1. If Pakistan's existance and creation is premised on Islam then there are certain self evident effects that flow from that premise. The premise being Pakistan is for Islam and therefore Muslim's. This is simple enough but if a 10,000 Nigerian Muslims, 10,000 Somali Muslims, 10,000 coming knocking at our door do we let them in? Yes if you stand by the principle of Pakistan is for Islam and therefore Muslim's.
2. If you decide to qualify that principle "Pakistan is for Islam and therefore Muslim's" by adding a geographic restriction like "Muslims of South Asia" your cheating. The geographic limiter is a secular concept and your creating fundamental contradiction by employing a religious rationale "Pakistan is for Islam and therefore Muslim's" with a secular construct "South Asia". This geographic division is contradictory to the Islamic concept of Ummah.
Are you saying there is a problem with allowing good practising Muslims from Nigeria or Somalia into Pakistan?
We've done this in the past with Afghan, Iranian and even Uighur refugees which I am proud of. Pakistan as a nation has taken in more refugees since 1947 than both Canada and the US combined particularly when it comes to Muslims.
With regards to any kind of charity, or if we do not have the capacity to support any large scale influx of immigrants, I will simply refer to the following hadith (Shaih Bukhari V7B64N269):
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The best alms is that which you give when you are rich, and you should start first to support your dependants."
Pakistani Muslims should first assist other Pakistani Muslims and only when we have alleviated poverty within Pakistan should we move forward with helping other Muslims financially. However, we must stand up for Muslims globally who are oppressed and work with foreign governments where possible to alleviate their suffering or work with other Muslim nations to take on nations who refuse to cooperate (similarly to how we took on S. Africa during apartheid before the secular West ever did).
Pakistan's initial focus should be on liberating our land and people of Kashmir from Indian occupation and assisting Bihari and Bengali Muslims who were loyal to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1971 and still see themselves as Pakistani first along with those who see Pakistan as their ally and its people their kin in faith.
3. If secularism is condratictory to Muslim in Pakistan then it is contradictory to a Muslim in the West. Therefore a fatwa should be given to the effect that no Muslim should choose to emigrate to any country other than an another Muslim country. Secular and worldly concerns like income, education should take secondary place to Islam. All muslims abroad should make every effort to move back to the ummah.
What you propose is going to happen anyways.
Even the US Census Bureau predicts that by 2040 the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will have no migration out and if the country invests in its industries now you'll likely see a massive net migration back to Pakistan.
This is in contrast to secular India which will continue to see about the same number of people migrating out year on year through 2050.
International Programs - Information Gateway - U.S. Census Bureau
We owe them nothing if anything their very independence is thanks to our countries (ex. the oil they stole from Iran, the food and fighters they gathered from Muslim nations like Pakistan, Morocco, etc...) and the destruction they brought to our shores during WWII which we were forced into by countries like Britain. Their nations are built on the wealth stolen from nations like Pakistan, India, China, etc...
Before asking Muslims to leave the West if they support the Islamic Republic I'd like to ask if you've given up your citizenship to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan because you don't support it? I personally don't understand how you guys developed this inferiority complex where you think you owe these people anything and forgot the sacrifices your own ancestors made or were forced to make. Britain itself is a country that until 1981 didn't even recognize the sons and daughters of naturalized citizens born in Britain as legal citizens of the nation. When Britain allowed Pakistani's and Indians into their country in 1947 they did so only because they were looking to have our peoples work as cheap exploited foreign labourers in their textile industries.
I'm actually fine with your proposal but I'd like to ask will Britain and those secular countries that robbed Pakistan of over 90 years of development during colonialism return what they stole with interest (since they're secular) and adjusted for inflation? As per “Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD” by Angus Maddison during British colonialism our GDP (PPP) per capita grew a measily 60% in 90 years (while Britain's grew 700% in the same time) but after independence our GDP (PPP) per capita grew 300% in 30 years (five times the growth in a third of the time). A research paper titled "Did Colonialism matter for Growth?" written by Prof. Graziella Bertocchi and Prof. Fabio Canova came to the conclusion that the effects of colonialism (though specifically in reference to European colonialism in Africa which was the main focus of their paper) were almost totally negative and following colonialism African economies grew rapidly but again it was the secular West that sabotaged their economies in the 70s.
Will they compensate us for the lives and treasure of my people lost defending Britain during WWII in a war that had nothing to do with Pakistan or other nations like India, etc... which the British literally forced us into? Let's also not forget the compensation owed for the millions that starved as the British Empire stole and then exported for their own profit Pakistan and India's grains/rice (ex. Pakistan's Punjab which produced a large bulk of it).
What about the development lost because of how much they stole from neighbouring states like China which hampered our ability to trade post independence?
2. Millions of muslims live in the west and millions more will probably emigrate over the next decade from the Muslim world to the West. Pakprinciples appears on the face to be living in secular haven called Canada. So what is the principle being set here? A muslim is fine and dandy to live in the West but if he comes to his own country secularism is going to ravish him?
Even the US Census Bureau predicts that by 2040 the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will have no migration out and if the country invests in its industries now you'll likely see a massive net migration back to Pakistan.
This is in contrast to secular India which will continue to see about the same number of people migrating out year on year through 2050. You can check to see what predictions are for other Muslim nations.
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php
Most Muslims who migrate from their home countries actually wind up living in other Muslim nations (ex. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malaysia, Pakistan, etc...). As far as Pakistan's diaspora is concerned the only non-Muslim country they have a large community in is the UK and this is a byproduct of British colonialism and what occurred post 1947 with their attempts to import cheap foreign labourers to work in their textile industries.
Now when exactly did Canada become a secular haven?
I wouldn't be in “secular” Canada if they were throwing Muslims into internment camps like they did Japanese-Canadians during WWII, kidnapping Muslim children like they did native American children to rob them of their religion and culture up until about 1996 (i.e. Indian residential school system) or restricted my ability to practice my faith like they do in secular Tajikistan or France and why, as per the Quran, I also believe in allowing non-Muslims in Pakistan the right to practice their faith without having to face persecution though within the limits prescribed by Islam just as I practice my faith within the limits prescribed by Canadian law.
However, freedom of religion isn't the same thing as the freedom to drink, do drugs, be a prostitute, etc...
Britain is neither a democracy nor secular technically it is a theocratic constitutional monarchy. In fact the structure of the British government is almost identical to that of Iran's.
Did you forget that Britain’s head of state, the Queen of England, also happens to be the head of the Church of England (Supreme Governor or should we say Supreme Leader) whose official title as per the Royal Titles Act of 1953 is:
"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"
She isn't the defender of the faiths (i.e. Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc...) or the faithless (ex. Atheism) in the UK she's the defender of the religion espoused by the Church of England.
Oddly enough it was a title conferred onto King Henry VIII by himself and when Pope Paul III tried to rescind it
the British Parliament stepped in and declared it was valid.
So why don't you first bring true democracy and secularism to Britain? Why don't you ask your Queen to defend Islam and Muslims in the UK instead of knighting men like Salman Rushdie in promotion of “free speech” but then turn around and ban Pakistani films like “International Gorillay”?
Canada itself doesn't belong to the whites nor does it belong to secularists since this isn't Europe and the country itself wasn't founded for secularism or secularists. Canada is a nation built on Native American land whose indigenous people have been persecuted by successive secular governments (ex. Indian residential school system which didn't close until about '96) and had “secularism” imposed on them like a host of other beliefs and practices in a nation where something like 99.9% of its population is now descended from an immigrant. In reality no one has any more of a legitimate right to be here than anyone else.
You gave a long diatribe to justify why it is accetable to live in the West by giving economic reasons. This means as a principle you are prepared to compromise your religious faith and your belief in a Islamic state for a few dollars more.
So you're saying that Indian “Hindus” or American Christians, Agnostics and Atheists that work in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei, etc... compromised their religious or lack of faith and belief of their respective styles of governance (ex. secularism and/or democracy) in their ancestral lands for “a few dollars more”?
The answer is no, I do not compromise my religious faith or belief in an Islamic state "for a few dollars more".
Like I stated before I am a proud citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and a proud Muslim.
So if I could argue that Pakistan would earn more dollars and prove that would you support secularism - because that is eactly what your saying?
I would love to debate economics with you and can prove that Pakistan doesn’t need secularism for strong economic growth. You saying that secularism somehow would implies to me that you don't understand developmental economics.
The fact that the
strongest economic growth in Pakistan's history occurred under the leadership of Gen. Zia Ul Haq should be indicative of that and he did it without accruing large year on year trade deficits.
Capitalism itself, as per Benedikt Koehler in his book “Early Islam and the Birth of Capitalism”, originated from Islamand within the Muslim community and those practices were then adopted by Europe.
I can unequivocally prove to you where Pakistan’s economic problems stem from,
how secular nations like the US outright lie to countries like Pakistan about economic growth and how they themselves developed.
