Do you think Pakistan should be secular or not? Why?
Re: Secular?
try it and Pakistan will become a part of history it has even started to fail in turkey sooner it will completely fail in turkey INSHALLAH you will see it with your own eyes
Re: Secular?
This has been discussed endless times on GS, but it's one of my favourite topics, so...
Almost all of Pakistan's problems stem from the hold that Mullahs have upon this country. Look around you. One of the biggest problems facing this nation is the population problem. Even now it's effects are being revealed, in the form of food shortages, energy shortages, X shortages (where X stands for every necessity). The only person game to tackle this was Ayub Khan, and yet he failed miserably. Why? Because of mullahs.
Militancy. Mullahs are to blame.
Illiteracy. Mullahs are to blame.
SEVERE GENDER INEQUALITY. Mullahs are to blame.
Re: Secular?
so the country that got separated in the name of Islam should become secular. so what was the point of separating from secular India then?
Re: Secular?
so the country that got separated in the name of Islam should become secular. so what was the point of separating from secular India then?
Frankly, we separated because the Hindus were really f****** with Muslims. Because there was a lot of hate on both sides. I find it really funny, how the religious leaders try to take credit for the creation of Pakistan.
Re: Secular?
Religious leaders do not try to take the credit, but separation happened on two nation theory, which was not at all a secular theory.
Btw, there are still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan so your conclusion maybe frank but not correct.
Re: Secular?
Religious leaders do not try to take the credit, but separation happened on two nation theory, which was not at all a secular theory.
Btw, there are still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan so your conclusion maybe frank but not correct.
U know, I've often wondered about this. In history books they make it seem like ALL the Muslims were fighting for Pakistan. So how come there are more Muslims in India than in Pak....
Anyways, the Two Nation Theory is overrated. People don't give enough credit to the Quaid, preferring to talk about their own heroic tales instead. The British didn't really care for Muslims or Hindus. What the Quaid did was convince them that partition would be in THEIR interest. Hence the very sudden change in the British stance regarding partition.
Re: Secular?
know, I've often wondered about this. In history books they make it seem like ALL the Muslims were fighting for Pakistan. So how come there are more Muslims in India than in Pak
everyone knows the answer, unfortunately its not a very popular or politically correct answer so its good to believe that it was 2 nation theory that separated Pakistan.
Re: Secular?
everyone knows the answer, unfortunately its not a very popular or politically correct answer so its good to believe that it was 2 nation theory that separated Pakistan.
LOL, right. Historians on both sides of the divide give their own version. And Western historians put a very different spin on the whole issue. I wonder if the British kept transcripts of their meeting with Gandhi and Jinnah in the last couple years before partition....
Re: Secular?
Frankly, we separated because the Hindus were really f**** with Muslims**. Because there was a lot of hate on both sides. I find it really funny, how the religious leaders try to take credit for the creation of Pakistan.
I thought it was we Muslims F**** hindus for 500 hundred to 1000 years. Muslims never wanted or supported two nation theory along as Muslims were in Power and were in Control of Hind.
As soon as Muslims lost control and power in the very same country, Muslims invented this theory of two nations; Hindus and Muslims are separate nation.
If that was true, why was Bangladesh created?
why do millions of Muslim Bengalis from Bangladesh illegally immigrate to Hindu India?
Why are not Chirstians and Muslims or Muslims and Buddhists separate nations?
Re: Secular?
I dont want to comment on secular Pakistani state. But, secular society is a boon for Muslims in west or in countries where they are in minority.
All religions are treated AT PAR in secular society.
Re: Secular?
A country of people who are religious cannot be stable under an enforced secularism - that is a path to becoming a tyranny of the minority who live secular lives.
The ballot box is what should speak for the people.
Re: Secular?
try it and Pakistan will become a part of history it has even started to fail in turkey sooner it will completely fail in turkey INSHALLAH you will see it with your own eyes
Care to give evidence?
so the country that got separated in the name of Islam should become secular. so what was the point of separating from secular India then?
I've read some books which say that Jinnah was only using the threat of Pakistan as a political move to try to gain more seat in the Indian congress. Apparently he got overly greedy though, demanding equal number of seats for Hindus and (minority) Muslims. I don't believe that Pakistan was necessary or that, once it was created, Jinnah intended for it to be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law.
Jinnah was educated and worked in England, drank alcohol, and was pretty westernized. His grandson is a Christian. There are people who believe that had he not died, Jinnah would have worked to make Pakistan a secular country and I believe that this would have helped the country tremendously. Obviously I believe Pakistan should be secular.
Now I'm not saying that we should totally disregard our conservative culture, far from it. Look at India, it is still a relatively conservative country and they are secular. As long as the mullahs rule the country, Pakistan will always be backwards. The persecution of other religions by Pakistanis is an embarrassment. Responses like the one I quoted above by Zarvan Ali are the reason Pakistan is falling behind India.
In short, I believe the separation of Pakistan was a purely political move which Jinnah only employed to gain influence in the government and he never intended the country to be ruled by Islamic law (the man was a lawyer, and pretty westernized).
Re: Secular?
The country was not created for Islam (which Islam?) but for Muslims (ALL Muslims).
The point of creating Pakistan was to give Muslims of majority provinces a chance to live without worrying about Hindu majority. Previous elections had convinced Muslim leaders that Hindu majority will deprive Muslims of economic benefits. So creation of Pakistan was more about economical well being of Muslims than about practicing religion.
Islam was not in danger in India, nor were Muslims forced to give up their practices. This is why most Islamic "ideologists" like Azad, Maudoodi, Mashriqi etc. were against the creation of Pakistan.
If we agree that Pakistan was created for Islam then question would be: which Islam? There are myriad of schools of thought among Pakistani Muslims, and many of them are at logger-heads with each other. There is very little tolerance among them. Some don't even consider anyone else besides them to be Muslims.
People with such levels of intolerance can not unite on religion. And then would arise the same question: which Islam? sunni, shia, deobandi, salafi, barelvi, pervaizi, etc.?
An Islamic state would have made sense in the time of prophets. But that time is gone now. No one is coming to tell us what is the right interpretation of scriptures and laws in the present world. The best way today is to practice religion based on one's own understanding, and let others practice according to theirs. And create laws of country based on the need of time alone.
I know what worries some of us the most. So let me say that I think being secular does not necessarily mean open sex!
Re: Secular?
Jinnah was educated and worked in England, drank alcohol, and was pretty westernized. His grandson is a Christian.
I haven't your full reply, but this thing caught my eye.
QA may have drunk alcohol at some point, but I don't think he continued with it.
His grandson is not a Christian but a Parsi. He is Parsi because QA's daughter married a Parsi man. QA disowned her after this marriage. He even stopped calling her his daughter.
In short, QA may be a secular man, but he was Muslim.
Re: Secular?
I haven't your full reply, but this thing caught my eye. QA may have drunk alcohol at some point, but I don't think he continued with it. His grandson is not a Christian but a Parsi. He is Parsi because QA's daughter married a Parsi man. QA disowned her after this marriage. He even stopped calling her his daughter.
In short, QA may be a secular man, but he was Muslim.
You're right, his grandson did convert back to Parsi. And sources do say that he gave up alcohol near the end of his life but the fact is Jinnah was never that conservative. I never said he wasn't a Muslim, just that he wasn't very conservative. And the fact that he was secular, in my mind, is reason to believe that he would have wanted Pakistan to be secular and the creation of Pakistan wasn't religious but political.
And again, I think Pakistan should be secular because I can't think of any countries ruled by Islamic law which are successful. Saudi Arabia can only be called "successful" in the sense that they got lucky that they're sitting on so much oil.
Islam as a political guide is outdated. It was written for a time in which someone who was not of your tribe or country was your enemy. Muslims and Christians hated each other. Countries were regularly ravaged and destroyed. This is not the world today. While countries do take advantage of each other, outright atrocities do not occur. As such, much of the political aspect of the Quran is outdated. Therefore, Pakistan should look to logic and reason in its politics, and Islam for its cultural identity.
I mean even before Islam and Christianity, the Romans built one of the most impressive Empires ever and their principles of law and politics set the foundation of Western law, simply because the Dukes who followed in the Middle Ages strived to be like the Romans they had heard about: Augustus, Caeser etc. So a successful constitution and law system can be built without any religious involvement. That's my point.
Re: Secular?
I haven't your full reply, but this thing caught my eye. QA may have drunk alcohol at some point, but I don't think he continued with it. His grandson is not a Christian but a Parsi. He is Parsi because QA's daughter married a Parsi man. QA disowned her after this marriage. He even stopped calling her his daughter.
In short, QA may be a secular man, but he was Muslim.
Nope, Jinnah did drink Alcohol. A lot of it.
And BTW, it's perfectly possible to be religious as well as secular. Mash Allah, I'm a 5 time Namazi, never missed a fast and proud to say I never took away anyone's right. But I'm fiercely secular.
Re: Secular?
I thought it was we Muslims F**** hindus for 500 hundred to 1000 years. Muslims never wanted or supported two nation theory along as Muslims were in Power and were in Control of Hind.
As soon as Muslims lost control and power in the very same country, Muslims invented this theory of two nations; Hindus and Muslims are separate nation.
If that was true, why was Bangladesh created?
why do millions of Muslim Bengalis from Bangladesh illegally immigrate to Hindu India?
Why are not Chirstians and Muslims or Muslims and Buddhists separate nations?
I agree with you about the Muslims taking advantage of Hindus while they were in power. That's why I said there was a lot of hate on both sides. But I don't get what you are trying to say about Bangalis...
Re: Secular?
Main problem of Pakistan is not its being secular or non-secular, main problem is corruption and non-dedication.
To me and to overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, this is a non-issue.
Re: Secular?
Sir most muslims knew they will not be able to migrate to Pakistan but they still they struggled for it because they it was important for the future of the Ummah