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

[system]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@CheGuvera

And what is their mold of Islam…

Any intepretation that everyone is forced to conform to is obviously a mold… Whats worse is if that mould isnt one that evryone wants to fit into… Problem with religous people is that they are right and everyone else is wrong!

[pyarilclarki]

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

^ the mold of islam im practicing is to cry in front of allah and complain to him

[system]

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

^Join the club:)

[CheGuvera]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

@PaKpatriot1

Any intepretation that everyone is forced to conform to is obviously a mold… Whats worse is if that mould isnt one that evryone wants to fit into… Problem with religous people is that they are right and everyone else is wrong!

What if their mold is THE correct mold…then what?

[picoico]

Re: Pakistan Should Be Secular… Why!!!

Ooops…missed this reply…well, I feel energetic today…so here goes:

@PaKpatriot1

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.

Forget Jinnah then. It is the masses wishes that must be followed, or do you not think highly of democracy?

If Pakistan was based on a lie, the Pakistani people do not need to oblige the lie. Sorry, but that’s how it works.

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!

I agree in that I do not think Jinnah wanted to create what Islamists today would call an “Islamic” state. His was a move to create a state for Muslims, not to restore the Khalifat. But nontheless, his was a funny notion of what “secular” was. And he never used the word. He may have hinted at it, but I think he was clever enough to see that most of his followers would think that *******izing Islam from the public sphere (and not just government, that is a common misconception about Secularism) would not be a good thing.

Only he knows what he wanted. But the fact is, it is more important what modern pakistanis think than what he thought.

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.

Prohibiting very real religous concerns from the affaris of a state that governs over a huge Muslim majority is just not pragmatic. The state has to go the extra mile and be in accordance to Islam. This is not to say there is one strict model to follow. BUt that religous concerns must be concern for those in power. From Haj to Taxation…our religion is unique, and faces issues that other religions don’t. The comparison to Christianity (with a seperate non-abstract institution of Church which could easily be distinguished from the various states) is simply wrong. Secularism doesn’t work in an Islamic context.

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.

Again, one can only talk of a “welfare state” in a secular state. Even in European countries, where much of the law is (apparently) derrived from Christian morality and what not…there is NO reference to religion. This is not a good thing.

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,

Incorrect. The people who backed Jinnah was his source of power. By any standard of democracy, it is the will and aspirations of the people that need to be addressed, not the whims of the founding father. Jinnah is not attaturk. Thank God!

Secularism is the only way to ensure political and social prospertity.

Secularism has been an abysmal failure in the Muslim world at large, never mind Pakistan. There is no silver bullet. If Pakistan would invest in education, and build the economy then it wouldn’t matter if the government was facist and relious or democratic or secular. Consider India…the BJP were horrible people, but the fact is India did well under their rule. Secularism means squat.

A secular nation can be based on relgous principles without being a religous state.

Maybe we’re talking past each other. Here’s the bottom line: so long as the state doesn’t openly challenge Islam’s right to exist and regulate certain aspects of the public (i.e. no public nudity, etc), then it can be called secular, “Islamic” or whatever…who cares. Whose interpretation and whatever is the job of legal scholars and politicians who work under the same guiding principles. It is the job of the state to provide a secure mechanism and framework for working out just exactly what contradicting Islam is or not, or to work out any other policy descision.

If this is secular, then I’m for it. I’m not interested in pushing my views on anyone, but I am dead against those who say religion is STRICTLY private and that religious concerns have no place in guiding public policy. If that means risking the Taliban, then I’d rather that then risking communist Russia style secularism.

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.

SOME principles are. Others are not. One could argue that if any of the freedom’s of America’s constituion are violated, then America becomes a completely different state.

If an idelogy provides for it’s own death, it needs to be called into question. The fact is, if anyone tried to tamper with say the freedom of speech, America would sooner declare martial law under the pretense of saving it rather than oblige the change. Nothing short of a revolution is required, since these freedoms are a part of America’s mythos. I’m afraid your example only works in theory.

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..

That may be true today, but how can that change unless there is an impetus to do so? Mullahs are uneducated, true. But they won’t be calling the shots. More like constitutional scholars and lawyers would do it, but under a framework which holds Islamic values, as defined by them and us, as penultimate. Historically the Mullah never ruled. They were always consulted. If we are asking the ignorant Mullahs for their opinion, why do you blame the Mullah? It is the people who are asking that should demand greater quality from their learned men (and women!).

A religous state could have a minority leader, but if that leader is upholding Islamic principles then he is still not representing the minority.

Then by your logic, I should be able to agitate for Islamic interests in secular governments? But universally this is looked at as a bad thing for a secular government! Muslims are minorities…why no concern for us in the West?

What I’m suggesting is exactly like secularism, except that the dominate ideology is conformant to Islam. The dynamics of non-muslim minorities in this example is exactly the same as muslim minorities in current secular states. So, why is this such a problem then?

but relgious minoroties will always remain a relgious minority in a state that professes a single state religoun.

Or none!

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

Now hold on, where’s all this extra stuff from? I’m a minority…what about my interests? Why should I care about any one else’s ideology or political concerns? They’ll look after their own interests…right?

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.

This is an assumption, and is invalid. Consider a person who thinks the only proper form of government they can participate in is an “Islamic” one (however they define it). Such a person will not be able to particpate in a Secular society. Such a person is an outsider by the secular nature of the country. Why no concern for him/her?

Other laws would simply have to be reinterpreted to reflect the world were living in.

I agree with this! What I think we need more than secularism is the ability to create working institutions where we can honestly assess the problems that afflict society and work for real solutions. You are right that the Mullah of today is not up to the task. But in Islam, the Mullah is hardly the end-all or be-all of religious affairs. We need well educated people, who are results-oriented to step up to the plate. Mullah is for the most part ignored anyway…so they are a bit of a red herring.

[system]

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

Pico i will answer you email in full later.. One question.. Your and Indian Muslims defending Pakistan being a Theocracy?!?! I thought you were Pakistani

[picoico]

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

PakPatriot,

If a theocracy is any state that will not compromise or agitate against Islamic principles, however the people arrive at what is Islamic or not, then sure...I'm all for theocracy.

If secularism is running a government with complete disregard to Islam, then I am strictly against it.

Anything else is semantics.

My concern for Pakistan is true, no matter where I am from. Needless to say, all my immediate family is from there, but I was born in Canada. Nonetheless, all my first cousins are Pakistani born, and my views do in fact reflect theirs, so if you will not accept my views as is, then accept them as a proxy for my family members who are Pakistani born.