Re: Secular?
who ever says Islam is outdated he himself is outdated needed to thrwon in garbage
Re: Secular?
I thought it was we Muslims F**** hindus for 500 hundred to 1000 years.
*Yep! They were literally doing that by marrying hindu women and giving them respect. *
Muslims never wanted or supported two nation theory along as Muslims were in Power and were in Control of Hind.
There was not a need for it. Even hindus did not feel the need for it then.
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.
It was a need of time since 'some' hindus came up with the idea to take revenge for so called oppression.
If that was true, why was Bangladesh created?
With the same reason. it was needed since West Pakistan tried to do same what hindus tried to do to muslims. In a way it confirmed the two nation theory.
why do millions of Muslim Bengalis from Bangladesh illegally immigrate to Hindu India?
Illegally?
India was a neighbor, India was a party in this matter, India did not have war scene. Do you blame civillians running from war area? Indian army was also in East Pakistan right?
Why are not Chirstians and Muslims or Muslims and Buddhists separate nations?
*Great question. No need for it. *:)
.
Re: Secular?
As to the muslim population in India and Pakistan.
India has about 138 millions muslims (maybe more) versus Pakistan over 170 million (perhaps 180 million by some estimates) of total population and very few percentage is non-muslim. (by official figures).
And to go back to topic:
Secularism is a hoax.
Re: Secular?
As to the muslim population in India and Pakistan.
India has about 138 millions muslims (maybe more) versus Pakistan over 170 million (perhaps 180 million by some estimates) of total population and very few percentage is non-muslim. (by official figures).
And to go back to topic:
Secularism is a hoax.
Means Indian muslims have some sense, i.e. they don't have more kids then they can possible feed lol...
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.
QFT
I would argue that Pakistan's biggest problems arise from corruption. First fix the corruption and stabilize the country, and then you can have this debate about turning Pakistan into a secular nation or not.
That said, a secular country only works if the people want it. Look at Iran, secularism was being forced on the population on every corner of the country but the majority of the population didn't have much desire for it and they fought back. Same deal with Turkey, the military leaders can try as hard as they want to enforce Ataturk's ridiculous vision of forcing total secularism on to the people, but it won't work in the long term if people have no desire for it.
Re: Secular?
and how do we stablilize the country? in fact, we owe much of the problems today to the non-secular inclinations of some parts of the country. ideally, every nation today, even with muslim majority, should be a secular state. CAN pakistan be a secular state? thats an entirely different debate.
myriad of hurdles remain, ranging from What exactly is an Islamic state to what school of thought to establish.
Re: Secular?
As to the muslim population in India and Pakistan.
India has about 138 millions muslims (maybe more) versus Pakistan over 170 million (perhaps 180 million by some estimates) of total population and very few percentage is non-muslim. (by official figures).
And to go back to topic:
Secularism is a hoax.
Go explain this hoax to Muslims living in the West.
Re: Secular?
**Illegally?
India was a neighbor, India was a party in this matter, India did not have war scene. Do you blame civillians running from war area? Indian army was also in East Pakistan right?**
I'm not talking about migration during creation of Bangladesh.
Millions of Muslims from Banglsdesh cross over to India, just like illegal mexicans cross over to United States. There are estimated 20,000,000 illegal Bengali Muslims in India. They cross over to Hindu India looking for jobs. They have been sneaking in for jobs from eighties, nineties and its still going on.
Just do a simple search "Illegal bangladeshi immigrants in India"
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?
Really TLK?
Ask yourself this. If it was in the name of islam, why were all the mullahs against it? Quaid-e-azam made it abundantly clear that he wasn't working for a theocracy. No part of his personal life reflected anything that the mullahs stand for and demand. Heck, he wouldn't even be allowed to lead the muslims if current pakistani laws were implemented.
When quaid-e-azam says that all citizen's of this country will be equal, he is negating the idea of an islamic pakistan which most people are promoting now a days. Equality of citizenship means that there is no discrimination against any citizen in any matter whatsoever. Our very constitution is discriminatory when it says that certain officies can only be held by Muslims. This is again a result of religious zeal. It wouldn't be possible for a non-muslim to get elected to these offices anyway so why the hell put it in the constitution? Again the reason is that it comforts some people and proves to them their religiousity.
I think that the reason we separated had a lot to do with the idea that in a hindu majority, muslims will be under-represented in every walk of life. They would become the lower class of society. These fears were based on the situation under the british when hindus were dominating everything. The religious reason was not the be all and end of the whole stuggle as it is now portrayed. Of course it had its importance but the reason it was proposed as the rallying point was because that was the only thing that all the muslims had in common.
Re: Secular?
Really TLK? Ask yourself this. If it was in the name of islam, why were all the mullahs against it? Quaid-e-azam made it abundantly clear that he wasn't working for a theocracy.
Mullahs were against it because Islam's name was used to separate Pakistan but Islam was never implemented. Mullah's biggest argumenet was that if it was never to be used then what was the point behind whole separation.
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.
This is a big misconception. Why does it have to be a choice between religion being everywhere and no religion at all? You can still have your religion and practice it the way you want. The question is why does the government have to have a religion as well?
Secularism doesn't mean no religion at all but a separation of religion and state.
Re: Secular?
Mullahs were against it because Islam's name was used to separate Pakistan but Islam was never implemented. Mullah's biggest argumenet was that if it was never to be used then what was the point behind whole separation.
What?
That doesn't make any sense at all. So the Mullahs were against the creation of Pakistan because Islam wasn't implemented in it even before the country was created?
Or were they against it because Islam wasn't going to be implemented once Pakistan was created? In which case it would prove my point that it wasn't going to be a theocracy. If we are charitable and say that mullahs knew islam wasn't going to be implemented in the proposed country one question still remains. Was congress, which they were supporting, going to implement islam?
Re: Secular?
I am talking about Mullahs being against after the country was created.
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!
great post. couldn't agree more.
Re: Secular?
I am talking about Mullahs being against after the country was created.
but my question was why were they against its creation? If as you say pakistan was going to be an islamic country, why were mullahs against its creation?
Re: Secular?
I dont know what I am saying yaar, but I read khoji's post and I kind of agree with him when he said that but I agree because it has a negative connotation.
[quote]
Previous elections had convinced Muslim leaders that Hindu majority will deprive Muslims of economic benefits.
[/quote]
All the waderas and jageerdars were afraid that they may not be able to have similar power. If the above statement was true in generality then Nizam of Daccan would not have gone against Pakistan and then we see that the speculation of Muslim Leaders was not true after all. Muslims are living are pretty decent life in India and were never deprived of their economic benefits.
Re: Secular?
You know, whatever I am saying, I am saying it out of frustration. After 63 years of its existence, Pakistan is still a failed state in all practicality. If it had become a country like Japan, no one (including myself) would be questioning or analyzing the purpose behind her creation.
Re: Secular?
This might be of some perspective…indian molvi still opposing the two nation theory and putting his views..
Re: Secular?
Go explain this hoax to Muslims living in the West.
Why? They have no problem living in west where 'secularism' is not forced down the throat.
Re: Secular?
I'm not talking about migration during creation of Bangladesh.
Millions of Muslims from Banglsdesh cross over to India, just like illegal mexicans cross over to United States. There are estimated 20,000,000 illegal Bengali Muslims in India. They cross over to Hindu India looking for jobs. They have been sneaking in for jobs from eighties, nineties and its still going on.
Just do a simple search "Illegal bangladeshi immigrants in India"
The numbers migrating can be fake. ;)
Weather it was during or post war, it was to happen.
Wish they do not need any support from anyone and be self sufficient.
India was partly responsible for their creation, so where did that 'love' go?
Or was it not to take revenge from Pakistan and not really support of Bengalis? :)