Re: What is your argument against secularism?
So you are saying that people's Imans are so weak that they have to be kept in place through shariah laws? If that is the case, then people should stop pretending to be Muslims.
Are you implying that Imans of early Muslims ( whom we call shabis ) were so weak that we badly needed these laws implemented in first Muslim state ?
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
I can't stand the "Pakistani secularists", to me they are as militant, extreme, intimidating, disrespectful, confused, bitter and resentful as religious fundoos that you have in the country. For me they're the two different sides of the same coin.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Are you implying that Imans of early Muslims ( whom we call shabis ) were so weak that we badly needed these laws implemented in first Muslim state ?
Are we living in the 7th century? They just made the laws at that time which made sense to them, like the stoning for adultery law is much older than Islam.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
I can't stand the "Pakistani secularists",
But you can stand thickheaded barbarian Mullahs? There aren't many things more ironic than women supporting mullahs.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
But you can stand thickheaded barbarian Mullahs? There aren't many things more ironic than women supporting mullahs.
No, I can't.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
No, I can't.
So what do you believe in?
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
So what do you believe in?
Moderation, respect, peace and understanding.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Moderation, respect, peace and understanding.
That is secularism.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
That is secularism.
Wish Pakistani 'secularists' could understand that.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Wish Pakistani 'secularists' could understand that.
What do you think has been said here in this thread by secularists that goes against peace, moderation and respect?
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
I think secularism is best system b/c of the following reasons:
1) It separates religion and government.
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms.
3) It protects religion form government and the government from religion.
4) Everyone is treated equally & no religious litmus test is needed for anyone to hold public office.
5) Under secular system you are free to believe or not whatever God/gods you believe or not.
I can go on and on, but the idea is that secularism = personal choices/freedoms w/o govt getting involved in people's personal lives.
Why would anyone be against such system?
Peace Shamraz Khan
Ok here is my response to your points:
1) Secularism means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said
I think secularism is better because it's secular - logically you are not really saying anything ... other than you like secularism for secularims's sake ... I can use the same reason for not liking secularism ... that secularism is not better because it's secular ... When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention ... On this basis I reject your first reason ... You will need to substantiate why religion and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void.
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms
It is religiously blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a secular fashion will subject their own biases to religious minorities ... this is what has been happening in Pakistan ... the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their secular powers. If they followed Islam those intolerances would be criminal. Secularims itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it's puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one ... don't allow religion to affect your decisions.
3) Secularism actually makes religious people subservient to government and hence religion itself is bent for the needs of those in power.
4) It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance ... besides secularism does not set out to achieve this ... rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily secular - this is because a majority can vote in religion as what happened in the case of Pakistan. Pure secularism will not allow religion to be voted in by democractic means .... !!!
5) Islam allows this too - and since this does not set apart secularism from religion per se - I can't accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from religion.
My reason for being against secularism is:
The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in religion - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what "secularism" sets out to achieve ... it only sets out to achieve one thing ... separation ... all the other things that people say about it are what they feel secularism achieves through practice ...
On the other hand religion - or more specifically Islam states this:
Imam An-Nawawis 40 hadith collection:
Stated Prophet Muhammad (SAW) ...
"There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm"
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
No, I have known these laws exist for a few years and it boggles my mind ti even think someone could be so heartless.
So use the current technology to our advantage but let’s not get rid off a law that proves the victim guilty before she even stands in front of the judge. Cruel, no? Why does the 4 witness condition need to be there to begin with?
And why shouldn’t they be there? Would you support such a law in Pakistan one that would deny the suffering of other minorities? O wait, it’s already there.. Why would you even want to deny holocaust ever occurred? Is it to make sure no one ever has any sympathy for Jews? Had you been a Jew, wouldn’t you want people to acknolwedge your history?
TO ALL OF YOU! Why do you have to deny others their rights to feel you are fulfilling your religious duties? A lot of you do not really understand secularism but are against it just because… 
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Peace Shamraz Khan
Ok here is my response to your points:
1) Secularism means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said
I think secularism is better because it's secular - logically you are not really saying anything ... other than you like secularism for secularims's sake ... I can use the same reason for not liking secularism ... that secularism is not better because it's secular ... When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention ... On this basis I reject your first reason ... You will need to substantiate why religion and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void.
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms
It is religiously blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a secular fashion will subject their own biases to religious minorities ... this is what has been happening in Pakistan ... the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their secular powers. If they followed Islam those intolerances would be criminal. Secularims itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it's puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one ... don't allow religion to affect your decisions.
3) Secularism actually makes religious people subservient to government and hence religion itself is bent for the needs of those in power.
4) It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance ... besides secularism does not set out to achieve this ... rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily secular - this is because a majority can vote in religion as what happened in the case of Pakistan. Pure secularism will not allow religion to be voted in by democractic means .... !!!
5) Islam allows this too - and since this does not set apart secularism from religion per se - I can't accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from religion.
My reason for being against secularism is:
The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in religion - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what "secularism" sets out to achieve ... it only sets out to achieve one thing ... separation ... all the other things that people say about it are what they feel secularism achieves through practice ...
On the other hand religion - or more specifically Islam states this:
Imam An-Nawawis 40 hadith collection: Stated Prophet Muhammad (SAW) ... "There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm"
Replace "secularim" with religion in your entire post and you will have a secularist perspective.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Replace "secularim" with religion in your entire post and you will have a secularist perspective.
Okay ... You obviously have not read the post ... but I'll oblige here is what you have suggested:
[quote]
Peace Shamraz Khan
Ok here is my response to your points:
1) Religion means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said
I think religion is better because it's secular - logically you are not really saying anything ... other than you like religion for religion's sake ... I can use the same reason for not liking religion ... that religion is not better because it's secular ... When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention ... On this basis I reject your first reason ... You will need to substantiate why religion and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void.
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms
It is religiously blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a secular fashion will subject their own biases to religious minorities ... this is what has been happening in Pakistan ... the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their secular powers. If they followed Islam those intolerances would be criminal. Religion itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it's puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one ... don't allow religion to affect your decisions.
3) Religion actually makes religious people subservient to government and hence religion itself is bent for the needs of those in power.
4) It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance ... besides religion does not set out to achieve this ... rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily secular - this is because a majority can vote in religion as what happened in the case of Pakistan. Pure religion will not allow religion to be voted in by democractic means .... !!!
5) Islam allows this too - and since this does not set apart religion from religion per se - I can't accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from religion.
My reason for being against religion is:
The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in religion - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what "religion" sets out to achieve ... it only sets out to achieve one thing ... separation ... all the other things that people say about it are what they feel religion achieves through practice ...
On the other hand religion - or more specifically Islam states this:
Imam An-Nawawis 40 hadith collection:
Stated Prophet Muhammad (SAW) ...
"There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm"
[/quote]
So confused ...
How does this even show the secularists perspective on "why secularism is better?" I stated that secularism is nothing - it is empty it does not set out to achieve anything good or bad ... just separation ... refute me and give reasons.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Moderation, respect, peace and understanding.
That is secularism.
Wish Pakistani 'secularists' could understand that.
Peace Jolie
What you desire can only be brought about through Shari'ah ... it will sound oxymoronic to you, but it's true. For moderation is what is required by law, but excellence is what is encouraged through the cultural values ... People who say all these things are what secularism stands for then they are wrong ... Secularism merely paves the premise of whatever other ideology to take root when religion is deposed.
So in Pakistan should religion be taken out of the equation then we will get a very nationalistic country that will result ... The reason why they can't understand in Pakistan that "secularism" means all those good things is because it doesn't mean that really ... it means what it sets out to do ... separate religion from governance ... and hence allows other ideologies to set in .. if after religion the people desired fairness, harmony and peace then the secularists would not have a problem with establishing a state on those values ... but it appears that the hearts of the countrymen are not inclined towards these values so it does not matter whether religion or not is taking part in the governance of the country ... it will in essence remain the same ... or throw up other problems.
On another note:
For sure the countries that profess to democracy today know that it does not work and have in place sophistcated layers of governance that make it SEEM that democracy is working, but really rich oligarchs - the Capitalists are far more influential than any MP. If we want to resemble those in power and have respect then we need to create the illusion just as they have that they are the best. Dajjal will be a magician.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Peace Shamraz Khan
Ok here is my response to your points:
1) Secularism means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said
**I think religion is better because it's religious - logically you are not really saying anything ... other than you like religion for religion's sake ... I can use the same reason for not liking religion ... that religion is not better because it's religious ... When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention ... On this basis I reject your first reason ... You will need to substantiate why secularism and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void.
**2) It allows personal and religious freedoms
**It is secularly blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a religious fashion will subject their own biases to secular minorities ... this is what has been happening in (Say USA) ... the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their religious powers. If they followed secularism those intolerances would be criminal. Religion itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it's puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one ... don't allow secularism to affect your decisions.
3) Religion actually makes secular people subservient to government and hence secularism itself is bent for the needs of those in power.
4) It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance ... besides religion does not set out to achieve this ... rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily religious- this is because a majority can vote in secularism as what happened in the case of (Say USA). Pure religion will not allow secularism to be voted in by democractic means .... !!!
*5) **Secularism allows this too - and since this does not set apart religion from secularism per se - I can't accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from secularism. *
**My reason for being against religion is:
The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in secularism - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what religion sets out to achieve ... it only sets out to achieve one thing ... separation ... all the other things that people say about it are what they feel religion achieves through practice ...
On the other hand secularism - or more specifically Humanism states this:
In the beginning there was nothing and God said, “Let there be light,” and there was still nothing but everybody could see it. -Dave Thomas
**
NO, I meant it's more like this.
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
We can say the exact same thing to “ALL OF YOU!”, a lot of you do not really understand the religion and its laws but are against it just because…
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
Peace Shamraz Khan
Ok here is my response to your points:
1) Secularism means separating religion from government - so in this point you have said ** I think secularism is better because it's secular - logically you are not really saying anything ... other than you like secularism for secularims's sake ... I can use the same reason for not liking secularism ... that secularism is not better because it's secular ... When a factor is given that cannot substantiate what it sets out to achieve then that factor is void of mention ... On this basis I reject your first reason ... You will need to substantiate why religion and governance being separate is better and your other points should demonstrate this, for this reason this point is void**.
No, that's now what it means that we like secularism for secularism's sake. The reason we like secularism is because it separates religion from government. It can't get any clearer than this. Secularism works because not everyone practices one religion and the rules of a secularist government would ideally apply to everybody. Like someone beautifully said earlier, do not confuse crimes with sins. Crimes are to be dealt with by our judicial system while no man should punish another man for what he believes to be a sin.
[QUOTE]
2) It allows personal and religious freedoms
It is religiously blind - however if many people of one type who are operating in a secular fashion will subject their own biases to religious minorities ... this is what has been happening in Pakistan ... the lack of tolerance for minorities is due to the people imposing their biases on them that they have exercised with their secular powers. If they followed Islam those intolerances would be criminal. Secularims itself is an empty shell - it becomes what it's puppetmasters want it to become. They themselves have no rules that control them apart from one ... don't allow religion to affect your decisions.
[/QUOTE]
So what if it's religiously blind? It is a more humane ideology. Secular governing body would involve individuals or all background and religions. A secularist government doesn't SEE religion. You are assuming that a secular government would only appoint atheists/agnostics. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
[QUOTE]
3) Secularism actually makes religious people subservient to government and hence religion itself is bent for the needs of those in power.
[/QUOTE]
Again assuming that secularist government officials will have no religion.
[QUOTE]
4) It is interesting that for a good job we look for capability and credentials, but for public office the same is stated here as though it is some sort of hinderance ... besides secularism does not set out to achieve this ... rather this is a tennet of democracy - and democracy is not necessarily secular - this is because a majority can vote in religion as what happened in the case of Pakistan. *Pure secularism will not allow religion to be voted in by democractic means *.... !!!
5)Islam allows this too - and since this does not set apart secularism from religion per se - I can't accept this as a valid plus point that distinguishes it from religion.
[/QUOTE]
Again assuming that it's going to be all atheists/agnostics! We are talking about taking religious laws out of our land constitution, judicial system, and law enforcement. No one's saying take religion out of the people. That's absurd! Secularists don't have anything against anyone wanting to practice their religion but don't let it govern others' lives. IT's no wonder Pakistan started off as a country with different religions now nonmuslims minorities feel threatened so they are doing their best to get out of the country or keep it on the down low. Horrible!
[QUOTE]
My reason for being against secularism is:
The moral qualities required for a balanced state are present in religion - they are not subject to change, but are subject to interpretation so long as the overall benefits outweigh the harms and off possible harms are reduced to elimination. This quality is not what "secularism" sets out to achieve ... it only sets out to achieve one thing ... separation ... all the other things that people say about it are what they feel secularism achieves through practice ...
[/QUOTE]
The moral qualities of religions are still stuck in the centuries they were born in. They haven't grown at all. All religious people are delusional and confused as heck. Secularism offers growth opportunity, it changes with time. Its utmost priority remains protecting mankind. Religions offer no such growth. religious government sees religion of the person first than decide whether or not your life is worth protecting.
[QUOTE]
On the other hand religion - or more specifically Islam states this:
Imam An-Nawawis 40 hadith collection:
Stated Prophet Muhammad (SAW) ...
"There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm"
[/QUOTE]
How wise are thy commandments, Lord. Each of them applies to somebody I know.
-Samuel Levenson
Re: What is your argument against secularism?
We can say the exact same thing to "ALL OF YOU!", a lot of you do not really understand the religion and its laws but are against it just because.....
Religion is personal and should stay that way. Not everyone is muslim but we are all human beings.