Is a Secular Pakistan the solution?

[syedali73]

Go read his speeches from 1940 till his death what he wanted is clear in that

I have read and that is why I am saying with confidence that he never wanted a jaahil mullah -run theological state.

 

[Dubious]

Before we even get to secularism, what Pakistan really needs to do is enforce the laws it already has and effectively collect tax revenue from the population. You do those two things the difference will be night and day, law and order will be addressed and so will economy.

We see the present government going in this direction.

It has laws? I am aware half of them are outdated since the British rule the other half are left unattended to by the lazy buffaloes calling themselves mullah molana or whatever ...Back 1400 yrs ago when Islamic laws played a part, they walked hand to hand with scientific discoveries and the laws were adjusted...Even today we have many versions of the Shariah code depending on who kept up with science and who decided to stop where ....

However, not a single state on the planet actually follows the basic rule or pillars behind the laws.....Which is supposed to be dynamic as things change....

in my understanding he never found this to be incompatible with the notion of 'Islamic principles,' Had he wanted to take religion out of the state, he could have simply called for a secular muslim state rather than referring to islamic principles whenever talking about the functioning of the state.

That is also what I understood....It seemed he understood that Islamic laws would not discriminate which is right.....

 

[ajpirzada]

So if you observe Islamic principles in your everyday life, would you abandon them if you become a minister or somebody in the government? Obviously not. So why would he say that? As I have mentioned, by secular it simply means that follower of all the religions will have full freedom to practice their religion while at the same time live and prosper in a country.

thats an error. Jinnah didnt confine the 'islamic principles' to individual lives. He couldnt be more explicit about it in his 1948 address to the State Bank of Pakistan. He propagated for 'evolving banking practices compatible with islamic ideas of social and economic life.' His attitude was the same for other institutions.

if by secularism you mean to take islamic principles out of the state functioning then Jinnah's speech doesnt support this notion.

 

[Zarvan]

So if you observe Islamic principles in your everyday life, would you abandon them if you become a minister or somebody in the government? Obviously not. So why would he say that? As I have mentioned, by secular it simply means that follower of all the religions will have full freedom to practice their religion(s) while at the same time live and prosper in a country.

Islam has its own economic social and judical and law and other systems which only government has to implement and its there duty according to Islam

 

[macnurv]

Lets take a look at the benefits.

From an economic perspective this will warm relations with the West if Pakistan is openly declared a secular nation. Trade would increase tenfold.

On a societal POV removing religion from the corridors of power will ensure mental lunatics with flawed education upbringing in maddrasshs and mosques would no longer be able to decide what is best for the country. Rationality and reason would become king and so would ethos of society in general - less corruption, inept leaders etc.

All banned religious militant wings would vanish. Sectarian conflict would end as government would become truly neutral.

In fact Pakistan would become a peaceful country. Terrorism would end as foreign intelligence agencies would back off.

Pakistani society is saturated with religious dogma. Too much of something is always bad even if it is good.

Eating too much food is bad. Too much exercise is bad. Religion works the same way. In fact over religiosity is a form of mental illness. Like conspiracy theory nutjobs or heroin addicts. They lose grip on reality.

Right now the country is controlled and influenced by dogma and people not fit to lead. Time to change this.

Lets look at benefits
1) Being secular brings economic benefits: I don't think economy and religious believes have a strong link, the west is interested in its benefits, morality is not at the top of their list. After 9-11 did West stopped dealing with Saudi's? After all most of the hijackers were Saudi Nationals, instead americans allowed special planes taking Saudi royals outside US to avoid any backlash they might face. Trade increase have nothing to do with religion.

2) Role of religion: Nazis and communists were secularists or to be more exact one was pagan, other was atheists, did it stopped them from being lunatics. Although I tend to agree, humanity have spilled a whole lot of blood in the name of god and religion but at the same time it have spilt blood in name of nationalism as well. Humans as a specie are just pathetic, and most of the times acts as a parasite. In our current scenario, we are inclined to believe that the religious nuts are to blame for our misfortunes, Yes for most part they are but not completely. The lack of morality is what is to blame. One does not need religion to differentiate between right and wrong.
We have allowed mullahs to become sole authority of Islam, how can a person who only learned to recite Quran with little to no understanding of context can interpret complex Islamic jurisprudence. We all must make an effort to develop an understanding.


In fact Pakistan would become a peaceful country. Terrorism would end as foreign intelligence agencies would back off.
I have no idea how you were able to ascertain that. Aren't you in a way actually agreeing with the prevailing view of religious people who believe that they hates us because of our religion? You are contradicting yourself. If Pakistan would become peaceful, it would enable us to realize our true potential and become a global powerhouse. And our enemies do not wish that to happen, are those enemies religiously motivated? Yes they could be. But secularism will not be a magical pill.

We as a nation must decide on our priorities and develop an inclusive world view, perhaps a bit of more pragmatism. We should encourage rational thinking not deluded by opacity that religion might bring in and preach tolerance of others and their views. Secularism does not make one a better person, neither being religious, what does is ones own ability to tell the difference of right from wrong.

So secularism might not be the solution for Pakistan, but a more inclusive and tolerant society would definitely be.

 

[syedali73]

thats an error. Jinnah didnt confine the 'islamic principles' to individual lives. He couldnt be more explicit about it in his 1948 address to the State Bank of Pakistan. He propagated for 'evolving banking practices compatible with islamic ideas of social and economic life.' His attitude was the same for other institutions.

if by secularism you mean to take islamic principles out of the state functioning then Jinnah's speech doesnt support this notion.

Being a Muslim, what kind of food you eat? what kind of attire you don? what kind of principles do you observe in your dealings?

Similarly, a government run by the Muslims, could it be non-Islamic? or run on non-Islamic principles? You cannot make a government to function in Islamic way if a majority of its members are not practicing Muslims to begin with, and if they are, you do not have to tell them to run the government as per Islamic principles.

 

[ajpirzada]

Being a Muslim, what kind of food you eat? what kind of attire you don? what kind of principles do you observe in your dealings?

Similarly, a government run by the Muslims, could it be non-Islamic? or run on non-Islamic principles? You cannot make a government to function in Islamic way if a majority of its members are not practicing Muslims to begin with, and if they are, you do not have to tell them to run the government as per Islamic principles.

State institutions need rules and regulation according to which they function towards achieving a certain objective. All of these need to be (broadly) defined. You can't leave these at the mercy of the employees.
Indeed employees will determine how successfully those rules & regulations are implemented and to what extent is the objective achieved. However, it is counter intuitive to say that since success depends on the employees, therefore, we should abandon the rules & regulations.

 

[syedali73]

State institutions need rules and regulation according to which they function towards achieving a certain objective. All of these need to be (broadly) defined. You can't leave these at the mercy of the employees.
Indeed employees will determine how successfully those rules & regulations are implemented and to what extent is the objective achieved. However, it is counter intuitive to say that since success depends on the employees, therefore, we should abandon the rules & regulations.

I am not suggesting to abandon the rules but stressing that rules are according to the cultural norms and they bear the fruit only when you have educated people on how these rules benefit them. Just like Mohammed (PBUH) did in Madina, how Li did in Singapore etc. You know how long it took Mohammed (PBUH) to finally declare 'riba' unlawful? ONly during his last sermon. Similarly, the 'khumr' was not disallowed from the beginning. Introduction of laws is carried out together with education and training, and once it is completed successfully, only then laws are implemented.

Hazrat Ali has said "Kufr ki hukoomat qaayam reh sakti hey laikin zulm ki nahin". What we need at this point of time is justice, justice for all.

 

[ajpirzada]

I am not suggesting to abandon the rules but stressing that rules are according to the cultural norms and they bear the fruit only when you have educated people on how these rules benefit them. Just like Mohammed (PBUH) did in Madina, how Li did in Singapore etc. You know how long it took Mohammed (PBUH) to finally declare 'riba' unlawful? ONly during his last sermon. Similarly, the 'khumr' was not disallowed from the beginning. Introduction of laws is carried out together with education and training, and once it is completed successfully, only then laws are implemented.

Hazrat Ali has said "Kufr ki hukoomat qaayam reh sakti hey laikin zulm ki nahin". What we need at this point of time is justice, justice for all.

I have got no reservation with this. Neither am I suggesting that it wont take time. Nonetheless, State institutions should work towards achieving the welfare of the citizens in a way which is 'compatible with the islamic ideas of social and economic life.' This will require education both at the individual and institutional level. My contention with secularism vis-a-vis Pakistan is that secularism does not care about being compatible with 'islamic principles.' And no where do i find any evidence which may indicate that Jinnah wanted this for Pakistan.

 

[utraash]

Secularism in its pure form is way forward for any progressive society n it has no bearing of harbouring the moral values of a society.....
As a nation I will always prefer secular without any deformation over any other religious models......

 

[syedali73]

I have got no reservation with this. Neither am I suggesting that it wont take time. Nonetheless, State institutions should work towards achieving the welfare of the citizens in a way which is 'compatible with the islamic ideas of social and economic life.' This will require education both at the individual and institutional level. My contention with secularism vis-a-vis Pakistan is that secularism does not care about being compatible with 'islamic principles.' And no where do i find any evidence which may indicate that Jinnah wanted this for Pakistan.

It is because of the definition of secularism, which in our part of the world is not about giving religious freedom, but abandoning the religion altogether.

 

[ajpirzada]

It is because of the definition of secularism, which in our part of the world is not about giving religious freedom, but abandoning the religion altogether.

This maybe partly true. However, the secularist revolution in the west has a long history of political struggle between the Church State and the State. The result of this was the confinement of religion and religious principles at the individual level. This then is very consistent with what secularists in Pakistan wish for: confining religion at the individual level with the intent to remove the role of 'islamic principles' in the functioning of the state.

 

[Dubious]

Secularism in its pure form is way forward for any progressive society n it has no bearing of harbouring the moral values of a society.....
As a nation I will always prefer secular without any deformation over any other religious models......

Kindly do give me an example of a secular country in its true form...

Every secular country has kept Christmas as a holiday and Easter too...That has both pagan and Christian backing....

Every secular country is discriminating some of their people based either or race or colour - No humane upgrade there...

Every secular country is finding fault in immigrants but not in their own policies of attacking the countries from which the immigrants come - no moral upgrade there....

Every secular country still has their churches ringing their bells but god forbid azaan is heard, and also freedom to bash some religions is solely allowed while anything against another is discouraged and frowned upon! - dont see religious freedom upgraded in that...

Every secular country has angry people with bolted anger coz they either are discriminated, their religion/ colour is suppressed and it all comes out when a riot happens - I dont see that different from Pakistan

So explain to me again how is it preferred?

This maybe partly true. However, the secularist revolution in the west has a long history of political struggle between the Church State and the State. The result of this was the confinement of religion and religious principles at the individual level. This then is very consistent with what secularists in Pakistan wish for: confining religion at the individual level with the intent to remove the role of 'islamic principles' in the functioning of the state.

And we all see the results of such a move:

More end up in old people home
More end up on the street with drugs
More freedom for gays and lesbians as compared to immigrants who want nothing to do with the shit happening in the name of their religion or race!
More people are ok with drinking, smoking, getting obese and of course the casual sex
Adultery and fornication is no longer a crime
These are just a few degradation of moral ethics which some form of restrictions helps avoid!

 

[syedali73]

And we all see the results of such a move:

More end up in old people home
More end up on the street with drugs
More freedom for gays and lesbians as compared to immigrants who want nothing to do with the shit happening in the name of their religion or race!
More people are ok with drinking, smoking, getting obese and of course the casual sex
Adultery and fornication is no longer a crime
These are just a few degradation of moral ethics which some form of restrictions helps avoid!

And still everyone is heading towards those countries. Why?

Hazrat Ali said "Kufr ki hukoomat qayam reh sakti hey laikin zulm ki nahin".

I care least about a Islamic country, I need justice, I value meritocracy, the qualities not to be found in ANY so-called Islamic country.

 

[Dubious]

Adultery and fornication is no longer a crime

Read this as breaking a home and then equate it to soooo many studies on crimes linked to broken homes...

The only upgrade I see is in worse people with no understanding of morals and lacking every form of ethics....