Officially becoming a secular liberal person

[Multani]

well what really made want a secular pakistan is all this terrorism.
clearly its a result of this. our kids in pakistan are brought up brain washed.
if they were brought up with open minds then terrorism wouldn't be a big problem.

well, the seculars have murdered more people in the past century, then all of humanity added together.

Ayo. This @RazPaK. I am banned from the forum, and was not planning on replying here even after.

But after reading this peanut butter jelly shit from you tonight, I got one thing to say.

You a bitch *** nigga. Bitch made pussy *** hindu nigga. Islam means nothing to you? Pakistan means nothing to you? Then why your folks chose Pakistan instead of slum dog/call center central?

Pussy *** nigga. Ayo holla at me, I got real Gujjar niggas in the tri-state that would hang your pussy nigga *** for claiming Gujjar.

Don't reply to this message, as I will never use this account again.

If I come back, I will come back as RazPak.

You ain't with your country. Good. Another bitch made nigga bites the dust.

I will be in tri-state next week

 

[TruthSeeker]

You can be secular without being "liberal" in the sense of being a progressive or a socialist.

 

[Multani]

dude wtf
I'm still a muslim now lol.
i just want islam to be our state religion i want complete secularism in our government.


its just too much shit to write down here lol.

what does complete secularism mean?

 

[he-man]

No one can become as secular, or liberal like me.

chal oye...........never count he-man out

 

[Multani]

You can be secular without being "liberal" in the sense of being a progressive or a socialist.

or a neo-con

i am a muslims and i love my religion.
but i don't want it mixed with politics, pakistan, saudi arabia, iran the way they are right now are pushing people away from islam more every day.
i believe every human should be able to grow up to live how they want. life after all is a test by allah correct? how is it fair on people if islam is forced onto our christians? wouldn't they be allowed to live how they want? if i want to eat in ramadan i should be able to without getting beat up by police. its my life its my test i should be able to take it how i want.

the problem is that you don't understand that the rulers in Saudi and iran are dictators supported by the secular west to alienate the populations fro islam, like you said, and so are the feudals ruling Pakistan

All that the media concentrates on is demonizing innocent Islam the trick to which you have fallen.

bro watch your language.
this is the fucking problem right here.
this is the fucking mentality that really pushed me away from being a damn conservative
you fucking people are so closed minded.
being secular doesn't mean I'm a kafir or something. I'm a muslim.
what the hell is wrong with making pakistan like america?
what hell is wrong with having the same laws?
your insecure bro.
islam doesn't need pakistan to defend it. islam will thrive. islam is a personal matter to me. don't get me wrong but pakistan as country is a mess because of mullahs. I'm fucking sick of this bs every fucking day dozens of people are dying because of these fucking monkeys with ak 47.
being a gujjar has nothing to do with islam.
castes are haram don't forget.
there are hindu gujjars out there as well.

the country is not mess because of Mullahs. Country is mess because of corrupt politicians and feudals, who use mullas to play around with the religious sentiments of the overwhelmingly religious Pakistanis. Not just Muslims, even Christian and hindu Pakistanis.

 

[SQ8]

Simple, in a Shariah law, can a non Muslim be head of the State, your Khalifah/ xyz?
If not, then I cannot support such a system.

There is no provision for the head of state status in the Quran.. The Sharia in the Quran has no specifications for it.
The rest is all inference and nothing more.

If the state is a Muslim state by majority then it makes sense to have one leader FROM the majority. And this is from a purely religious perspective and nothing to do with race or caste or otherwise.
However, that also implies that Muslims would prefer a leader from their community as a head of state.. and by head of state we do not infer the rather ceremonial role given to presidents in our parliamentary system but that of the Prime minister. This begs the question, why is a non-muslim not allowed to lead an Islamic state(whose concept is still totally unclear as all interpretations of it are drawn from 6th century Arabia till the next 100 years or so..after which the system deteriorated into the usual dynastic system). So if it truly was a "perfect" system for all times then it would have lasted much longer than this; giving the impression that leadership has more of a role in a Sharia state than the system derived from it. Hence the system itself has never been "set in stone" and can evolve to meet the times.

Then lets reassess whether there is anything as such as a "shariah" state? Or is the idea of the Sharia laws being confused with a state. Sure, laws form the constitution of the state but you cannot run a state only on civil law. You need to have a definition of a system and how it is to be run, be it a dynasty, a democracy, a dictatorship and so on. The only condition laid down in the Quran for all these system of rule are that of ensuring that the Shariat (for a layman examples of behaviour and repercussions for transgression) are followed in this system.

So what then is the whole hullabullo about the Islamic state and the system. Well, in essence the idea of Pakistan was the Islamic state. The laws of Shariah were to be integrated for the Muslims while the rest of the minority had existing civil laws. The democratic parliament with its electoral system would ensure that 3-4 cycles later the people would eventually learn to elect competent leadership. The 73 constitution was tainted by the Mullahs from the get go for their own gain, but essentially is a well defined structure for the running of a Muslim majority state as the Muslims of the Pakistan area wished according to the times(Level of literacy, poverty, access to welfare etc). If these conditions change, then the system has to evolve with it.
The legistature should in theory ensure that.
However, the democratic system has one essential flaw. It only throws out the average of the population and favors the shrewd. Their intentions are essentially irrelevant in the systems ideals until or unless public information and awareness along with the will to govern themsleves exists. For the reigion that is Pakistan which has generally been under feudal or princely rule.. this is difficult to extract within a 100 years, let alone 67 without the leadership of the intellectuals of the society who can create or wield power. Since the last items role has been sketchy as best, the result is clear to see.

One then asks, how is Pakistan and its systems and its story still relevant to the basic question of Shariah and its role?
Well, the story of Pakistan is essentially an exemplar as to why at the end.. regardless of the well natured and well meaning non-muslims who have assisted Muslims from the time of the Prophet; Muslims are the only ones who can only ever truly be sincere AND be completely in sync with the wishes of the Muslims at the same time. Be it the Khilafat movement, or the Congress government in the 30s... time has proven that despite the well wishes of many Muslim and non-Muslim leaders to crate a United state and maintain the Unity of the inhabitants of the subcontinent, it is impossible to satisfy a significant majority and a significant minority at the same time especially where the issues of religious tolerance and that of a lack of education is concerned(although recent behaviour of Internet Hindus in the 2014 elections shows that education makes little difference in tolerance). Essentially, Muslims on the whole want what suits them, Hindus will want what suits them.. and bobs your uncle. That begs the question, look at the Sikhs..they seem to be happy either way.. or did I miss 1984. But then, I did not miss the level of integration and respect that is given to Sikhs post partition(and except for the brief period in 80s) the Sikh community was not prosecuted by targeted means by a section representing the majority nor is it complaining of defaced worship areas or murdered computer technicians in Pune.

How is that even relevant to the question again? Well, each of these cases shows that regardless of the good intentions of a Muslim or a Non-Muslim in a Islamic state, each will not be best able to represent the aspirations and ideals of the community of the other with true cohesion or connection, without being either demonized by their community or even that of those they represent. Gandhi never truly connected with the idea of Khilafat movement as he perceived it differently.
Which is why, a non-Muslim, regardless of their intent and education in Islamic theology; will never be able to connect or be accepted by Muslims in many issues, the same way someone like Zakir Naik will never be taken seriously even if he goes all out defending Hinduism in some context.

But that is the aspect of religion, what about the aspect of statehood, of diplomacy and so on. Well, one has to realize that as the concept of the state's system is fluid, so is the idea of the leadership. It may have one decision maker, but it does not mean that his decision comes from whatever he wishes. Perhaps the idea of Plato's republic may suit a state like Pakistan best. After all, experience shows that a dictatorship or an answerable to no one leadership has failed miserably in Pakistan and led to ruin;yet the same seems to be working well in Oman. This brings me back to the point I raised in my first paragraph. The system is only as good as the leadership it begets, and that leadership is what makes the system work well. One can then cite as a refute that countries such as the US and other states have leadership from different communities and find good representation..but Ill ask this then, why did Obama receive a large percentage of the african american vote? What was the deciding factor in their voting ideals?

In conclusion then(or rather not), the idea of a non-muslim ruling a Muslim state has less to do with Sharia, and more to do with Human nature. India would form a large "I object" to this theory with the previous government with a Sikh PM, but the 2014 elections and the resounding behaviour of the largest religious community seems to belie that and support that facet of human nature: that you will always look for someone that represents your best interests from your own kin.

Disclaimer: I may be wrong in my opinion, but then my opinion is open to educated corrections and not copy paste rhetoric.

 

[he-man]

Religion is the biggest bullshit of all times,all are same.

The early u realize there is no god,there never was the better...................the universe runs on the laws of physics.

 

[jaunty]

A person can not be secular. It is a state concept, not individual. But I understand what you mean and it is a good start. We were always taught to respect other religions as children and told that there was not one single way to reach the almighty. I wish more people were taught that notion.

 

[Multani]

razfag dont hate. just because all pakistanis abroad don't have that mentality of living in a free land while propagating their sharia crap, doesn't mean u gotta make an account to change qamar's mind lol. you and your butt lover zarvan are burning out of your asses

all these Indians are on PDF and in thread because of their insecurities. They are mostly trolls.

 

[he-man]

all these Indians are on PDF and in thread because of their insecurities. They are mostly trolls.

yup and u are the most intelligent person here judging others

 

[Multani]

distorting Islam is favourit hobby of Indian Hindu majority so indeed you will allow even fake prophets if anyone claims even today. this is NOT secularism.

as far as ceremonial posts are concerned it has nothing to do with secularism but a facepalm Indian applies to act like "secular"

the idea of these hindus is perennialism. This is their historic habit. That is why they say their pagan religion is not organized.

They say Sikhs and budhists are hidus too, but failed o assimilate Muslims into their pantheon. So they resort to violence.

Muslims are still afforded the right to worship, Hindus are, Buddhists are, Even pagans are.

The West is by no means perfect, they have huge faults of themselves too. But through their secular outlook they have built themselves a society the majority of Pakistanis and indians want to live in.

This is not to condone the extremist side.

But when you take into account Hindutva groups, Islamist outfits, the West comes off as better.

@qamar1990 is still a Muslim, he just has a different opinion about what role religion should play in society.

Just as I believe religion should be confined to people's private lives. Spirituality and religion should be personal quests for the truth.

in islam, hindus and budhists are considered pagans because they are idol worshippers

Exactly it isn't Islam to begin with .
Because in this world corrupt and power hungry people will to continue to exist , that is reality and they will use any means possible to justify their cause including religion , they will never spare it and in doing so they won't even stop at corrupting their own religion . That is the primary reason not to mix religion with politics because power corrupts.By Bringing religion into politics you risk corrupting your religion to extremes the kind we see in Pakistan today .

Muslims need a Muslim leader. That is understood. The Muslim leader has to appeal to his audience by not being a hypocrite [ live by God's law ]

 

[he-man]

the idea of these hindus is perennialism. This is their historic habit. That is why they say their pagan religion is not organized.

They say Sikhs and budhists are hidus too, but failed o assimilate Muslims into their pantheon. So they resort to violence.




in islam, hindus and budhists are considered pagans because they are idol worshippers

who gives a **** if i worship my sperm or an idol??
its my choice man

 

[Multani]

hindustanis are not secular when it comes to vegetables ...

in Haryana, they talk about killing Muslims just because Muslims eat meat

It is the practice By which a Shiite Mujtahid(Lawmaker) is empowered to establish a law by use of intellect (common sense whatever suits you) only without finding any similarity or relation in Quran and Sunnah.

The Twelver Shiite Mujtahid, makes use of Usool of Deen, when using common sense.

Law is NOT made among the Shiites based on human whims

 

[he-man]

in Haryana, they talk about killing Muslims just because Muslims eat meat



The Twelver Shiite Mujtahid, makes use of Usool of Deen, when using common sense.

Law is NOT made among the Shiites based on human whims

have u gone crazy??
at least 50-60 percent of hindus are non veg in india

 

[Joe Shearer]

qamar sit back and think over what is best for you

we are nobodies to criticise your personal decision BUT i feel we do have right to comment on things when our faith and nation is talked about



Indian version of secularism demand that you should abuse Islam

Now this is getting beyond confused.

All this while, various Hindutvavadi storm-troopers have been accusing me/us/Indian secularists of sucking up to Islam.

Now I'm told I should be abusing Islam instead.

Would someone read the script and tell me my real lines?

in Haryana, they talk about killing Muslims just because Muslims eat meat



The Twelver Shiite Mujtahid, makes use of Usool of Deen, when using common sense.

Law is NOT made among the Shiites based on human whims

That is completely insane. I can't believe what I'm reading.