Pakistan should be a Secular State

[Abu Zolfiqar]

The problem right now is, that Pakistan cannot be secular in its law or statecraft because that time passed in 56 with the first constitution. Perhaps secularism is not for us at all and I am of that view. However, neither were the principles of Islamic state implemented since we have tainted religious ideologies running amok(as is VERY visible in this forum). There is no point in going into history and blaming others because they have very cleverly extracted themselves from the situations and removed themselves from any equation that would lead to them if the common denominator is searched for.
At this point, we have to accept that Mohammad Ali Jinnah's idea of Pakistan is dead, bones rusted and gone. What must be looked into is make doing with what we have and how to best improve upon this with a large chuck of our population directly or indirectly in support of murderers and thieves.(Be it glorifying militants or suppressing the rights of others).



You are talking about a nation where people refuse to take accountability for their actions and instead put all blame on god.

well, times have changed.....if you look at the broad spectrum --- countries like Egypt or Pakistan -- 1950s was worlds away from the countries we see today.

whatever is the will of the masses is what should implemented. Now obviously Pakistan was founded as a country primarily for Muslims (and non-Muslims of course who would be welcome and free to practice). A lot will agree you cant seperate Islam and Pakistan.

But for those who belong to the Shariah camp - do we have a consensus on what is Shariah and Shariah law? I dont think we do.

I dont want the name of my religion to be tarnished by intolerant people who think it's necessary to have blasphemy laws and to label certain groups as certified Muslims and certain sect as non Muslim. We dont need that kind of stuff.

I'd vote for a Pluralistic Democratic Pakistan - Neither Secular nor Islamist, where someone as exceptional as Justice Rana Bhagwandas could become the President of Pakistan but at the same time our State Bank would be allowed, as per the mandate it was given by our Quaid, to evolve a system of economics that is inline with the principals of Islam !

I believe in Pluralism, Democracy & Islamic Paradigms (should we wish it) - the crux of every single one of the Quaid's & Iqbal's speeches since they became associated with the Pakistan Movement including his 11th August Speech & the Allama's the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.

I do believe that both the advocates of an Islamic State & those of a Secular State assume beyond what the contents of any of what the Quaid & Iqbal said mandated & most of the time, many, define Secularism in a manner that Holly Oakes would probably find woefully inadequate & likewise Islamism in a way that even the Koran wouldn't be able to agree with !

' @Dance @Oscar @Chak Bamu @Aeronaut @Hyperion @Secur @Abu Zolfiqar

Beautiful post.....great points my man

 

[Secur]

@Dance

You have left nothing more for me to add .

 

[OrionHunter]

Would you please post link for that......as per my knowledge the narrative of quote is different

Para 3 of 'overview' here...Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[d-fence]

I dont understand why the Islamic republics don't follow the Caliph system. That is the only true form of Islamic governance - as it is ordained by the muslim god. Anything else is really cannot be called "islamic".

When we don't understand something there are basically two choices:

1. Either we haven't fully understood it or understood it wrongly.

2. There is in fact something wrong with the matter at hand.

Who or what is a caliph system, and whether that is ordained by God or not is a matter open to debate. There is no Quranic verse that established a clear constitutional method of how to form government.

What is made clear is that we have to live by Islamic law (which is open to debate, what that exactly is or isn't, for instance, the vast majority of "fiqh" was created by scholars long after the Prophet (peace be upon him)).

What is clear is tyrannical rule and injustice is against Islam.

What is clear is that the government is to serve the people, not the people serving a despot.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough. Quaid established a department to deal with this problem called the Department of Islamic Reconstruction. This department was sidelined after he passed away but the head of the department has CLEARLY layed out what should be done. The only confusion is being created by people who don't like that solution; i.e. secularist elite / traditional ulema.

 

[d-fence]

@Aeronaut

I would have answered some of the points , in your post if I wasn't low on time , at the moment .

But for the moment , let us just ask the question ' Why , any Islamic party with an Islamic agenda in Pakistan hasn't been able to win the elections by a majority/near-majority/total majority/majority required to legislate in the last 60 years - the last being most prominent since only by that , can they get their idealist system implemented through a democratic way in this country but only piggybacked on other liberal parties/army/dictatorships ? What does that tell us about the thinking of a common Pakistani - barring the ' influence ' for a moment I talked earlier in my post here - assuming everyone is voting freely without any pressure or influence ?

Let me take a quick stab at the question of why Islamic parties have not won elections.

First let me qualify myself. I started thinking about this in the winter of 2001, about this great divide between the "religious type" and the "secular type" in Pakistani society. I've spent the last 12 years pondering and researching about this. In the beginning I blamed the West, (like so many Muslims do). And the first book I ever wrote was all about how to counter the West.

But as I delved further, I realized that the biggest problem was within. I'm presently in my final year doing a PhD in Islamic Studies related to Islamic Civilization. In my researches I've found that, in the simplest terms:

If the Ummah was a boxer, and he keeps losing fight after fight, he can either blame his opponents or he can look in the mirror.

However, the Ummah largely fails to look in the mirror. Instead we blame everything and everybody. We live in denial.

Coming back to why the "Islamic type" fails to "win elections" or win anything for that matter. Logically there can be two options:

1. Something is wrong with Islam which makes them backward. Maybe Islam is not an effective solution for today. OR

2. There is something wrong with how they interpreted Islam, that they may have distorted it in the last 1400 years or so.

Essentially, these are then two camps: the "Reformist" who holds to point #2, and the "Modernist" or "Secularist" who holds to hypothesis #1.

 

[truthlover]

I was a Marxist-Lennist in my youth & I still have warm feelings towards a certain kind of Socialism !

I am also impressed by the idea of communism and their great history but the problem with communism is that there is no religious freedom.I lived and studied in russia for 1 year and that complete god less and alcoholic atheist society didn't attract me at all.
Being secular and being atheist are two different things

 

[krash]

Jinnah's ideological mentor was Iqbal who was not a secularist, nor did Jinnah at any oceasion mention the word 'secularism'. The Aug 7th speech , Pakistani secularists babble so much about, doesn't exist anywhere in its audio visual form, except the texts that are prone to manipulation and distortion. There is no evidence of the Aug the 7th speech by Jinnah. On the contrary, Jinnah wanted an 'Egalitarian Islamic Democracy' which will be an inclusive state, which should explain the references to the protection of minorities and so on.

Although there are more than just one quote of Mr. Jinnah's on the structure of Pakistan but I will give you something else which we are never really told.

Mr. Jinnah was out-rightly against the Khilafat movement. Why? Because it brought religiosity into the mix of Indian politics. Before that, when he was in congress, he advised Gandhi not to use religiously Hindu analogies, metaphors and examples. It was only in the end against the religiously charged Hindu majority that he reluctantly let his followers use religious slogans in order to make the hitherto oblivious Muslims of the subcontinent realize that they needed to get off their bums. Because, like now, before too these people of ours were dumb bricks who wouldn't budge unless you presented them religion in a plate.

If i say that i reject your understanding of the above 'copy paste' from some blog, just on the basis of the fact that what you derive from the above extract is the work of your own mind, what would you reply to me?

If Jinnah wanted a Secular state, why would he not EVER use the word secularism in regards to, the ideological formation of Pakistan? - How do you answer ?

Why do you think that a 'Democratic,Egalitarian,Islamic Welfare State' model is 'Theocratic in nature' ?

The same way he never used the word Sharia. Why? Because these words did not exist at that time. Secularism was not 'A-religious', as is made out to be today. It was plane and simple common sense. A country for the massive minority of the subcontinent, where their interests will not be squashed. Note: not safeguarded, but not squashed.

Another thing. Iqbal was not Jinnah's ideological mentor. Mr. Jinnah was an admirer of his, albeit a very affectionate one. Jinnah's ideology had been shaped long before he came in contact with Iqbal (admittedly it evolved over time due to many different reasons, as it usually does). Also Iqbal was not the Islamist people make him out to be. He was a revolutionary thinker free of such titles (much like Mr. Jinnah). He too was kafir-afied (like Mr. Jinnah). Both these men knew that Islam was not in the beard, but that the beard was in Islam, so to speak. One tried to tell us what Islam was truly about while the other enabled us to pursue it that way, but we got stuck in the beard. We fail to realize that, for most part, Islam and secularism go hand in hand.

As for the gentleman, @LEGENDARY WARRIOR, yelling Khilafa, pray tell me what the system of Khilafa is. And since there was no Khilafa at the time of the Prophet (S.A.W) how did it become the Islamic way. Then tell me why misswaq is not the Islamic way of brushing your teeth or riding camels for that matter.

One word : Never !!!!

Then it would be better we stay in united india
Millions of muslims gave their lives to make Pakistan a secular state ???

That is an 'epicly' moronic statement. Imagine what your state of affairs would have been like today and that should be sufficient an answer.


The State of Pakistan was made for the Muslims, but it was not to be only for the Muslims.

i'll answer these two questions but first come to the point. then i'll give you the answer.
so it means Quran is not a complete way of life for a muslim??
or
since it was revealed 1400 (one thousend four hundred years ago ) its is not relevent in todays world. so should we change it.???
and what do you think about pakisan's constitution when its says(hakmiat ala sirf ALLAH k pas hai) i think you got the point.

Quran and hadith provide all the laws which are needed now and which will be needed till end of the world.

Islam does not give you rules, it gives you principles and then tells you to go fashion rules according to those principles. The same way it gives you principles on how to run your state which btw are what 'secularism' imported from Islam. Cutting off the hand of a thief is not Islam, delivering an appropriate punishment is. Wearing you trousers above your ankles is not Islam the principle catering to the reason behind it is. So for everyone like you, stop being the drooling dumb sheep that you are, get off you behinds, make some effort, read and understand Islam and then believe your selves worthy enough to implement it. The sand dwelling Arab Bedouins who conversed of Aristotle and Plato a thousand years ago would be ashamed of you. And yes, whatever codes that you follow today they came from this era and surprise, surprise, the codes which they constructed from the principles which Islam had taught them.

 

[Tshering22]

The word has become too polluted in South Asia and is pitting everyone within their countries against each other.

TBH Pakistan as a start could take a drastic step and simply copy-paste the Turkish constitution completely.

That would save you a lot of problems.

It has built-in measures for true form of secularism, modernist and rational logic and at the same time is very nationalistic and policies more open minded.

As for language, you can always continue using Urdu.

Think about it; Ataturk created this nation from the midst of a fully blown war. You guys are also almost in a war.

There's opportunity to change everything that went wrong before, into something that could reap you benefits in the future.

 

[Hyperion]

Exactly, I concur. This time, just before the elections I asked one of my "sufi" (meaning mullah) muzeira who'd he vote for.....

1. Any of the Islamic party
2. IK
3. PPP
4. PMLN

And his answer was shocking.... he said that why the **** should he vote for any "islamic" party, good for nothing.... ***** **** ***** bla bla bla......... and this sentiment is repeated in majority of Pakistan's population.


@Aeronaut... it's not as simple as it looks..... I can remember the 80's and the 90's where no one GAVE A **** about mullahs... Islam yes, but no one was radicalized......... i mean the Islamic bug was just incubating at that time..... the one left by Zia.......

It was actually the Islamists who've thrust the **** upon rest of the population....... so going by your logic where majority decides....... then by this logic if the question of integrity of Pakistan is given to the electorate and a referendum is held..... what do you think will be the results??? At least for the electing the representatives in PA and NA I know for a fact that NO ONE is voting for the mullahs in the near future.....

@Aeronaut

I would have answered some of the points , in your post if I wasn't low on time , at the moment .

But for the moment , let us just ask the question ' Why , any Islamic party with an Islamic agenda in Pakistan hasn't been able to win the elections by a majority/near-majority/total majority/majority required to legislate in the last 60 years - the last being most prominent since only by that , can they get their idealist system implemented through a democratic way in this country but only piggybacked on other liberal parties/army/dictatorships ? What does that tell us about the thinking of a common Pakistani - barring the ' influence ' for a moment I talked earlier in my post here - assuming everyone is voting freely without any pressure or influence ?

 

[krash]

The word has become too polluted in South Asia and is pitting everyone within their countries against each other.

TBH Pakistan as a start could take a drastic step and simply copy-paste the Turkish constitution completely.

That would save you a lot of problems.

It has built-in measures for true form of secularism, modernist and rational logic and at the same time is very nationalistic and policies more open minded.

As for language, you can always continue using Urdu.

Think about it; Ataturk created this nation from the midst of a fully blown war. You guys are also almost in a war.

There's opportunity to change everything that went wrong before, into something that could reap you benefits in the future.

It is also a constitution encouraging (under the table coaxing) assimilation into the western ways while forgetting everything of their own. The Turks can keep their constitution. "Secularism, modernity and rational logic" all span a very wide spectrum and their implementations are on an even wider spectrum. Who is anyone to say that Turkey or another country for that matter carries the Rosetta Stone for any of the aforementioned characteristics? Their is no one key to anything and their definitely isn't for this, not the same one either.

 

[Hyperion]

My friend, the first thing Ata Turk did was he got rid the "Arabic" script....... anyone in posession of such a script was hung from the poles..... and the same should be done in Pakistan too.... too much takfiri propaganda available inside Pakistan in that script..... it has to be changed to either Latin or Chinese for all that I care.... population has to be made to forget it....

The word has become too polluted in South Asia and is pitting everyone within their countries against each other.

TBH Pakistan as a start could take a drastic step and simply copy-paste the Turkish constitution completely.

That would save you a lot of problems.

It has built-in measures for true form of secularism, modernist and rational logic and at the same time is very nationalistic and policies more open minded.

As for language, you can always continue using Urdu.

Think about it; Ataturk created this nation from the midst of a fully blown war. You guys are also almost in a war.

There's opportunity to change everything that went wrong before, into something that could reap you benefits in the future.

If point two of your hypothesis is true, then by default people following # 1 are correct..... think about it

Let me take a quick stab at the question of why Islamic parties have not won elections.

First let me qualify myself. I started thinking about this in the winter of 2001, about this great divide between the "religious type" and the "secular type" in Pakistani society. I've spent the last 12 years pondering and researching about this. In the beginning I blamed the West, (like so many Muslims do). And the first book I ever wrote was all about how to counter the West.

But as I delved further, I realized that the biggest problem was within. I'm presently in my final year doing a PhD in Islamic Studies related to Islamic Civilization. In my researches I've found that, in the simplest terms:

If the Ummah was a boxer, and he keeps losing fight after fight, he can either blame his opponents or he can look in the mirror.

However, the Ummah largely fails to look in the mirror. Instead we blame everything and everybody. We live in denial.

Coming back to why the "Islamic type" fails to "win elections" or win anything for that matter. Logically there can be two options:

1. Something is wrong with Islam which makes them backward. Maybe Islam is not an effective solution for today. OR

2. There is something wrong with how they interpreted Islam, that they may have distorted it in the last 1400 years or so.

Essentially, these are then two camps: the "Reformist" who holds to point #2, and the "Modernist" or "Secularist" who holds to hypothesis #1.

 

[d-fence]

Yes, I've been thinking about it for the last 12 odd years and have written two books on it, and am about to complete a PhD on it. And no, point 2 being correct doesn't mean point 1 is correct. There are two perspectives.

Sometimes we tend to reflect our own biases on other people, and that is when reason and objectivity are lost.

 

[d-fence]

It is also a constitution encouraging (under the table coaxing) assimilation into the western ways while forgetting everything of their own. The Turks can keep their constitution. "Secularism, modernity and rational logic" all span a very wide spectrum and their implementations are on an even wider spectrum. Who is anyone to say that Turkey or another country for that matter carries the Rosetta Stone for any of the aforementioned characteristics? Their is no one key to anything and their definitely isn't for this, not the same one either.

It is interesting to note that Turkey, under Islam, was a ranking superpower of the world. As Muhammad Asad notes, after Attaturk, they are nothing but a nation like a hundred others.

And as ironic as that is, its recent economic success has only come under Erdogan, whose Islamic approach is now not only being seen as successful but is seeping into all corners of their country including the military.

I am also impressed by the idea of communism and their great history but the problem with communism is that there is no religious freedom.I lived and studied in russia for 1 year and that complete god less and alcoholic atheist society didn't attract me at all.
Being secular and being atheist are two different things

That is true but there are shades of meaning here. You see, the Quran calls those who do not live by the Law of Allah as "Kafirun"...

...If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. (5:44)

The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah. And Allah guides not people who do wrong. (62:5)

 

[Chak Bamu]

I'd vote for a Pluralistic Democratic Pakistan - Neither Secular nor Islamist, where someone as exceptional as Justice Rana Bhagwandas could become the President of Pakistan but at the same time our State Bank would be allowed, as per the mandate it was given by our Quaid, to evolve a system of economics that is inline with the principals of Islam !

I believe in Pluralism, Democracy & Islamic Paradigms (should we wish it) - the crux of every single one of the Quaid's & Iqbal's speeches since they became associated with the Pakistan Movement including his 11th August Speech & the Allama's the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.

I do believe that both the advocates of an Islamic State & those of a Secular State assume beyond what the contents of any of what the Quaid & Iqbal said mandated & most of the time, many, define Secularism in a manner that Holly Oakes would probably find woefully inadequate & likewise Islamism in a way that even the Koran wouldn't be able to agree with !

@Armstrong, you want the best of both worlds. Not a bad wish but a rather impractical one. You need to read a lot and think through some really serious and tedious issues to come up with an answer. That is why 99% of what is written from both sides is actually emotional rubbish.

We in Pakistan are confronting open-ended questions with no definitive answers in sight. Our dilemma today is actually about defining ourselves. We are a Muslim majority state, but what does that mean in this day and age? Also what to do about a stratum of society which views everything from an essentially Western perspective. Just look at Egypt today, or Algeria of 90s. The 'Western' interference in Algeria was especially aggressive with France taking the lead. Had that not happened, there actuallly might be answers for us today, instead of usual condemnation of Islamists as 'one man, one vote, one time' deals. You see the same thing happening in Egypt. These civil wars are very cheap for power-that-be. They need not commit any troops, they just use their proxies to handle Islamists.

I would encourage you to read books by John L. Esposito to get a perspective from a Western academic who sympathizes with Islamists and wishes the world to give them a chance to prove or disprove preconceived notions. As a believer in democracy, I thing the results of elections must be respected. Given a few iterations, our elites are capable of coming up with answers and solutions to our problems of identity.

Until we are able to go resolve & go beyond the 'Islamist vs. Secular' debate, we would not actually start contributing to the World as capable and willing partners. Some small token events do happen from time to time that give me hope - take for example the protection extended to Tutsi victims by Rawandan Muslims to save them from horrible deaths during the extremely bloody days in 1994. We as Muslims are capable of much more on world stage, but we can not get our act together as Muslims. The principal obstacle being the 'Western' powers who fear emergence of a world power if they allow Islamists to form governments. The merit of such a threat remains to be evaluated, but the opposition is all too real regardless.

@Armstrong

Mate , I again see here , how some people * who are usually not so Islamic * want the ' idealistic Islamic state ' with a ' God chosen ruler chosen by God chosen people ' to interfere in each and every aspect of individuals personal/private life ? Why is that ? Where does this obsession with stopping people from one's perception of wrong , arise from and why the interest in implementing them either by hook or crook just like the terrorists do and justify , according to the religion ?

I have seen people holding whiskey shots, telling each other that the solution to our 'problems' is an 'Islamic system'. One could either laugh at such a display of hypocrisy or mull over the attachment to an 'Islamic system' of even obvious sinners.

It is pointless to worry about a God chosen ruler, elected by God chosen people. What does come across is an extreme of cynicism, followed by equally cynical belief of such people's supposed wish to 'interfere in each and every aspect of individuals personal/private life'. First, such unlikely scenarios serve as excuses. Second, these observations point to deep-seated insecurities. Third, this is exactly the barrier that must be overcome if we are to move forward. Seeing Islamists in power and learning from their mistakes is vitally important in today's Muslim world. It is pointless to oppose them by painting nightmare scenarios. Until and unless this happens, we shall continue to be stuck in a cycle of violence driven from both sides. Just look at today's Egypt. AlQaeda types are probably gearing up for a civil war there. That is the cost that would likely be paid for opposing Islamists. Is it worth it?

I hope to have illustrated that Islamism = terrorism is a false notion and is meant to be used to spread Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt. AlQaeda types dislike Islamists (who believe in constitutionalism and democracy). GCC backed Salafis dislike both just as their masters would want them to. On top of it all, Liberal Secularists bunch it all together in one big label of 'religious types' and think they have solved the problem by using semantics and vocabulary appropriate to their world view. And all this makes for the happy, bloody mess we see today. Great going for all concerned, innit?

you are dealing with hordes of religious people who think they are right and everybody's wrong !

Thanks for providing a very apt example of self-righteousness that would illustrate my point above.

 

[HRK]

Para 3 of 'overview' here...Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of Secularism in Islam has been claimed to have religious sanction too. The Sahih of Imam Muslim, the second most authentic book on Hadith, dating from the 2nd century Hijrah, contains a chapter headed as follows:

B]“Whatever the Prophet has said in matters of religion must be followed, but this does not apply to worldly affairs.”[/B]

In other words, according to the prophet himself (PBUH), religion and politics of state governance, should not be mixed. They are two separate entities. But nowadays we have 'Political Islam' which is contrary to the Hadith and where secularism is considered to be un-Islamic.

Would you please post link for that......as per my knowledge the narrative of quote is different

The Hadith is as follows: Once Prophet Muhammad came across some people doing artificial pollination of palm trees. Due to some reason he disliked the idea and commented that it would be better not to do any pollination at all. However for the following year the harvest was poor. When he came to know about this Prophet Muhammad admitted his limitation of knowledge regarding secular affairs (......???) and said: “If a question relates to your worldly matters you would know better about it, but if it relates to your religion then to me it belongs.”

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, the prominent Indian Muslim scholar, comments on this Hadith: “Islam separated religious knowledge from physical knowledge. The source of religious knowledge which came into general acceptance was divine revelation (the authentic version of which is preserved in the form of the Quran), while full freedom was given to enquiry into physical phenomena, so that individuals could arrive at their own conclusions independently”.

He further says: “According to this hadith, Islam separates religious matters from scientific research. In religious affairs, there has to be strict adherence to divine guidance. But in scientific research, the work must proceed according to human experience

Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear I also read about this hadith years ago.....tried to find that out but failed (as it was around 8-10 years back)......thought it is very much clear from the explanation of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan that it does not deal with the political or state affairs......as we muslims have seprate set of rules and model to deal with that particular issue.....

Regards,