@
haviZsultan I would answer to your article point to point
You can see below:
First thing is this you have accepted that many Pakistani has failed to follow to tenets of Islam, no other argument is there. But kindly tell me who is the main responsible to this failure. Isnt it the government who didnt try to make the state an Islamic state?
What did we try in the 1980's when women were forced to wear burkas and tv sets broken? We were STILL unhappy!
It is never worthwhile to have just the name of Islamic Republic without making an Islamic Republic.
First question is that Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism. Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi Ulema, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.
Just tell me how 50 million? Is it 50 million, I forgot? 50 million muslims living in Europe under secular regimes. Even Muslim majority nations like Uzbekistan (which have literacy of 99% by the way!) while we have one of the lowest in the Islamic world because we are bearded barbarians who think growing a beard is the only thing Islam teaches us.
The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries like for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.
That is debatable. Central Asian republics, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Indonesia rejected fundamentalist system for themselves. Only nation out of these with an issue is Nigeria with too many barbarians left there in the north.
It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.
Do you accept Mutazili thought as a part of Islam? It is a school of thought of Muslims. Lets say you don't. Now how do we know we are to promote Hanafi Islam, Sufism or what the hell when each follows different lines of thought.
Completely disagree with your fact that Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. Actually it has not been tried except Zia era and that was his self interest he didnt do for Islamization. If people take bribes & do other sins as per Shariah then kindly tell me where is the fault of Islamic ruling system in it? Firstly Islamic ruling system could be imposed here with its full spirit for 60 years. Secondly this is rulers failure who shows to themselves as secular in front of west world except Zia-Ul-Haq because at that west world had need to Islamization against USSR.
So you accept breaking tv sets and forcing people was right. It means Wahabism has permeated your soul. You are part of the religious extremism issue!
Also hard to understand that after Mullah after Mullah has called for "Islamic government" we have failed to have one (if we go by what you say.) how we will be able to have one suddenly now. Do you need a list of Mullah's calling for Islamic law or Sharia? The most recent was in Quetta-Mr Agha.
If you say that all above mentioned corruptions can be remove from our society. So, check other secular states e.g. All these corruption you can find in India too, might be it would less over there but it cant be said that has not.
India murdered fellow Ansaris and we will never forgive them for it. They are not secular. If secularism meant killing someone for his faith I wouldn't advocate it-that is what wahabism means. India has failed secularism.
Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected. Islam strongly emphasizes faith in Allah. Islam emphasizes life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.
Then explain to me how mu'tazali school of thought promotes it. Or are they kaffir. If so then I call Wahabis kaffir. Now what to do? Everyone calls each other Kaffir which school of thought should be imposed. Hanafi, Hambali? All are fighting themselves.
Is Islam really incompatible with secularism? Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.
You mean ignore 1000's of years of scientific development and the works of Ghazali, Ibni sini, Kidni, burini (Ibni Sena was secular by the way) and go to caves. Amazing logic! These people allowed us to rule half the known word and smack anyone on the butt when they messed with us. We were like America is today because of their developments and advancements. You want to kill our history in the name of religion we will not let you because we understand true religion.
The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic Ulema and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The Ulema were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.
What the ulema are afraid of my dear child is them losing their authority or moral power if secularism is imposed. In that case they will no longer be needed and their role in the nation will diminish.
At the time of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal unfortunately Moatazilah had forgot above mentioned Ayat. The Caliph Mamoon Ur Rasheed had accepted their beliefs & mostly fawning Ulemas had also accepted too, in his pressure but some righteous Ulema did not so, and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was one of them. They punished to him and he was imprisoned with chains. He had pressurized that accept their beliefs that Allah has created the Quran instead his it is word of Allah, but insisted against them. Afterwards he had been died in the prison. Their secularism was slept somewhere at that time.
Today time has proven them absolutely right. Muslims are blowing their own people up and this is their only specialization. Ibn Abdul Wahab was the dajjal of the century and supported by British. Until Wahabism remains it will be a threat and wahabism can only lead us into the arms of the imperials for cuddly-wuddly or it can make us suicide bombers and kill innocent locals while US claps at the side which is why we must reject it. @
muse has raised this several times.
I would thank to you that you accepted that how the justice have been done at the time of 4th Caliph. This could be possible in an Islamic state. On the one side was the Jew (A non-Muslim) and other side was the ruler of the time. But court ruled the favor of Jew.
Do you know the muslim population at that time compared to that of others? 95% were others. We couldn't have suceeded without secularism and giving them equal rights.
This is the fault of people & rulers not the Islamic governing system.
No, it is time to call a spade a spade. It was the fault of a malignant ideology that thinks shooting a 15 year old girl in the head because she sought education was correct.
But dont forget that Pakistan had been built on the name of Islam. You quoted to Quaid e Azam. That was he who had presented two nation theory. If Pakistan was not going to be theocratic state. Then why we had separated from India. If we were create a secular state then Why did we put the slogan for separate Muslim state? Why united secular India was bad for us? Why did we sacrifice millions of lives? It means at same time Maulan Abul Kalam Azad (according to you Wahabi) was right that Pakistan should not be built.
Islamic republic was never attached to the name of Pakistan during his time and he called the Ahmedis who you hate his sons by calling Mir Zafarullah Khan his son. That man was an Ahmedi. A lion of Pakistan. Furthermore there is the 11 August address.
Anyhow, it is pleasant thing that you consider to quoting example of 4th Caliph that all people can get same privileges in Islamic state.
Only secular brands of Islamic thought can do it though. Wahabism will never do this. It is a cowardly movement that established itself by ripping out wombs of pregnant woman for British empire.
Who would guarantee that sectarian separation could be remove to being a secular state? Give any example from present world.
Turkey!
Again same question will raise that why did we need for independence for Muslims? What was the bad in united India?
Saying we want a place for Muslims where they aren't oppressed and saying we want an Islamist system is far different. Remember that. We wanted a place where Muslims weren't oppressed for their beliefs.
Kindly explain. Is law faulted or implementation could not occur in righteous way?
How do we blame to law? Why do we not condemn to rulers that they failed to enforce in right way.
The law is. Because it does not apply to insult against Hindus and Christians. You would know how easy it is to frame you if you were one. People have been killed over it in jails by LEJ mobs like dogs. I condemn the rulers severely for promotin bigotism in our text books among other things so that no matter what I do you and Zarvan will not understand you are murdering Islamic history and how bigoted you 2 are.
Answer is NO
Wouldnt it be the hypocrisy..??? If you agree that in Islamic system all people whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim can get all privileges then why do we need secular constitution? And for you information our constitution is secular at this time except some articles which were Zia Ul Haq included by amendment.
Rubbish. Nothing is secular. Zia's articles were enough for that including some legislation by ZAB. Islam and secularism are not distinct concepts. First we have to recognize this as a fact. This one point is hampering our debate.
Again same question raises in mind that where is the fault of Islamic system? This is the lack of implementation and this can be done by rulers & law enforcement agencies.
When I argue for secularism I do not argue against Islam. I am a son of Ibn Rushd. My people brought forth the Din e Ilahi, mine were responsible for the Roshaniya movement. Do not teach me my history. It is you who has forgotten our peaceful message.
Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Quranic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Madina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Madina.
I never said otherwise. I said Islam and secularism are inter-linked... but some schools of thought are just basically anti-Islamic. Like deobandi and wahabi.
There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Quran's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) used to consult his companions in secular matters.
We brought secularism and we introduced the system of an elected council of elders which had immense power. You have to understand you are not the sole representative of Islam.
In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state. Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.
You keep arguing the same thing. First abandon Wahabism then talk about this. Secular thought is not the enemy. It is we and our weak understanding of our ancestors which is.
