Government appeases religious parties on blasphemy law

[kugga]

But see religion has to have play within the states affairs if a state does not recognize a religion then there wouldn't be anything there to go against(it would not be in play in the first place). At this point religion becomes something the individual person believes in and has no extension behind that persons personal beliefs.

A religion less state is simply equal to a person who does not believe in any thing we in Islam call him a kaafir got that ?? there are two things either a state is accepting a religion and not accepting it ... A state cannot deny existence of a religion altogether even if she is doing that she is denying that religion means going against that religion... In no way you can prove neutrality...

A nation or a state is a composition of persons or people and people do have religion mostly in Asian countries.... If you want to have a religion less state you must get religion out of the lives of its components as well.. . westerns have done that in quite a good manner but for muslims religion is the most important thing and we want religion to guide us from every day matters to state matters...
Even in turkey now the state has started accepting the importance and value of religion (just my opinion)

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I don't understand anything about Secularism ?

One need but only understand the definition of the word in the most basic aspects to see it holds neutrality and separation in these matters.

It seems like you have not clue as to what the word even means let alone what it implies in the political system of states.

Please read up before and understand secularism is before telling someone to keep dreaming.

I will even help you



Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do read more here if "mans" logical creation doesn't go too far over your head

Wise men give examples to explain to people... I ll do it here for you...

Secularism... Separation of Religion from State Affairs

Islam... System of life (including ruling) emnating from Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa Sahabah and Qiyas

Secularism... Riba can be Kosher

Islam... Riba is Haram

Now with this one example Jigs tell me where is this neutrality you are talking about because these two laws are clashing head on and are complete opposites of each other...

To call it neutral is to just make it sound mild... The reality is that Hitler was a secularist also... and we can see what the world has become under the secularists across the globe... Its an ugly picture for the majority of the citizens of the world...

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

A religion less state is simply equal to a person who does not believe in any thing we in Islam call him a kaafir got that ?? there are two things either a state is accepting a religion and not accepting it ... A state cannot deny existence of a religion altogether even if she is doing that she is denying that religion means going against that religion... In no way you can prove neutrality...

A nation or a state is a composition of persons or people and people do have religion mostly in Asian countries.... If you want to have a religion less state you must get religion out of the lives of its components as well.. . westerns have done that in quite a good manner but for muslims religion is the most important thing and we want religion to guide us from every day matters to state matters...
Even in turkey now the state has started accepting the importance and value of religion (just my opinion)

Your opinion is correct... You hit the nail on the head with this one that to have separation of religion and state, the secularists have to attack religion in society and individual life as well... and this is how slowly they got rid of the very basics of religious teaching in the west and now we all sing Guns N Roses welcome to the jungle!!!

As for Turkey, again the ruling party realizes the resurgence of Islam and use it for their political gains... the reason why Islam is making a comeback in Turkey is because under the Secularists Turkey became a regional and negligible power whereas under Islam it had global reach and influence... People are redisovering their history... Under Islam, the influence of Turks was such that even America of that time had to sign treaties that were drafted in Turkish language (the only treaty America signed in its entire history which is not in the English language)... paying monthly fees to Ottomans just to have their boats and ships in the mediterranian sea!!!

 

[Jigs]

A religion less state is simply equal to a person who does not believe in any thing we in Islam call him a kaafir got that ?? there are two things either a state is accepting a religion and not accepting it ... A state cannot deny existence of a religion altogether even if she is doing that she is denying that religion means going against that religion... In no way you can prove neutrality...

A nation or a state is a composition of persons or people and people do have religion mostly in Asian countries.... If you want to have a religion less state you must get religion out of the lives of its components as well.. . westerns have done that in quite a good manner but for muslims religion is the most important thing and we want religion to guide us from every day matters to state matters...
Even in turkey now the state has started accepting the importance and value of religion (just my opinion)

Well of course a pure secular state in both society and ethic values is not possible. Religion will always have a certain amount of play within the society and because of that the state must facility that to a certain degree.

A separation of religious matters influencing a state's decisions can has has been implemented in many countries though. That is the main principle seen in Turkey, U.S., and European states. It keeps blasphemy laws and religious extremism out of the masses. The state is also capable in both its court systems political/social fields able to make logical decisions and not ones based on what specific types of religions say should to implemented which are based on centuries old text. So no one is saying don't be a religious person in fact the state is having no say in any of those matters. Only that this not influence the government itself because if it does the government then handicaps itself to only one type of viewpoint that also says it must extend these points to all levels of government and to even the social lives of the people themselves. It at that point does not become something that can work in modern times with the level of diversity and different beliefs of the individual.

 

[Jigs]

Wise men give examples to explain to people... I ll do it here for you...

Secularism... Separation of Religion from State Affairs

Islam... System of life (including ruling) emnating from Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa Sahabah and Qiyas

Secularism... Riba can be Kosher

Islam... Riba is Haram

Now with this one example Jigs tell me where is this neutrality you are talking about because these two laws are clashing head on and are complete opposites of each other...

To call it neutral is to just make it sound mild... The reality is that Hitler was a secularist also... and we can see what the world has become under the secularists across the globe... Its an ugly picture for the majority of the citizens of the world...

Islam holds no value in state affairs in a secular environment. So how exactly would that law be recognized by the state. The individual could try to live his life by it of course and the state would not interfere and that would constitute neutrality in the specific matter. (As long as none of the laws bring the person to commit violence or go against the state itself) Blasphemy laws dont hold neutrality though it is something that state has imposed based on interpretation of Islam on all the masses in the 70s. Now no one has the willpower to change it because religious parties are having say in the states affairs. See how that handicaps Pakistan.

Or as Ataturk said

every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.

 

[Ahmad]

Ohh and BTW never argue in real life with mullah on this topic....

very true, thats always i say god bless teh internet.

 

[kugga]

Islam holds no value in state affairs in a secular environment. So how exactly would that law be recognized by the state. The individual could try to live his life by it of course and the state would not interfere and that would constitute neutrality in the specific matter. (As long as none of the laws bring the person to commit violence or go against the state itself) Blasphemy laws dont hold neutrality though it is something that state has imposed based on interpretation of Islam on all the masses in the 70s. Now no one has the willpower to change it because religious parties are having say in the states affairs. See how that handicaps Pakistan.

Or as Ataturk said

secular state cannot allow anyone to go against itself like Islam never allow any one to go against it self (in your words only) ?? so wats the difference ??

 

[Jigs]

secular state cannot allow anyone to go against itself like Islam never allow any one to go against it self (in your words only) ?? so wats the difference ??

I mean as in way of treason(which every country secular or not has laws against) . Protesting policies of the government is obviously fine. I doubt you would get very far let alone live very long if you tried protesting Islam in most ME countries. Still in a secular environment protests on all issues would be allowed. Whether the government will listen or not is of course another issue.

 

[Xestan]

Guys! lets conclude the discussion, I have been following and even arguing with my fellow Pakistanis about the law, what I hate is that some ignorants call it "Stupid" law, Nauzbillah!!

My point is, there should be some procedural changes and I personally think, as the Hadith of Rasool ALLAH [S.A.W] Context: Which says that if a Muslim declares the other a kafir, then surely one of them really is. Means, if the person accused is not Kafir then the person who accused will be kafir on the bases on false allegation, same is the case with blasphemy.

I here want to share a case with you guys, I have been following the charges against Zaid Hamid, the guy who was accused "Yusuf Ali" who was related to Zaid Hamid some years ago which later became a controversy and damaged Takmeel-e-Pakistan movement, I have confronted many Mullahs and believe me I hate them more than anyone else on this forum.

What I wanna say is that .. lets stop discussing Blasphemy law, we all are Muslims and we live in a Muslim State, there's no point of discussing secularism because that can never happen for Pakistan Insh'ALLAH.

If Taliban type government is not acceptable then this secular type government is also not acceptable.

Just wanted to request to all Pakistani members..

I have been noticing this lately, A Indian post a thread about Blasphemy law and we are like fighting the hell on the thread, C'mon!

Conclude this here.

1. Blasphemy law need procedural changes.
2. The person who will wrongly accuse the other will get the same punishment.
3. Pakistan is a Islamic state, you cannot change the reality, so stop promoting secularism.

In end, a message for Muslims.. ALLAH says in Qur'an : "But those who deny Our signs - We will progressively lead them [to destruction] from where they do not know." [7:182]

 

[Jigs]

1. Blasphemy law need procedural changes.

They sure do and then some.

2. The person who will wrongly accuse the other will get the same punishment.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Ghandi

3. Pakistan is a Islamic state, you cannot change the reality, so stop promoting secularism.

It did not have a Islamic System till Zia's time and that system is heavily flawed as proof shows how much progression it actually brought to the country. Now its inconsistency,instability and inequality that runs through Pakistan's judicial system and the government is incapable of changing it.

 

[kugga]

It did not have a Islamic System till Zia's time and that system is heavily flawed as proof shows how much progression it actually brought to the country. Now its inconsistency,instability and inequality that runs through Pakistan's judicial system and the government is incapable of changing it.

1973's constitution was not given by Zia and its clearly written in that

The name of the state shall be "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"...

The slogan "Pakistan ka matlab kia, La ilaaha illallah" was not given by zia....

Don't just pass a comment based on the views of some seculars majority of pakistanis wants an Islamic state.. These mullah do not get people on road by force not all protesting are mullahs....

We love our religion and we do not want it to be treated like religion is being treated in west... .

 

[Xestan]

They sure do and then some.



"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Ghandi



It did not have a Islamic System till Zia's time and that system is heavily flawed as proof shows how much progression it actually brought to the country. Now its inconsistency,instability and inequality that runs through Pakistan's judicial system and the government is incapable of changing it.

Well, people who have NO other argument, just keep shouting Zia Zia Zia!

What a logic!

Now read this carefully, I will not explain it again.

after one year of Pakistan's independence, these resolutions were passed by then constituent assembly of Pakistan which had representation from all the founding fathers of Pakistan.

Read it carefully.

The Objectives Resolution proclaimed the following principles:


1. Sovereignty belongs to ALLAH alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.[1]



Any questions ?

And These are the bases of ideology of Pakistan, the future constitution were to be made according to the points of Objectives Resolution

 

[kugga]

Well, people who have NO other argument, just keep shouting Zia Zia Zia!

What a logic!

Now read this carefully, I will not explain it again.

after one year of Pakistan's independence, these resolutions were passed by then constituent assembly of Pakistan which had representation from all the founding fathers of Pakistan.

Read it carefully.

The Objectives Resolution proclaimed the following principles:


1. Sovereignty belongs to ALLAH alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.[1]



Any questions ?

And These are the bases of ideology of Pakistan, the future constitution were to be made according to the points of Objectives Resolution

and now someone will jump in and will start saying that objective resolution was passed under pressure of lovers of Molana modudee and this debate will go on and on and on.......

don't know how many times we will repeat same things again and again....

 

[Xestan]

and now someone will jump in and will start saying that objective resolution was passed under pressure of lovers of Molana modudee and this debate will go on and on and on.......

don't know how many times we will repeat same things again and again....

Allama Iqbal says it all

If there's someone who call himself a Pakistani and still doesn't follow the ideology of Iqbal, then he is NOT a Pakistani for sure

Jalale padshahi ho k jamhoori tamasha ho,
Juda ho Deen Siyasat say to reh jatee hai Changay-zi

 

[Ahmad]

I just saw this piece of news, it might contain some gramatical errors as i have used Google translator:


General Strike In Pakistan the religious parties that call for the people of this country is held, the normal life in many Pakistani cities is hampered.

Strikers likely to change Pakistan's strict rules about how to deal with "Kfrgvyan" they protested.

Friday (31 December), the Parliament of Pakistan on a private bill to remove capital punishment from the laws in this country Kfrgvyy will investigate.

The bill by "Sherry Rehman", a member of the ruling party, "Pakistan People's Party" which was previously Pakistan's information minister, presented to Parliament.

This has caused the religious parties in Pakistan to imagine that the whole state laws protect you.

Sherry Rehman also has proposed that some provisions of its law to prevent anti Kfrgvyy about errors in this legislation should be strengthened.

Wednesday (29 December), Pakistan's religious affairs minister told parliament: "I accept full responsibility, I announce that the government has no intention to change the law against Kfrgvyy. If someone is private, the bill provided the government does nothing ".

Today in Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar, many shops and businesses are closed and public transport is very limited.

According to Pakistani law on Kfrgvyy, anyone who insulted Islam to be Mvajhmy death penalty.

However, in this connection so far has not happened so far executed thirty accused by ordinary people have been killed.

"Kfrgvyy" very sensitive issue in Pakistan is considered.

Being a Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan in November on charges Kfrgvyy led Kfrgvyy issue laws and punishments considered highly for this crime, widely regarded domestic and foreign media to be exposed.

Human rights groups say the laws in Pakistan Kfrgvyy persecution of religious minorities often used.

Pakistan's religious parties have said to avoid any changes in laws Kfrgvyy this country, protest programs are numerous.


?BBC ??????? - ?????? - ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? '???????' ??????? ?? ??? ????