Can an Islamic State be Secular?

[billi]

The basis of secularism is that the decisions of the state will be totally separate from any religious bindings.

This implies, that even though individuals can practice a religion and are free to believe in a God, however they can not profess their belief.

at the same time the state under which the individual lives will act as if God doesn't exist.

That my friend is why an Islamic can not be secular.

the answer is very good.

 

[Ahmad]

Well - Pakistan is not a state with an Islamic judicial , Electoral , Financial system which means it has a mix of secular and islamic punishments and laws.

Once the state becomes an Islamic state in its true nature - all of the Islamic punishments and laws would be in Place.

when and how? and by who?

 

[Kompromat]

the day you have so called pure islam you will have the taliban stopping your from going to the barber !

 

[Kompromat]

when and how? and by who?

Its not as easy as it may seem but the first thing to be done is to mobilize Public view - we need to know if Pakistanis want Islamic system of Governance or not.

It would be a long and pain taking process but eventually we would have people to lead IF we had public support.

 

[Fracker]

Illogical question, if it is Islamic state then how it can be secular? as secular means removing religion out of state affairs.

But yes, Islamic shariah is the best Law for any state (muslim or non muslim). As it offers equality, independence in choosing or following your religion. The Laws preach peace and safety.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

All this bombing and s*** its going on because Pakistan is trying to run away from Islam. Islam is our past, present and future. Trying to copy the west and hindus has only led to trouble and division.

What a logic huh?
bombs are also a wrath of God now, ahh I thought the people who are doing this all are doing it in the name of Islam, don't you know about that?

The day we have pure Islamic society, Pakistan will be peaceful and prosperous.

Pure? Depends on what kind of purity you want, but Pakistan as a nation will become one unit if & only if it adopts to idea of being a nation amalgamated by sense of Pakistainat not Islam & when religion will be separated from State Affairs,


do you people regard Era of Zia & His stupid Laws as Pure Islamic Era?

 

[Fracker]

What a logic huh?
bombs are also a wrath of God now, ahh I thought the people who are doing this all are doing it in the name of Islam, don't you know about that?

No, they aren't doing this in the name of Islam, but it is preached with "In the name of Islam" and those who are backing them by giving armors, money are using this propaganda i.e. "In the name of Islam" everything is happening.

Pure? Depends on what kind of purity you want, but Pakistan as a nation will become one unit if & only if it adopts to idea of being a nation amalgamated by sense of Pakistainat not Islam & when religion will be separated from State Affairs, If I am thinking do you people regard Era of Zia as Pure Islamic Era?

It is better to be a nation as Muslims, rather then Nation as Pakistani. Pakistan is no doubt important only if we understand the main cause of Pakistan. Which is Islam.

 

[Ahmad]

No, they aren't doing this in the name of Islam, but it is preached with "In the name of Islam" and those who

what are you trying to say? if they are not doing it in the name of islam, then in what name are they doing all these?

 

[DaRk WaVe]

No, they aren't doing this in the name of Islam, but it is preached with "In the name of Islam" and those who are backing them by giving armors, money are using this propaganda i.e. "In the name of Islam" everything is happening.

so I am right when i say that religion is the driving & motivational force behind behind the terrorist activities, you only proved my point

You can make all big high claims about peace & tolerance but the ground reality is that Ideological & physical massacre of this nation is happening 'in the name of Islam' by the people who believe in Islam & they pick up people from this very Islamic society

It is better to be a nation as Muslims, rather then Nation as Pakistani. Pakistan is no doubt important only if we understand the main cause of Pakistan. Which is Islam.

so going by your definition, Pakistani nation doesn't exists because its better to be a nation as Muslims, I think every Muslim on the face of the planet must call himself Pakistani

Its just simply amazing how much deluded this nation of ours has become

 

[Old School]

No matter if it is alpha or beta version of religion , it is religion for sure. If the version of the terrorists is not the valid one, why are the terrorists not declared non-Muslim as they did with the Ahmadis ?? These are cleaver people indeed . They are keeping all options open. If terrorist can take over Pakistan , they can also take a portion of the pie. After all , that is what brotherhood is all about !

 

[tnt123]

Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam.

Why are we debating this?

This is the reason we became a country. To separate ourselves from the Hindus and establish proper Islamic country. If we cannot protect Islam from dissipation then what is the purpose?

 

[DaRk WaVe]

No matter if it is alpha or beta version of religion , it is religion for sure. If the version of the terrorists is not the valid one, why are the terrorists not declared non-Muslim as they did with the Ahmadis ?? These are cleaver people indeed . They are keeping all options open. If terrorist can take over Pakistan , they can also take a portion of the pie. After all , that is what brotherhood is all about !

Ouch!!! that must have hurt the brother hood

 

[Old School]

Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam.

Why are we debating this?

This is the reason we became a country. To separate ourselves from the Hindus and establish proper Islamic country. If we cannot protect Islam from dissipation then what is the purpose?

Is it necessary to blow up public places to defend Islam ?

 

[tnt123]

Bombing and violence is only a symptom of the disease. We have to go the root of the problem to solve it.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam.

Why are we debating this?

This is the reason we became a country. To separate ourselves from the Hindus and establish proper Islamic country. If we cannot protect Islam from dissipation then what is the purpose?

Two Nation Theory​

For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India


One of our most persistent national myths — put forward by both the state and its detractors — is that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam.

It is said that Pakistan was created with the use of the slogans “Islam in danger” and “Pakistan ka matlab kya, La illaha ilallah”, both slogans which — ironically — were never used by Quaid-e-Azam himself. Indeed Jinnah ruled out “Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La illaha illallah” when he censured a Leaguer at the last session of the All India Muslim League after partition in these words: “Neither I nor the Muslim League Working Committee ever passed a resolution — Pakistan ka matlab kiya — you may have used it to catch a few votes.”

Nevertheless, the fact that Pakistan was created as a result of a group’s nationalism, which was based — in whatever watered down form — on common religious beliefs, has damned Pakistan to a perpetual identity crisis that continues to sap its vitality. That no one on top since September 11, 1948 has been able to talk sense in this country has only aggravated our predicament.

Fundamental to this identity crisis is the national confusion surrounding the Two Nation Theory, which is hailed as the ideological foundation of the state of Pakistan. It is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern history, both in terms of what it claimed and how it has been applied by various currents in our history.

Both India and Pakistan do not disagree on what they consider the essentials of the theory, but while in India it is a symbol of exclusivism and communalism, in Pakistan it is part of the Islamic ideological narrative. This is the publicist’s view of history, but not necessarily one that is accepted without question by historians. Perhaps the time has come to turn such conventional common (non)sense about the Two Nation Theory on its head.

The Two Nation Theory, as adopted by Jinnah and the Muslim League in 1940, was a mere restatement of the minority problem in national terms and not a clarion call, to use Dr Ayesha Jalal’s vocabulary, for partition. What Jinnah was aiming for was what in recent years has been coined as ‘consociationalism’, a power sharing between disparate ethnic and communal groups in multinational and multiethnic states. Though the term was coined only a decade or so ago, consociationalism as a political system is quite old and is tried and tested in states like The Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada.

When the Quaid-e-Azam articulated the Two Nation Theory, he referred to language, culture, family laws and historical antecedents. He was, as an adroit lawyer, making the case for changing the status of a minority to that of a nation and not for separation of Islam from India as is alleged by his detractors.

The truth is that Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan was not predicated on the partition of India. His idea of Pakistan was a power sharing arrangement between the Muslims and Hindus. His Two Nation Theory did not, at least not until December 1946, suggest that the Hindus and Muslims must be separated. And yet, even in May 1947, Jinnah was pleading against the partition of Punjab and Bengal by arguing that a Punjabi is a Punjabi and a Bengali is a Bengali before he is a Hindu or a Muslim.

Much of this is confirmed by one of the most extraordinary pieces of prescience left behind by H V Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in India in 1941. Hodson wrote in clear terms very soon after the Lahore Resolution that every Muslim Leaguer from Jinnah down to the last one interpreted the Pakistan idea as consistent with the idea of a confederation of India. Hodson believed that “Pakistan” was a “revolt against minority status” and a call for power sharing and not just defining rules of conduct how a majority (in this case Hindu) would govern India. He spoke of an acute realisation that the minority status with all the safeguards could only amount to a “Cinderella with trade union rights and radio in the kitchen but still below the stairs.” Jinnah’s comment was that Hodson had finally understood what the League was after, but that he could not publicly come out with these fundamental truths, as these were likely to be misunderstood at the time.

For Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Two Nation Theory was not an ideological position etched in stone. It was the restatement of the arguments needed to ensure national status for Muslims in a multinational independent India. It was also a vehicle to get parochial elements in Muslim majority provinces into line behind the Muslim League at the All India Centre. At the very least, Jinnah’s Pakistan did not necessarily envisage a partition, secession from or division of United India. This is why he jumped at the opportunity of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which did not even deliver 50 percent of what he had demanded. In the end, however, the idea of power sharing with the League and Muslims was too much for the Indian National Congress to gulp, even if Gandhi and Nehru could have been brought around to the idea. Maulana Azad’s grudging admissions in his book India Wins Freedom seal this argument.

It is important, however, to note that Jinnah’s August 11 speech and all his pronouncements thereafter made it absolutely clear that the Two Nation Theory would have no role to play in the principles of citizenship of the new state. Significantly, after partition, Jinnah went back to using the word ‘community’ for Hindus and Muslims instead of nations.

The concept of citizenship to Jinnah the liberal — a keen student of British history — could not be fettered by issues of identity. He wanted Pakistan to be an impartial inclusive democracy rather than an exclusivist theocracy, which regrettably Pakistan has become increasingly over the last 30 odd years.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan