Islamic Pakistan vs Secular India.

[Jackdaws]

He shouldn't have been released, in my opinion his attack should have been classified as terrorism, not murder. Same with serial killers.

These types of things should only happen if someone has killed only one person, and is unlikely to do it again. Even then, I think he should serve jail time.

I agree with you that this case was messed up, but I don't disagree with the law in general. I just think it needs a major remodification.

Fair enough.

And what's your take on -

1. Hanging of ZA Bhutto

2. Conviction of Nawaz Sharif on hijacking charge

And when I say "your take" - I mean the general feeling in Pakistan.

 

[Hamza913]

Fair enough.

And what's your take on -

1. Hanging of ZA Bhutto

2. Conviction of Nawaz Sharif on hijacking charge

Don't have much of an opinion tbh.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Neither Pakistan Islamic nor India secular

 

[M. Sarmad]

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

And every single damn proponent of Islamist State quotes selective parts and word "Islam" from Jinnah's speeches but then every single one of them conveniently ignores Jinnah's understanding/interpretation and explanation of Islamic Socialism and Democracy ... Jinnah believed that (and in his own words) Islam believed in absolute equality of mankind and that Non Muslims would have the same rights and privileges as Muslims in Pakistan ....



1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" (In Jinnah's own words)... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were/are diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed was the "true spirit" of Islam, that was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah's interpretation/understanding of Islam with Mullahs' (which is opposite to Jinnah's interpretation) ... As a result, one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular)

 

[I.R.A]

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

What does separation of Church from state ...... means in context of Pakistan? Is it separation of clergy and their shops? Or is it plain and clear statement that only man made law would be implemented and followed and no guidance from immutable divine law in form of Quran would be sought?

Were Sir Syed, Iqbal and Jinnah willing to go to that extent? Or they knew that an Islamic concept has been brilliantly painted infidel ...... to repel the Muslims and keep them confused?