Islamic Pakistan vs Secular India.

[TheLahoriGuy]

What the hell was the point of declaring independence if we are not to be an Islamic state?

Because originally when the idea of Pakistan was conceived it took Muslims and all other minorities into account. However as we pushed towards 1947 the claim to represent other minorities (politically) became pretty weak so only the idea of a Muslim state was taken forward. There's white in the flag for a reason. A land equal for all regardless of their beliefs. Such is not the case under Islamic Law.

 

[Suriya]

Secularism is dying a dogs death in india

You Pakistanis don't even understand secularism.
Your country was created on the basis of communalism .

 

[Hamza913]

Because originally when the idea of Pakistan was conceived it took Muslims and all other minorities into account. However as we pushed towards 1947 the claim to represent other minorities (politically) became pretty weak so only the idea of a Muslim state was taken forward. There's white in the flag for a reason. A land equal for all regardless of their beliefs. Such is not the case under Islamic Law.

Non Muslims can live in Islamic countries so long as their men pay Jizya. Nothing unequal about it, they pay taxes, and so do we. If anything, it's easier on non Muslims since they don't have mandatory conscription during times of war (same cannot be said for Muslims).

We are supposed to be an Islamic state first and foremost. If you don't believe that, go back to Hindustan.

Your country was created on the basis of communalism .

It was founded on the basis of Islam, and started when Qasim begun the 1000 year Muslim domination of the region.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Non Muslims can live in Islamic countries so long as their men pay Jizya. Nothing unequal about it, they pay taxes, and so do we. If anything, it's easier on non Muslims since they don't have mandatory conscription during times of war (same cannot be said for Muslims).

We are supposed to be an Islamic state first and foremost. If you don't believe that, go back to Hindustan.



It was founded on the basis of Islam, and started when Qasim begun the 1000 year Muslim domination of the region.

"They can live as long as they pay jizya" "Nothing unequal about it"
What about protection of religious rights ? They are non existant for non Muslims. For example there are 3 laws are against blasphemy for Muslims but only 1 for none Muslims and they can't even file the the report on their own. They can't have religious festivals in the streets or religious prayer in public. Slavery is allowed. Non-muslims are not allowed to hold senior positions in the government. Forget minorities, even if you're a Muslim not all Muslims will have the same rights eg man and woman.
So I have just 2 questions to ask you.
Are all humans considered equal in an Islamic state ?
Should all humans be considered equal ?

 

[Hamza913]

"They can live as long as they pay jizya" "Nothing unequal about it"
What about protection of religious rights ? They are non existant for non Muslims. For example there are 3 laws are against blasphemy for Muslims but only 1 for none Muslims and they can't even file the the report on their own. They can't have religious festivals in the streets or religious prayer in public. Slavery is allowed. Non-muslims are not allowed to hold senior positions in the government. Forget minorities, even if you're a Muslim not all Muslims will have the same rights eg man and woman.
So I have just 2 questions to ask you.
Are all humans considered equal in an Islamic state ?
Should all humans be considered equal ?

The law for blasphemy in Sharia is that blasphemy against Islam brings execution unless the individual apologises. As for somebody who blasphemes against another religion, the judge can decide the appropriate punishment (tazir). Remember, there needs to be appropriate evidence and the government makes the decision, not the people.

They can pray in their temples, and celebrate at whatever gatherings they create, so long as they aren't in the public space. Our country, our rules. Why should we even promote what we consider falsehood?

Slavery is only allowed for non Muslims you are at war with. If you have a treaty with them or they pay Jizya, there is no slavery. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you know perfectly well Islamic slavery is world's apart from regular slavery.

Non Muslims can't have senior positions because they don't believe in Islam, which would be the ideology of a state run by Sharia. Giving them senior positions is like letting a Communist run the US. It's illogical.

Pfft here we go again with the feminist crap. Bring me examples of what you mean by unfair treatment of women.

Perhaps equal was a poor term. Nobody is equal, we can all do some things better than others, and some things worse than others. We are each adapted to certain things, and should do them. But whatever we are not adapted to do, we should not do (unless there is a dire need for us to commit that action).

 

[SQ8]

Islamic majboor of Pakistan vs Jism ke Pyase Hindu India..

Correct title suggestion per current state of affairs these days.

 

[Lagay Raho]

We are nowhere near Islamic. Muslims by names only

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Perhaps equal was a poor term. Nobody is equal, we can all do some things better than others, and some things worse than others. We are each adapted to certain things, and should do them. But whatever we are not adapted to do, we should not do (unless there is a dire need for us to commit that action).

No ones talking about ability and adaptation. We're talking on a very simple level. Lets say there's 3 people, A Muslim man,A Muslim woman and a non-muslim man. Do all three of them have strictly equal rights ?

 

[Hamza913]

No ones talking about ability and adaptation. We're talking on a very simple level. Lets say there's 3 people, A Muslim man,A Muslim woman and a non-muslim man. Do all three of them have strictly equal rights ?

Nope, because they're not the same. The same people get equal rights, different people get different rights.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Nope, because they're not the same. The same people get equal rights, different people get different rights.

What is "same people" ? Aren't we all humans ? Should a difference in belief or a difference in belief put you below another human being ? Funny you were telling me to go to India I'd say you'd be accommodated there better with the caste system, unless you were born a shudra but then again it wouldnt be unfair because you and a price aren't the "same people".

 

[Hamza913]

What is "same people" ? Aren't we all humans ? Should a difference in belief or a difference in belief put you below another human being ? Funny you were telling me to go to India I'd say you'd be accommodated there better with the caste system, unless you were born a shudra but then again it wouldnt be unfair because you and a price aren't the "same people".

I was talking about the difference between men and women, we are biologically different and designed for different roles.

When it comes to Muslims and non Muslims, in an Islamic state, the non Muslim doesn't get the same rights because he doesn't believe in the same ideology as the state. Again, I'll use the example of a Communist in the US. It's an ideological difference, meaning it can change with time. It's not like racism which you're stuck with no matter what your ideals are.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

I was talking about the difference between men and women, we are biologically different and designed for different roles.

When it comes to Muslims and non Muslims, in an Islamic state, the non Muslim doesn't get the same rights because he doesn't believe in the same ideology as the state. Again, I'll use the example of a Communist in the US. It's an ideological difference, meaning it can change with time. It's not like racism which you're stuck with no matter what your ideals are.

So you would basically need to change your religion to obtain the same rights as every other person. That sounds quite alright.

As for the roles part I agree with that. Men and women are better suited to different social roles. But say something bad happened in your family (don't consider this a personal attack I just feel a personal example is easier to comprehend) and you had to take the matter into court. Do you think of your mother/sister as "lesser" beings and hence they're testimonies should be considered as half to yours ?

 

[Hamza913]

So you would basically need to change your religion to obtain the same rights as every other person. That sounds quite alright.

As for the roles part I agree with that. Men and women are better suited to different social roles. But say something bad happened in your family (don't consider this a personal attack I just feel a personal example is easier to comprehend) and you had to take the matter into court. Do you think of your mother/sister as "lesser" beings and hence they're testimonies should be considered as half to yours ?

It's not just about religion, it's ideology. Would the US allow a Communist to have a senior position in the government? Of course not, their ideals oppose that of the state. Same rule applies here.

As for the women's testimony, it's worth less in certain circumstances such as financial transactions, but likewise, there are certain circumstances where the man's testimony is worth less than that of a women. Under most circumstances, the testimonies are worth the same.

 

[SabzShaheen]

“In any case Pakistan is NOT going to be a theocratic State – to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims – Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are ALL Pakistanis. They will enjoy the SAME rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Every single damn secularist quotes this. Do you even know the whole quote? Google it. Jinnah says that it will be an Islamic state but it will not be run by mullahs

 

[baajey]

why compare when its already decided that islamic pak is much much better than (presently pseudo) secular india.
the OP didnt bother to look into the past before declaring his own version of verdict.
....and what about a million cases discarded in pak due to absence of 4 witnesses (DNA tests are not given a minimum credibility in such cases).
so historically (1947 onwards), india is much better placewhen it comes to sentencing.
good to see zainab killers will be dealt with appropriately, but one case doesnt equate pak system with india's.