the secularist and the hard liner extremist.

I would agree!

This I blame on the Clergy. A secular govt would allow us to overcome this conflict, allow people to practice their religion on their own and let the state fnction independantly and not take sides.

Hmmm…I don’t know. The “clergy” (or Ulema) are not associated with modernity, nor are they activley standing in it’s way. They simply haven’t given it any thought, or mindshare. How can we expect them to champion modernity?

Our liberal academics, on the other hand, seem to be hell bent on solving non-problems. They are the ones who are fully exposed to modernity, yet have found no way to communicate it’s benifits to the masses. Or perhaps they’re simply disinterested.

-Cheers

[Mr_Fraudia]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

take one good look at our self declared defenders of faith and decide whether you would trust them to paint your house let alone run a country.

[pyarilclarki]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@PaKpatriot1

First we have to understand that Jinnah was a politician and lawyer.. We have to stop seeing him as Hazrat Mohamad Ali Jinnah. A politician/ Lawyer will tailor is speech to the audience he is addressing. A lawyer may speak passionaltely on behalf of a criminal, or against him, but it all depends on who he is representing. In this case he was representing the Muslim Minority of India. To win the over to his side, he had to transform himself into what they would be most receptive to. But, there is Jinnah the leader, and Jinnah the Man, and you cannot deny the fact that through out his life, Jinnah was an Avid secularist. Sadly, he did not live long enough to lead his people or his country in any real way. Had he lived even a year or two longer, perhaps we could have seen the foundation of a purely secular society, perhaps based on Islamic influences. The reason he did not follow Attaturk is that he obviously did not have the time to lead his country in the same way as Attaturk, and because while he admired him, he obviously did not agree with Attaturks methodology.
Attaturk turned his back on Islamic culture completely, Jinnah sought to incorporate Islam into his plan for the sake of winning Muslims to his side. But I believed he would have tailored his state so that while Islam was the source of inspiration and influence, it was not the recognized religion of the state.
When he said "“When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago..” I dont think that necesarilly means he wanted a Theocracy. He simply meant that he wanted a society that was influenced by Islamic precepts, but not one that relies solely on Islam or refers to it as the official religion. He was a pragmatist as you said, he say that in a society where 95 percent are Muslim, Islam would definently play a role in the state, but I dont think he wanted to be directly connected with the state. You see this in America where Bush is obviously influenced by Born Again Christianity, but this doesnt mean that there is no seperation of Church and State.
Same idea in this “Jinnah spoke of ““liberty, fraternity and equality as enjoined upon us by Islam”. Again, not a very secular stance.”
Im a secularist and I believe in the same things, democracy and Islam are compatible, and so are liberty and fraternity and equality. Islamic Democracy only works if everyone is Muslim and have the same views. Equality can only be given at the expense of political equality in the eyes of the govt and state. I dont think that a country which professes one relgion as the state religion can ever be truly equatable towards those that dont belong to that relgion. A democracy is a representative govt, so how can a govt be representative govt that only represents a single community be representative?
Pakistan is the example, where only Muslims may become head of state!

Your example I get… Your saying that if a group such as the Gay or Black in America for example, dont feel they are represented, it is the same as the lack of representation of religious Minorties in a theocracy.
The problem is that your assuming this is ok. A group that isnt being represented has a right to demand more representation. This is the logic behind secularist, by not professing any relgion or any creed, you are trying to level the political playing field for ALL groups. In a secular society, all groups are able negotiate a better deal through the mechanism of the govt. The Secular state is inclusive by nature. In a non Secular state, minority groups that are misrepresented are not able to change their status, because the very nature of the state. A Theocracy is one in which the same principles enshrined by the state, those being that state and relgion are one, are the same that exclude Minority religous groups from being represented, these principles are writtten in stone and cant be changed… So a Minority groups is effectively allienated from the govt and political mainstream simply because of the very nature of the theocratic state, which by its very definition, excludes certain groups.
America may not represent Muslims, but neither does it represent any other religous group. All religous groups are equal in the eyes of the US govt. Non are given preferential treatment. And yet Muslim are represented through secular leaders who are willing to represent their cinstituency as long as it is not at the expense of any other religous group or does not infringe on the secular principles of the state.
As for france, they are starting to take it to far. The US allows religous symbols in school and that is fine. I agree that prayer should not be allowed in state schools however, although High schools have allowed some exceptions for Muslim students. Besides, there are religous schools in the US that are free to pray all day if they like.
As for the will of the Majority in Pakistan, this is very dangerous thought.. You saying that a if the Majorirty wills it, any group can be singled out? Isnt this what lead to the holocaust? If tommorow, American Christians decided that Muslims were to dangerous to continue to live in the US, and they should ALL be expelled on masse, you woul support this? If Pakistan were a secular society the Ahmedis would not have been allowed to be discriminated against in this way. Even if they were labeled as non Muslims, the injustices hoisted on them would have been avoided.
I agree with your point on Europe and the role of the Church as compared to that in the Muslim world, you got me there.
But, you have to agree that Muslim dark ages, which I really think we are in today is not due to lack of education but due to something far deeper, and people can and have writted entire books on the issue. I think its a dark ages brought upon by our inablitity reconcile with changing times. Its a struggle between the moderates, the secularist and the hard liner extremist. These problems within ourselves, this inability to reconcile with Islam in the classical sense and the modern world, thats keeping us behind. This I blame on the Clergy. A secular govt would allow us to overcome this conflict, allow people to practice their religion on their own and let the state fnction independantly and not take sides.
Im willing to accpet that at least on paper, a religous Islamic society can be on par with a secualr society, after all, even a non muslim could represent a Muslim majority, but this is only on paper. Fact is that we have to take human nature into account, and mixing religion and politics is very dangerous especially in the world of today, it may have worked before but I dont think it can work today.
Pakistan can only be just society if it drops the idea of state sponsered relgion. If it doesnt it will always be unrepresentative and dangerous.. How many more Ahmedi groups will crop up for example, how many more injustices will be wrought upon the hapless minorities at the behest of the Majority and the govt that represents them?

so is everybody including u and me:bukbuk:

[system]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

The picture of Jinnah may not be flattering, but this is what a politician does. To deny the defining character of a politician is like ignoring reality. But I think in this case, the ends justify the means. If Jinnah had to wrest Pakistan from India, he had to appeal to the masses.
But another thing we should keep in mind is that Jinnah's interpretation of the role of Islam in the new Pakistan may have simply been what I said before. A country based on certain principles espoused by Islam, but not a country with a govt that recognizes Islam as it raison d'etre if you will. I don think he wanted a country where the Govt was Islam!
Basing a sytem of governance on certain religous principles but not making that relgion a part of the govt setup is not against secularism I think. I think its safe to say that Europe itself has based many of its guiding principles, laws, morals and ethics on Christianity.
Again, you can have an Islamic welfare state, but in this case he may have simply meant an Islamic welfare state that was secular but inspired by the principles of Islam. Jinnah may have been decpetive but I dont fault him for that, he did what he had to to gain the support he needed. But he was the founder of the country, without him there would be no Pakistan, so if there is anyone out there whos principles should guide us it is his, if no other reason then simply because they work, Secularism is the only way to ensure political and social prospertity. Jinnah was clear secularist, most who knew him, those who studied his life agree and that is why people must follow his example.
It may be impossible to tell, but to assume that that wasnt the case is simply to easy a way out for people who are proponents of theocratic states. Mine is an obvious conclusion taking into account Jinnahs life and what he said. While your quotes demonstrating his desire for a non secular country seem convincing, the quotes that reveal his secular nature are backed up with the personal accounts of thsoe who knew him, and the his own actions throughout his life.
And Jiinnah obviously didnt want to contradict the religious sentiment of his people, but, like I said, his interpretation of an Islamic country may not have been one that would have been against the sentiment of the people. A secular nation can be based on relgous principles without being a religous state. This is what he could have been hinting at. The problem is that the term secular has been so demonsized that even the suggestion has and had become something that people percienved as contrary to the sentiment of the masses. I hoestly dont think that Muslims would have been dissapointed with Jinnahs version of a secualr state.
I use George Bush and America as an example because I dont agree with the Turkish or French model. George Bush might be influenced by religion, but this does not infringe on the rights of religous minorites. There are no laws in America that favor the Christians over any other group, everyone is free to practice even if it runs contrary to the beliefs of the majority. And while Bush is influnced by Christianity, he is still bound to treat all religous groups on equal fotting. THIS is what I want for Secularism in Pakistan. Leaders who are influenced by their faith, even if its not Islam, but who do not recognize this relgion as the state relgion and do not discriminate against the minority relgions. As soon as a state relgion is imposed, then it is unrepresentaitve and dangerous.
Principles professed by a religous starte are written in stone.. Those of a secualr state are open to discusion and can be modified if the times call for. A religous state, particualrly an Islamic one cannot change its principle to suite anyone or times we live in. The principles of a secular state may be freedom of speech (all types), freedom of worship, etc etc. These principles are open to debate, when canthey apply when can they not. The principles of a Islamic state for example, are those espused by the relgion, and no one can question them, excpet the Mullahs who themselves are indoctrined to not interpret religion but regurgatate it..
A religous state could have a minority leader, but if that leader is upholding Islamic principles then he is still not representing the minority. A minority simply cannot be represented in a relgious state. Its simply comman sense... Your right Democracy doesnt always represent the minority, but this is atleast the aim of a secular society. It breaks down the differences so that a minority is no longer a minority. Other distinguishing characteristics of Minority can be over come, for example, ethnic minorities can always vote their own people in, gays the same, etc etc, but relgious minoroties will always remain a relgious minority in a state that professes a single state religoun.
Now I personally dont feel that any state should make any exceptions in their law for Muslims or anyone else, although you have a point here. If there are certain aspects of Islamic law that are worth it, and would not discriminate against other religous in that they can fairly be applied to all groups then by all means. But if your talking about hudood laws, and laws like the one in India where a man can divorce his wife over the phone, or where a man can have four wives then im against such laws. But I see no reason why certain exceptions cant be made in a secualr society.
A minority group can get such laws that favor them in religous society, but still, regardless of whether they get such prefreble terms, how can a Christian ever be a Pakistani for example in a Muslims Pakistan? The difference here is that while in a Secular society a person of any faith can become a memeber of the society, a minority person in a Muslim state would always be an outsider, and any preferential laws would be gifted upon them as guests and not as citizens.
And im not saying there should be a complete exemption of Islamic laws for the sake of Minorities. All religouns should be repected. All Relgion should be source of inspiration for the laws that govern a society. For example, a secular Muslim society need not turn its back on Islamic law, for example, the right to marry four ives is harmless for the most part and I see no reason to allow it, even amongst minority groups. Other laws would simply have to be reinterpreted to reflect the world were living in.
And a state that is inspired by Islam can still be secular. I am inspired by Islam in many way, but that doesnt mean im not secualr.
I WILL HAVE TO FINISH THIS LATER... PLEASE HOLD ON TILL THEN..

[system]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@Fraudz

take one good look at our self declared defenders of faith and decide whether you would trust them to paint your house let alone run a country.

LOL…

[pyarilclarki]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@PaKpatriot1

LOL…

batteesi kyon

[cscraja]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@mAd_ScIeNtIsT

As Muslims, are we not supposed to put the commands of Rasoolullah (pbuh) about how to live our lives and conduct our affairs over and above the wishes of later men?

Why would secularism contradict this? Secularism is NOT anti-religion or anti-GOD.

The overlap between the ‘laws of men’ and the ‘commands of god’ would be very marginal, if at all, in a state. Typical conflicts between these two could arise on issues like gay rights or cloning and such like. But there are enough secular governments in the world which have not gone over to the other side.

Most human laws are likely to be ’ you should have your marriage registered in a government office’ or ‘the penalty for speeding has been increased to xxx Rs.’ How do these conflict ‘god’s commands’?

A religion could prescribe certain things that a man should do AND ‘ban’ certain things as immoral or should not be done by man. Any ‘human law’ that does not demand of you to do things Islam has asked you not to is not anti-religion. (To me, it is okay for a state to ban polygamy because one is only ‘permitted’ to have upto 4 wives, but it is not okay to ban purdah)

@mAd_ScIeNtIsT

Maulana Maududi explicity stated an Islamic state would not be a theocracy; it would not be ruled by the whims of clerics and would instead be ruled by men adhering to the principles that God laid down. Indeed, if you look at previous Islamic states (the Abbasid, Mamluk and Uthmani states) the political powers of clerics were generally quite limited.

At least, this does not support the argument that somehow democracy is antitetical to Islam just because ‘the government runs according to the wishes of the people and not according to those of god’. Democracy and Islam are NOT contradictory

@mAd_ScIeNtIsT

Jinnah’s guarantees of the rights of minorities were also almost exactly the same as the rights of minorities in an ideal Islamic state as preached by Maulana Maududi.

If an ideal Islamic state does not discriminate against minorities, isnt’ that what secularism says as well?

[mAd_ScIeNtIsT]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@cscraja

Why would secularism contradict this? Secularism is NOT anti-religion or anti-GOD.

The overlap between the ‘laws of men’ and the ‘commands of god’ would be very marginal, if at all, in a state. Typical conflicts between these two could arise on issues like gay rights or cloning and such like. But there are enough secular governments in the world which have not gone over to the other side.

Most human laws are likely to be ’ you should have your marriage registered in a government office’ or ‘the penalty for speeding has been increased to xxx Rs.’ How do these conflict ‘god’s commands’?

A religion could prescribe certain things that a man should do AND ‘ban’ certain things as immoral or should not be done by man. Any ‘human law’ that does not demand of you to do things Islam has asked you not to is not anti-religion. (To me, it is okay for a state to ban polygamy because one is only ‘permitted’ to have upto 4 wives, but it is not okay to ban purdah)

At least, this does not support the argument that somehow democracy is antitetical to Islam just because ‘the government runs according to the wishes of the people and not according to those of god’. Democracy and Islam are NOT contradictory

If an ideal Islamic state does not discriminate against minorities, isnt’ that what secularism says as well?

You are absolutely correct. An Islamic state is one that implements certain named, specific laws and political structure, but otherwise much of the policy and law making operates as in a secular state. The key difference is that in an Islamic state the government is liable to be removed if it sets policies and laws that run contrary to Islam.

Democracy and Islam are certainly compatible under Maulana Maududi’s ideology. Indeed, Maududi stressed that an Islamic state is a democracy that acts within divinely set constraints. A secular democracy does whatever the people want; an Islamic state does whatever the people want as long as the limits set by God are not overstepped.

For example, a secular democracy could vote to decriminalise adultery but as Islamic state could not, because that would violate the divine principle in the Quran that adultery is a crime. On the other hand, an Islamic state could vote to raise the driving licence age to 20 years because that doesn’t violate any divine principles.

And you are right. An ideal Islamic state does not discriminate against minorities.

Most of the MMA parties maintain that Pakistan’s 1973 consitution provides a full and correct framework for an Islamic state, but that the Islamic provisions (including reviewing and bringing into accordance with Shariah all existing laws) have never been enforced by any government.

[ak47]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

pakistan has been secular for past 50 years and what a failure it has been.

People who say we need more secularism are pouring more fuel onto the fire.

[pyarilclarki]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@ak47

pakistan has been secular for past 50 years and what a failure it has been.

People who say we need more secularism are pouring more fuel onto the fire.

really:rolleyes:this is a news to me .plz enlighten me on this:)

[ak47]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@pyarilclarki

really:rolleyes:this is a news to me .plz enlighten me on this:)

Book your ticket and visit someday and if you already here then its a silly question that your asking.

[pyarilclarki]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@ak47

Book your ticket and visit someday and if you already here then its a silly question that your asking.

where shud i come:D

[Guy1]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

let me say tht quaid azam was not never a great leader..he played the role tht lawrence of arabia played....pakistan future is islam...

[pyarilclarki]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@Guy1

let me say tht quaid azam was not never a great leader..he played the role tht lawrence of arabia played…pakistan future is islam…

who was he and wat was his role

[system]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@Guy1

let me say tht quaid azam was not never a great leader..he played the role tht lawrence of arabia played…pakistan future is islam…

Your form of Islam we can do without thank you…

[pyarilclarki]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@PaKpatriot1

Your form of Islam we can do without thank you…

try my type of islam then:p

[CheGuvera]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@PaKpatriot1

Your form of Islam we can do without thank you…

And what exactly is that…

[system]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

^Where everyone who doesnt fit in with their mold of Islam is "expelled" !

[CheGuvera]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular... Why?!?!

And what is their mold of Islam....