IceSoul - let it go, it's a lost cause at this point. Arguing here is not going to change Pakistan's future.
Very few people understood why slavery was inhumane, women have been oppressed for centuries and nobody cared enough to free them from their cultural and religious "duties" until now, nobody cares enough for anybody to take a stand against the system unless they are affected by it.
History repeats itself. Right now they all feel a secular system will destroy their morals, they prefer morality over humanity. It's sad but they are really not that different from those people who once thought slavery, racism, and women abuse were natural. Historically, people have become less barbaric with every revolution. Sooner or later, they will have to give up.
It's going to take more than just us talking for them to understand that without humanism, morality doesn't exist. They see secularism as something unrelated to humanism, which I don't get why but then again, it's probably just another argument in their favor. They do not really understand secularism. A secular system doesn't have to match an existing secular system. Make up your own to fit the needs of the country and keep teaching religion in your homes and mosques. Keep sending your kids to Islamic schools and teach them good values. Why must you persecute someone based on some 7th century law?
It doesn't matter what they all think anyway, it's the Pakistani people that need to be made aware of their human rights first. The change is inevitable. You can only resist it so much. When the entire world embraces secularism, it will be nearly impossible for them to fight it off. Remember, had the U.N. never intervened, Saudi markets would still be selling slaves - well sex slave trade is actually still there but at least it's illegal.
Such pretty words yet no substance and logic. I would like to see where the UN intervened on Saudi slave trade markets. Got any proof to back that up?
Also it seems you consider yourself a student of history yet fail to listen to the wisdom of Jean Luc Picard. "History is written by the victor". Maybe that is why you read racism and female abuse was natural as it was a good portion of Judeo-christian history from the 1500s to the 1800s. I mean colonialism after all was based on racism.
Just like the state punishes people for rape and murder. The Quran states both are wrong and thus punished.
Remember, I said "AS long as I do not harm anyone else". Rape and Murder and all other crimes against other humans are different. How am I harming you if I sleep with my girlfriend?
Maybe that is why you read racism and female abuse was natural as it was a good portion of Judeo-christian history from the 1500s to the 1800s. I mean colonialism after all was based on racism.
Yet it seems Arabs and Pakistanis and Indians have chosen to maintain these barbaric traditions in the name of Islam.
Anyways, as I said earlier, we are just going around in circles. The Secularists believe they have proved their point and no doubt the other party thinks they have proved their point. Everything that could be discussed about this topic has been discussed.
In other words, the idea is tolerances b/c religions by nature are destructive b/c of rigid sets of beliefs.
Shamraz Khan,
So, do you think that religion of Islam by nature is destructive b/c of rigid sets of beliefs?
And, do you think that what is prescribed by Allah and His Apostle (saw) as the punishments to be carried out by State, should not be carried out for the same reason?
Now you are dodging questions. Is stoning barbaric or not. Just answer that.
Never dodged the question. I feel that your question is unfair. You very well know that I believe in the punishment and I am letting you know the reasons why I do so. By this question, you essentially want to say whoever believes in this is barbaric because the punishment is barbaric. Just say it and move on, mate :d
Never dodged the question. I feel that your question is unfair. You very well know that I believe in the punishment and I am letting you know the reasons why I do so. By this question, you essentially want to say **whoever believes in this is barbaric **because the punishment is barbaric. Just say it and move on, mate :d
No I do not mean that. Just saddened that a reasonable person (Ive read your posts and you seem to be a pretty reasonable guy) would believe in such a barbaric punishment :(
Remember, I said "AS long as I do not harm anyone else". Rape and Murder and all other crimes against other humans are different. How am I harming you if I sleep with my girlfriend?
Yeah drinking and driving never killed people. Crack addicts looking for a fix never killed people either.
Yeah drinking and driving never killed people. Crack addicts looking for a fix never killed people either.
they sometimes kill others , but sleeping with consent with girlfreind without offending others(i mean if you are not sleeping in public places) never have resulted in murder of others.
someone mentioned 'dark ages'. During dark ages, church was in command. church had high political influence.
In an ideal society, All should be equal before law and before all decision making and authoriatative bodies. Social and Judicial justice for all free of biases of creed, culture, color, ethnicity and of course religious beliefs. Whether you call it Islamic or secular, you decide but I believe that true Islamic state is not a theocratic state.
if society was using collective wisdom, then no laws or courts or judiciary system were ever required
Collective wisdom is used to make rules and laws. If you don't use collective wisdom to make rules and laws you end up following someone's personal, religious, or racist agendas.
A secular system does not mean you don't use collective wisdom. It just means this collective wisdom should not be motivated by someone's religious or personal agendas. Restricting the use of tobacco in public places is a recent example of using collective wisdom to make rules to safeguard people in general from the hazards of second hand smoke. Rules are made and implemented using state authority to ensure the interest of people in general. In a secular society these rules are not religiously motivated, and the main focus is to safeguard their interest without taking away the essential liberties from people.
Collective wisdom is used to make rules and laws. If you don't use collective wisdom to make rules and laws you end up following someone's personal, religious, or racist agendas.
A secular system does not mean you don't use collective wisdom. It just means this collective wisdom should not be motivated by someone's religious or personal agendas. Restricting the use of tobacco in public places is a recent example of using collective wisdom to make rules to safeguard people in general from the hazards of second hand smoke. Rules are made and implemented using state authority to ensure the interest of people in general. In a secular society these rules are not religiously motivated, and the main focus is to safeguard their interest without taking away the essential liberties from people.
Actually no it doesn't. None of that is true. Secular is defined as the absence of religion from state. It has nothing to do with collective wisdom, or personal agendas. It is the absence of religion in government affairs.
Collective wisdom of the entire universe could never equal the wisdom of Allah swt (to muslims). So why the need to overthrow Allah's commands in muslim countries and bring in our own supposedly smarter versions of rules and laws? If He said alcohol isn't permitted, why do we need to debate whether it should be legalised or not?
That is what I don't get and that is where I gave up in this thread when IceSoul said to me "It is haram is not a valid reason". If it being haram is not a good enough reason for my brothers in Islam I don't know what else in the world would be. So I gave up and I hope to God I don't live to see the day haram is legalised in places like Makkah. Do I sound extreme? More like naive because I always thought all muslims would oppose what's haram. They might indulge in haram in their own personal space but at least they wouldn't fight for it to be legalised by overthrowing Allah's orders.
Slavery btw isn't a good argument on your behalf. Slavery is allowed, we can choose whether we want to practice it or not. Marrying cousins is allowed, I'm not in favour it but does that make me gunahgar? Eating meat is allowed but are there no muslim vegetarians? So just because something is allowed doesn't mean we must do it. But when something is haram, we must not do it, end of. Why the need for further debate within muslim societies, I don't understand. Jis ko peena hai ghar baith kar piye, like plenty do already. Sort of like the French ban on praying on the street? Jis ko namaaz parhni hai ghar mein parhay ya masjid k andar, not in public.
Actually no it doesn't. None of that is true. Secular is defined as the absence of religion from state. It has nothing to do with collective wisdom, or personal agendas. It is the absence of religion in government affairs.
Who is arguing against it. Secular is defined as absence of religion from state affairs while giving complete freedom to individuals to follow their religious orientation. Secular system is not against using collective wisdom to safeguard the interest of the people. It is just against making rules based on religious doctrines of a particular religious group. Secular system ensures essential personal liberties, but not to an extent when society at large suffers from these liberties. I gave you the examples of laws against drunk driving and smoking at public places in secular states..
Collective wisdom of the entire universe could never equal the wisdom of Allah swt (to muslims). So why the need to overthrow Allah's commands in muslim countries and bring in our own supposedly smarter versions of rules and laws? If He said alcohol isn't permitted, why do we need to debate whether it should be legalised or not?
That is what I don't get and that is where I gave up in this thread when IceSoul said to me "It is haram is not a valid reason". If it being haram is not a good enough reason for my brothers in Islam I don't know what else in the world would be. So I gave up and I hope to God I don't live to see the day haram is legalised in places like Makkah. Do I sound extreme? More like naive because I always thought all muslims would oppose what's haram. They might indulge in haram in their own personal space but at least they wouldn't fight for it to be legalised by overthrowing Allah's orders.
Slavery btw isn't a good argument on your behalf. Slavery is allowed, we can choose whether we want to practice it or not. Marrying cousins is allowed, I'm not in favour it but does that make me gunahgar? Eating meat is allowed but are there no muslim vegetarians? So just because something is allowed doesn't mean we must do it. But when something is haram, we must not do it, end of. Why the need for further debate within muslim societies, I don't understand. Jis ko peena hai ghar baith kar piye, like plenty do already. Sort of like the French ban on praying on the street? Jis ko namaaz parhni hai ghar mein parhay ya masjid k andar, not in public.
Exactly, I gave up too when everybody here said that something being haraam doesn't make it valid to be implemented as Govt law. SIGH
Sort of like the French ban on praying on the street? Jis ko namaaz parhni hai ghar mein parhay ya masjid k andar, not in public.
I don't disagree with the banning of wine but just a correction....even muslim scholars won't allow praying in a street coz it might cause disturbance for other people, after all what's the point of praying to God when you're annoying His creation?