What is your argument against secularism?

[psyah]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

NO, I meant it's more like this.

**I think religion is better because it's religious -

**How can this be the secularists persepctive? If it is supposed to be your reply for why I feel religion is better well then you will have to ask me why I think it is better. My reasons for why religion is better than secularism is not the opposite to Shamraz Khan's reasons ... rather I took objection to his reasons because they are not reasons at all.

I will never say the above because I know that it is logically an unsound statement to make ...

**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.

**I don't understand this argument at all ... neither can I support Americans for their behaviour ... Heck ... I don't even support Muslims for our behaviour ... What I support is our religion. Religion has a lot of rights and wrongs and good and bads - it is not empty at all ... You can't reverse the argument and expect it to stick ... that is being intellectually insincere. When I meant "empty shell" I didn't mean it in the figurative sense ... I meant it in the literal sense - secularism does not have a written law like some religions do.

**3) Religion actually makes secular people subservient to government and hence secularism itself is bent for the needs of those in power.

**This is actually true ... religion does make secular people subservient to government but because government is religious it will be the best thing for secularists and non-secularists alike ... However because religion is taking charge individual people will not be favoured so it will not serve the needs of those in power ... this above bold text is incorrect when it comes to Shari'ah.

**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 .... !!!

**Religion does not pretend to be democratic but the ill-informed secularists here want us to believe it does ... You have absolutely no argument for reversing the tables ... I answered a specific post now you assume as though Shamraz's illogical reason are my own ... grow up and answer my concerns maturely ...

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.

**I didn't raise it as one ... Shamraz did

**My reason for being against religion is:

*I don't care ... no one asked why you are against religion the thread is about why we should not be with secularism ...
*
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

**That is funny I would have sworn that is not true ... so secularism has absolute values that it calls morals does it? Well then show me please ... what are they?

If religion sets out to achieve separation and separation is a bad thing - then why is secularism being supported? Secularism at the end gets associated with Humanism ... hahaha ... did you see the switch?

I said it before ... when secularism removes religion then the next prevalent wind takes root ... that is wishful thinking you have for Pakistan to adopt humanism ... wishful thinking ... It will become supremist nationalistic if religion leaves it ... mark my words.

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

^ See my other reply. This substitution wasn't meant to be spot on :p

Aqalmand ko ishara hi kaafi hota hai..

[Naabigh]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

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.

Dont dodge the question - just answer it in good old plain english :)

I specifically asked that are you implying that Imans of early Muslims ( whom we call sha'bis ) were so weak that we badly needed these laws implemented in first Muslim state ?

[The_Jinx]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

jalal-e-padshahi ho k jamhoori tamasha ho
Juda ho Deen Siyasat say to reh jati he Changay-zee

My understanding is that those who demand religion (and here by religion, I only mean Islam as a religion) be separated from the affairs of state have a big misconception that State will then regulate people's life.

This is such a big lie on part of the political Islam. All Islam provides To a State is a guideline to establish a consititution of the land, which has Justice System or rule of law as given in the Scripture. This does not mean that non-muslims are forced to follow "Islamic" Rulings on matter related to their religion; rather, Islamic guidelines allow to make laws that accomodate laws in other religion for the followers of that particular religion. One example would be laws pertaining to inheritence. Among other well known events in the time of Rightly Guided Caliphs, one comes to mind when a jew was given punishment according to the jewish scripture.

If a muslim does not want Islam to be part of the affairs of state, it simply means (in plain english) that he or she is rejecting the part of Islam that is specific to the matters of governing a State. Either you accept the whole of Islam or you simply reject the whole. Can't choose part that you like and reject that you don't feel comfortable with or have problem with. That's what Jews used to do.

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

^@Naabigh - No, they were more concerned about the spread of Islam and to make sure it stayed that way they made amendments to the existing law to show off they are the boss now. It's been a customary thing all throughout history for conquerers. When the British occupied the Subcontinent, they implemented their own laws and called it the British Raj. When they occupied the first colonies in America, they implemented their own laws. It has nothing to do with religion. It's more imperialism than anything

[psyah]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

^ See my other reply. This substitution wasn't meant to be spot on :p

Aqalmand ko ishara hi kaafi hota hai..

But I never presented those arguments in support of religion ... Tumhara ishara sheeshe mein kiye ja raha hai ...

[The_Jinx]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

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.

IceSoul,
Do you believe in the prophet who came in 7th century or do you prefer a prophet be sent in 21st century?

Allah was same back in 7th century as we have in 21st. His guidance remained the same. "They" did not make laws themselves. They followed the guidance of the Allah and Prophet (saw).

The example of stoning for adultery is right in the Quran. Have you read it or do you believe in Quran?

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

@The_Jinx

jalal-e-padshahi ho k jamhoori tamasha ho Juda ho Deen Siyasat say to reh jati he Changay-zee

My understanding is that those who demand religion (and here by religion, I only mean Islam as a religion) be separated from the affairs of state have a big misconception that State will then regulate people's life.

This is such a big lie on part of the political Islam. All Islam provides To a State is a guideline to establish a consititution of the land, which has Justice System or rule of law as given in the Scripture. This does not mean that non-muslims are forced to follow "Islamic" Rulings on matter related to their religion; rather, Islamic guidelines allow to make laws that accomodate laws in other religion for the followers of that particular religion. One example would be laws pertaining to inheritence. Among other well known events in the time of Rightly Guided Caliphs, one comes to mind when a jew was given punishment according to the jewish scripture.

If a muslim does not want Islam to be part of the affairs of state, it simply means (in plain english) that he or she is rejecting the part of Islam that is specific to the matters of governing a State. Either you accept the whole of Islam or you simply reject the whole. Can't choose part that you like and reject that you don't feel comfortable with or have problem with. That's what Jews used to do.

B.S. That's what the republicans of America would love to have! and do you know what would happen if America or any other European country adopted a religious guildeline for their law, they would somehow justify that nonchristian immigrants shouldn't be allowed in the country. Do you have any idea how racist these countries would become? You can still sense racism from the conservatives in the U.S.

Pakistani justice system serves no justice to minorities and women. tell me what happens when a Christian is worngfully blamed for being blesphemous. Tell me what happens when a victim of a rape pleads our justice system to punish the rapist. Tell me what happens when a woman wants divorce and what trouble she has to go through. tell me what is being done to avoid discrimination against minorities and women. Who would feel their pain or speak up against the court when the very system is willing to persecute the victims instead of the culprits?

State does regulate people's lives in Pakistan, very much so. This seems like a lie to you because obviously you are another muslim in a country that's run according to your standards.

Why do you all find it so hard to change your perspective for a split second? Are you completely oblivious to their problems and their pain?

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

But I never presented those arguments in support of religion ... Tumhara ishara sheeshe mein kiye ja raha hai ...

Nevermind.. You did. See the problem with you is you like to type really long posts that twist my words but say nothing :p

[Naabigh]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

@Theorist

No, I have known these laws exist for a few years and it boggles my mind ti even think someone could be so heartless.

well the laws dated back 1400 years but you can say the current Pakistani interpretation exists from last 20 years or so - Thus it proves my point that you havent studied them in detail to actually understand their pros and cons

@Theorist

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?

No fair law proves a victim guilty prior examining the health of charge/claim made .. neither does this one , if you think , it does , please elaborate how

The condition of bringing four witnesses is there to balance the strict observance of the punishment Islam orders- if the charge is proven . We are talking about death penalty here !

Is it just there to stop the misuse of the law , the misuse we see in form of karo’kariii

@Theorist

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?

why would any one deny /object the holocaust - why not ? a free world innit , freedom of speech ?

The event of karbala has been a sad episode in our Muslim history and still you see people questioning/ researching / objecting the series of events reported in regard of the war of karbala … People from both sides have written journals , books to prove their stance ..

you talk about secularism as it is some champion of human rights - then why deny me from my basic right ? to question/deny/make my mind about a historic or any incident/event as per my will , wish and knowledge

@Theorist

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…

The feeling is mutual darling

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

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:

peace psyah,

First, you are making circular arguments & 2nd secularism does not encourage immorality, but it protects individual freedoms (religious and otherwise).

Btw, I can live with problems of drugs, prostitution and alcoholism, etc., in a society, but I'm not sure if I can live in society where hands of thieves are cut off or pubic stoning is encouraged over things like sex between two consenting adults.

[The_Jinx]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

@Theorist

B.S. That's what republicans of America want! and do you know what would happen if America or any other European country adopted a religious guildeline for their law, they would somehow justify that nonchristian immigrants shouldn't be allowed in the country. Do you have any idea how racist these countries would become? You can still sense racism from the conservatives in the U.S.

Pakistani justice system serves no justice to minorities and women. tell me what happens when a Christian is worngfully blamed for being blesphemous. Tell me what happens when a victim of a rape pleads our justice system to punish the rapist. Tell me what happens when a woman wants divorce and what trouble she has to go through. tell me what is being done to avoid discrimination against minorities and women. Who would feel their pain or speak up against the court when the very system is willing to persecute the victims instead of the culprits?

State does regulate people's lives in Pakistan, very much so. This seems like a lie to you because obviously you are another muslim in a country that's run according to your standards.

Why do you all find it so hard to change your perspective for a split second? Are you completely oblivious to their problems and their pain?

Likewise dear.
But I do agree regarding the consequences you mentioned about "what republicans of America want!"

I was not even comparing the relgions, let alone justify the separation of religion and state with "what republicans of America want!"

Notice, my use of parenthesis.

Now, Pakistani Justice system has very little, in fact allow me to say: nothing, to do with Islam. In a just Islamic system, no Christian would be worngfully blamed for being blesphemous.

[psyah]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

peace psyah,

First, you are making circular arguments & 2nd secularism does not encourage immorality, but it protects individual freedoms (religious and otherwise).

Btw, I can live with problems of drugs, prostitution and alcoholism, etc., in a society, but I'm not sure if I can live in society where hands of thieves are cut off or pubic stoning is encouraged over things like sex between two consenting adults.

Peace Shamraz Khan

I am not presenting any circular argument ... I am showing up the circular arguments of others however ... I did not say that secularism encourages immorality ... but it does not encourage it either ... as I said ... secularism is void of favouring one perspective or another it simply attempts to reach one end ... separation of state and religion.

If the hearts of men are so inclined to be good and avoid bad then secularism will achieve those things ... but if Pakistan at this moment in time leaves Religion it will leave behind the dominant ideology after it - which is supremacy ... and that will take root in the name of secularism ... Secularism is the pair of scissors that cuts it is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of it ... they are catered for in other ideologies ... people want to sell secularism off the back of noble ideals which really have nothing to do with secularism at all.

For example secularism will allow democracy to a certain extent but it will never allow religion to be voted in ... there is no circular argument here ... focus please ...

You may say that you cannot live with hands being cut off for theft ... but what if the ruling elite make it a secular law for the punishment of theft to be done that way? There is nothing you can do about it because it fulfils the law of the secularist ... they issued the law without recourse to religion ...

In the UK the popular opinion of "Capital Punishment" to be reinstated is taking root ... if the government follow "democracy" then UK will again be a punisher in the capital sense ... It was not popular opinion that removed the law in the first place - it was a liberal mindset of the ruling elite that removed the law ... and when the populous changes and becomes more conservative then you change the laws again ... secularism teaches us that what is good now can be bad tomorrow and vice-versa ... as long as it is not religious.

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

@Naabigh

well the laws dated back 1400 years but you can say the current Pakistani interpretation exists from last 20 years or so - Thus it proves my point that you havent studied them in detail to actually understand their pros and cons :)

I haven't and I said that before! Please tell me the pros and cons for the system you support.

[QUOTE]
No fair law proves a victim guilty prior examining the health of charge/claim made .. neither does this one , if you think , it does , please elaborate how :)
[/QUOTE]

Yet this happens in Pakistan. Take any blesphemy case for an example. From a nonmuslim perspective saying something against the prophet would not seem as harmful yet the justice system of pakistan and the people of pakistan would punish the individual. Where is there any room for examining the health of the claim made?

[QUOTE]
The condition of bringing four witnesses is there to balance the strict observance of the punishment Islam orders- if the charge is proven . We are talking about death penalty here !
[/QUOTE]

Yet most rapists are let loose because the condition can NEVER be met. Are we trying to please God and saying, "Hey look man, we respect you enough to find a place for this condition in our law but we gotta be honest, there's not much use of it"

[QUOTE]
Is it just there to stop the misuse of the law , the misuse we see in form of karo'kariii
[/QUOTE]

Karo'Karii is not related to law at all. That's strictly my opinion. Honor killings will not stop regardless of what our law says against them. Honor killings and Karo'Karii is taking law into their own hands. You can't stop that anywhere. Only really strong law enforcement will lessen such crimes.

[QUOTE]
why would any one deny /object the holocaust - why not ? a free world innit , freedom of speech ?

The event of karbala has been a sad episode in our Muslim history and still you see people questioning/ researching / objecting the series of events reported in regard of the war of karbala ... People from both sides have written journals , books to prove their stance ..

you talk about secularism as it is some champion of human rights - then why deny me from my basic right ? to question/deny/make my mind about a historic or any incident/event as per my will , wish and knowledge :)
[/QUOTE]

I don't know anybody that denies Karbala. It's a fight/argument religious people have among each other. Quite frankly I am not interested. I don't condone warfare and Karbala was a battle, Holocaust was not a battle. There weren't two sides fighting each other. The only victims of the holocaust were the jews similar to slavery that lasted for well..forever until now.

[psyah]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

To demonstrate my point further ...

Consider a pseudo-Islamic state ... and for some reason it requires all women to wear khimar (scarf) and punishment if failure presents itself, but they have been like that for many centuries ... and then one day there is a rebelion for various reasons and a secular government is formed ... When it comes to "voting" for or against the khimar they will not do it ... because they will learn quickly that the people still want to live according to their old habits ...

Some people will perhaps vote removing the law that prohibits taking the scarf off ... however if that is done will they remove the scarf? ... if media has not been too influencing then the majority of people will continue to "want" to wear their scarves. It will simply not be punishable for not doing so.

Through habit alone they will still resemble what they were ...

Also, consider the secular law of Soviet Union ... the Islamic countries now return but their secular habits are still there ... In fact that country proves that secularism doesn't allow a healthy development of religious values foster in the people ... rather those countries suffer religious dilution ... purely because of secularism.

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

Likewise dear. But I do agree regarding the consequences you mentioned about "what republicans of America want!"

I was not even comparing the relgions, let alone justify the separation of religion and state with "what republicans of America want!"

Notice, my use of parenthesis.

Now, Pakistani Justice system has very little, in fact allow me to say: nothing, to do with Islam. In a just Islamic system, no Christian would be worngfully blamed for being blesphemous.

See that's what it ALWAYS comes down to. If you believe Pakistani justice system has nothing to do with Islam then why not adopt a secular law?

@psyah- I have replied to your arguments that you listed earlier but I guess you missed it. Morality is not the government's responsibility. One doesn't learn to be a good human being from the justice system, morality should be taught in homes by parents. Also, stop assuming that a secular government will only appoint atheists/agnostics to make decisions.

[The_Jinx]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

See that's what it ALWAYS comes down to. If you believe Pakistani justice system has nothing to do with Islam then why not adopt a secular law?

Why does it ALWAYS come down to shove it in our throat to "adopt a secular law" when a just Islamic System can be implemented that has EVERYTHING to do with Islam?

What a ridiculous way of regulating the state with secular laws.

[Enigmatic]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

A person who constantly needs confirmation and the support of ancient laws to practice Islam would be a very insecure Muslim indeed.

I then presume the circle you are friends with is made up of very insecure Muslims too ...because they have done bad even if it is against the law it seems. Not a proud example now is it ?

[Theorist]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

Why does it ALWAYS come down to shove it in our throat to "adopt a secular law" when a just Islamic System can be implemented that has EVERYTHING to do with Islam?

What a ridiculous way of regulating the state with secular laws.

It can't be done because every group/sect follows their own version of Islam. Besides, not everyone is a muslim or is not considered one under the Islamic government. What amendments would you recommend for the existing laws against minorities and women?

Under a secular government, everybody is treated equally! And it's not like the governing body itself will be all atheists. It will be a mix of different people of different religious background.

[psyah]

Re: What is your argument against secularism?

See that's what it ALWAYS comes down to. If you believe Pakistani justice system has nothing to do with Islam then why not adopt a secular law?

@psyah - I have replied to your arguments that you listed earlier but I guess you missed it. Morality is not the government's responsibility. One doesn't learn to be a good human being from the justice system, morality should be taught in homes by parents. Also, stop assuming that a secular government will only appoint atheists/agnostics to make decisions.

Aha a bit of reason ... Theorist, yes exactly, Secularism does not see morality as the responsibility of the government ... however you phrase it as though it is a universal fact ... not so to Muslim we believe that morality is the governments responsiblity as well as our own.

Also I have never assumed that a secular goverment will only appoint atheists - that is ridiculous ... I have never made that claim ... I said that secularism is against state affairs being run by religious values ... in which case whatever values are in office will be enforced ... it will not necessarily be based on fairness or justice - it could just as well be based on nazism IF that is the dominant opinion of those in office at the time.