No One Can Seperate Islam and Pakistan: Gen. Kayani

[Seadog1]

i think most Pakistanis --especially the educated and also elite classes -- are pseudo-secular in one way or the other.

its mostly the rural areas and some of the middle-class where people tend to be more conservative --even though there are exceptions to this too.

I think thats the same everywhere.

 

[M_Saint]

thank you for an intelligent and well thought out and researched response,,but from what I read it seems some prefer a religious vs a 'secular goverment,,, but no where do I see anything that an any way says that a religious society and goverment functions better then a secular one. In some ways they do though, for example there seems to be far less drug use and crime in Islamic countries....

You're welcome and you don't see religious society & GOVT functioning better than secular one because it hardly exists, although there are some societies more religious than others. Obviously Saudi and Iranian's examples could be brought here but those are not purely Khilaphats either. But still, morally much better than Western societies, at least on the surface.

 

[Moorkh]

You're welcome and you don't see religious society & GOVT functioning better than secular one because it hardly exists, although there are some societies more religious than others. Obviously Saudi and Iranian's examples could be brought here but those are not purely Khilaphats either. But still, morally much better than Western societies, at least on the surface.

let me get this straight. you are saying :
1) we cant compare religious governments and secular governments because the former doesnt exist
2) the religious government might be better if they existed
3) Iran and Saudi Arabia are examples of partly religious governments and they have a high moral standing.

1a)> it is unfortunate that i have to pick the example of taliban. they enforced their interpretation of islamic law as strictly as they could. so religious governments did exist.

2)> let us try to ponder the reason as to why religious governments dont exist. one reason that comes to mind is that trying to form one will be too difficult. creating a religious government might promote isolationism of the country and increase social and economic stresses.
many of the religions do not actively define political laws. i have studied hinduism so i can tell that at least in that religion there are no set laws as to how the country should be and the few that exist are out dated.

3) even the two examples of iran and KSA that you said were the closest we have to a religious government are not doing very well. one has tonnes of sanctions on it and the other is totally dependent on other countries for its well being. I dont see how becoming more religious would help either of them. then there is the over used example of taliban.

 

[Bhaarat]

i have studied hinduism so i can tell that at least in that religion there are no set laws as to how the country should be and the few that exist are out dated.

Hinduism does set rules politically, socially, morally and in other ways. It is just that its followers have abandoned most of the rules because they have come to the conclusion that they are 'out-dated'. This is the difference between Hinduism and Islam. Islam also sets rules(like many other religions), but its followers do not consider it as 'out-dated'. There could be both advantages and disadavantages of rigorously sticking with the rules set by the religion, similarly there could be advantages and disadvantages of abandoning them. Ultimately, balance is needed.

 

[waraich66]

Hinduism does set rules politically, socially, morally and in other ways. It is just that its followers have abandoned most of the rules because they have come to the conclusion that they are 'out-dated'. This is the difference between Hinduism and Islam. Islam also sets rules(like many other religions), but its followers do not consider it as 'out-dated'. There could be both advantages and disadavantages of rigorously sticking with the rules set by the religion, similarly there could be advantages and disadvantages of abandoning them. Ultimately, balance is needed.

Islam is complete way of life ,provide us guidance on every aspect of life and there is not a single disadvantage to follow fundametals of Islam .Holy Quran is in Single version even after 1400 years .

 

[Bhaarat]

Islam is complete way of life ,provide us guidance on every aspect of life and there is not a single disadvantage to follow fundametals of Islam .Holy Quran is in Single version even after 1400 years .

Well, I will not comment on that, anyway, there are different versions of Islam prevalent today: Wahabism, Deobandi,...etc.

There are different sects in Islam: Sunni, Shia, Ahmedia, ...etc.

So, if there is only one version of Islam which is correct then the others must be wrong. Now, each one claims the other is unislamic. So, who is the right Islam? Who decides?

Also, another angle here: TTP is asking for Sharia in Swat(and then in rest of Pakistan). Pakistan claims that it is an Islamic republic, then why is Pakistan(PA) not implementing Sharia? Does Pakistan(PA) think that Sharia is out-dated?

There are several questions that arise from your assertion. If a satisfied answer is not found(which has not been found as yet), then one can only say that we have to disagree with your claim about your religion which, perhaps, stems from your deep respect for it and nothing more.

 

[Moorkh]

Hinduism does set rules politically, socially, morally and in other ways. It is just that its followers have abandoned most of the rules because they have come to the conclusion that they are 'out-dated'. This is the difference between Hinduism and Islam. Islam also sets rules(like many other religions), but its followers do not consider it as 'out-dated'. There could be both advantages and disadavantages of rigorously sticking with the rules set by the religion, similarly there could be advantages and disadvantages of abandoning them. Ultimately, balance is needed.

care to provide any source for these rules and laws?

i can take the case of vedic morality here. it simply boils down to "a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do". it says that every individual has a specific moral path laid out for her.that she should perform her duties. it however does not tell what that path is or what those duties are.

in other texts it does mention that doing certain things is good. but it is not said that it should be done without fail. attributes are given to ideal characters but even those characters are flawed. infact most of the heroes in hindu mythology are flawed characters. be it lord ram and his treatment of sita or shivji's anger. the texts talk about piousness and devotion to god but in reference to specific exceptional characters and not being pious is not taken to be a negative, infact most of the characters are devoid of such exceptional attributes.

we have the example of yudhishtir who is famous for being truthful and on the other hand you have sri krishna who decieves over and over. so in this example being truthful is a good thing but not being truthful does not necessarily makke u a bad person.


infact almost anything except mal-intent is acceptable in hindu mythology. hence can not use it to form a religious state.

 

[Bhaarat]

care to provide any source for these rules and laws?

i can take the case of vedic morality here. it simply boils down to "a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do". it says that every individual has a specific moral path laid out for her.that she should perform her duties. it however does not tell what that path is or what those duties are.

in other texts it does mention that doing certain things is good. but it is said that it should be done. attributes are given to ideal characters but even those characters are flawed. infact most of the heroes in hindu mythology are flawed characters. be it lord ram and his treatment of sita or shivji's anger. the texts talk about piousness and devotion to god but in reference to specific exceptional characters and not being pious is not taken to be a negative, infact most of the characters are devoid of such exceptional attributes.

we have the example of yudhishtir who is famous for being truthful and on the other hand you have sri krishna who decieves over and over. so in this example being truthful is a good thing but not being truthful does not necessarily makke u a bad person.


infact almost anything except mal-intent is acceptable in hindu mythology. hence can not use it to form a religious state.

You are way out of line here, sir. I think you need to study your books better and perhaps take help from some one who is scholar. I think your conclusions are not based on extensive study but merely on superficial study. Hindu books(four vedas, eighteen puranas, upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, and many more books written by Rishis) lay out extensive rules for a man's life. Their detail is mind-boggling. As for the source, I dont think this is the appropriate thread nor I believe that net is the right place for that. I urge you to get in touch with some scholar/Guru to gain more knowledge.

BTW, vedas are considered an enormous literature that have deep meanings in terms of knowledge, to summarise it that way you did is extremely naive and downright foolish.

Finally, Krishna did not deceive or lie in his life(atleast, the books never point in that direction). Yudhishter was famous for justice, not truth. Dont confuse the two. Harishchandra was famous for truth.

 

[waraich66]

Well, I will not comment on that, anyway, there are different versions of Islam prevalent today: Wahabism, Deobandi,...etc.

There are different sects in Islam: Sunni, Shia, Ahmedia, ...etc.

So, if there is only one version of Islam which is correct then the others must be wrong. Now, each one claims the other is unislamic. So, who is the right Islam? Who decides?

Also, another angle here: TTP is asking for Sharia in Swat(and then in rest of Pakistan). Pakistan claims that it is an Islamic republic, then why is Pakistan(PA) not implementing Sharia? Does Pakistan(PA) think that Sharia is out-dated?

There are several questions that arise from your assertion. If a satisfied answer is not found(which has not been found as yet), then one can only say that we have to disagree with your claim about your religion which, perhaps, stems from your deep respect for it and nothing more.

You dont have basic knowledge of Islamic principles , better read Holy Quran and Hadith books (Bukari, Muslim,Trimzi ) all available with english translation.

All muslim have no differences in five pillars of Islam Qalma,namaz,Haj,Zakat, Salah.

Shia Sunni Ahle Hadees have only differences on few hadees only .

Qadiani sect not considered muslim by all muslims(shia,sunni,Ahlehadees) .

All Pakistanis wanted sharia in Pakistan which is written in our constitution but TTP wanted shariah law by use of power which is wrong and against islmic teachings.

For example if GOP immdeiately implement intrest and tax free economy whole government machinery will be paralised, it should be implemented in different phases.

Family shariah law can be implemented so already shariah courts are working as per shariah law.

I hope answered your questions.

 

[Bhaarat]

All muslim have no differences in five pillars of Islam Qalma,namaz,Haj,Zakat, Salah.

Shia Sunni Ahle Hadees have only differences on few hadees only .

Then what about different versions, sir, like wahabbism, deobandi, nashbandi...and such other versions?

Also, if as you claim Islam is a complete way of life, then how can one sect differ from the other on any aspect and remain Islamic? If Shias and Sunnis differ on a certain aspect or interpretation of Koran or Hadith, then only one of them can be right. Then the other one is wrong. The one who is wrong is not following Islamic, according to you. So, only one sect: Shia, Sunni,...etc can be Islamically correct and hence proper muslims. The others are unislamic(according to your initial assertion).

Qadiani sect not considered muslim by all muslims(shia,sunni,Ahlehadees) .

Because they disagree with the rest of muslims on certain aspects? Again the question arises, who decides who is muslim and who is not? Other muslims? Who decides that other muslims are muslims enough to judge a fellow muslim? I hope, you are getting my point.

All Pakistanis wanted sharia in Pakistan which is written in our constitution but TTP wanted shariah law by use of power which is wrong and against islmic teachings.

For example if GOP immdeiately implement intrest and tax free economy whole government machinery will be paralised, it should be implemented in different phases.


But GOP did not promise of implementation of Sharia in Pakistan in one phase or different phases! If entire Pakistan wanted sharia, then implementing it immediately or atleast starting the first phase was not difficult. Why did no such thing happened?

Family shariah law can be implemented so already shariah courts are working as per shariah law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it started only after TTP's agitation, right?

 

[waraich66]

=Bhaarat;573582]Then what about different versions, sir, like wahabbism, deobandi, nashbandi...and such other versions?

These are not versions but known as schools of thought, which is healthy sign based on research work done by different muhadiseen.

Also, if as you claim Islam is a complete way of life, then how can one sect differ from the other on any aspect and remain Islamic? If Shias and Sunnis differ on a certain aspect or interpretation of Koran or Hadith, then only one of them can be right. Then the other one is wrong. The one who is wrong is not following Islamic, according to you. So, only one sect: Shia, Sunni,...etc can be Islamically correct and hence proper muslims. The others are unislamic(according to your initial assertion).

All sects have no difference on five basic pillars of islam as stated above , for example all muslims perform five times salah few perform little earlier some perform with fifteen minutes difference of time , so both are right.

Because they disagree with the rest of muslims on certain aspects? Again the question arises, who decides who is muslim and who is not? Other muslims? Who decides that other muslims are muslims enough to judge a fellow muslim? I hope, you are getting my point.

I told you about five basic principles or pillars of Islam , who ever believe on these five principles or pillars of islam is a true muslim, no one has authority to declare any believer of five pillars of islam as non muslim.

But GOP did not promise of implementation of Sharia in Pakistan in one phase or different phases! If entire Pakistan wanted sharia, then implementing it immediately or atleast starting the first phase was not difficult. Why did no such thing happened?

It is responsibility of national assembly to implement shaiah law and convert tax and intrest laws prepared by british rulers into shariah law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it started only after TTP's agitation, right?

Shariah family courts are working from Gen Zia era.JI and JUI were demanding change in the old british laws related to taxation,banking,insurance etc into islamic shariah laws from last sixty years , unfortunately no government has taken this issue seriously.

 

[Bhaarat]

These are not versions but known as schools of thought, which is healthy sign based on research work done by different muhadiseen.

If there only one Islam, how come different schools? That was my question, please answer that point.

All sects have no difference on five basic pillars of islam as stated above , for example all muslims perform five times salah few perform little earlier some perform with fifteen minutes difference of time , so both are right.

But you asserted that Islam is a complete way of life, isnt it? If one muslim(shia) follows one way of life, and another muslim(sunni) follows another way of life, then who is following the correct Islam? That was my doubt.

I told you about five basic principles or pillars of Islam , who ever believe on these five principles or pillars of islam is a true muslim, no one has authority to declare any believer of five pillars of islam as non muslim.

Ok. Then TTP is also Islamic, isnt it? No one can declare them as Unislamic.

It is responsibility of national assembly to implement shaiah law and convert tax and intrest laws prepared by british rulers into shariah law.

Alright.

Shariah family courts are working from Gen Zia era.JI and JUI were demanding change in the old british laws related to taxation,banking,insurance etc into islamic shariah laws from last sixty years , unfortunately no government has taken this issue seriously.

Thanx for that clarification. But that shows that either Pakistan(its rulers) is not islamic enough or considers sharia as unsuitable.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Then what about different versions, sir, like wahabbism, deobandi, nashbandi...and such other versions?

Orthodox, the Catholic and the Protestant churches and then blacks churches , Greek churches etc are all Types of Christianity and so in Islam their are different school of thoughts but basic rules are the same.

by the way which cast of Hindu are you? Athravans, Rathaestha, Vastriya, or artisans

 

[Bhaarat]

Orthodox, the Catholic and the Protestant churches and then blacks churches , Greek churches etc are all Types of Christianity and so in Islam their are different school of thoughts but basic rules are the same.

If you are saying that Islam has many versions like Christianity has or other religions have. Then I have no problem agreeing with you. I was only sceptical about Fundamentalist's assertion of Islam being a complete way of life. Thanx for clarifying.

by the way which cast of Hindu are you? Athravans, Rathaestha, Vastriya, or artisans

None of them. Also I have not heard of them. Maybe, you got those names wrong or perhaps they are sub-castes(its caste not cast). There are many sub-castes within a caste. These castes differ from place to place in India. BTW, may I know why you are asking my Caste(because if it is relavent to discussion, I have no problem revealing it)?

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Brahman Harijan Shudra Vaishya Kshatriya are all Hindus but why by birth they are divide ?