Secular blunders

[SSGPA1]

FYI ALLAMA IQBAL rated ABDUL WAHAB the fouder of WAHBISM as a true reformer.

Abdul Wahab may be a true reformer and all the damage could have been done by his followers.

 

[SSGPA1]

Under a secular government also you can belief your religion in full faith, the government won't stop you. It is usually good to protect the faith of the minorities, but also proves beneficial for the majority as it creates a win-win situation.

Please don't forget to enlighten Mr. Modi and while you are doing that let your fellow Hindustanis know that Kashmiris are human beings and they have a right to live according to their wish.

I am hoping that Right to Self Determine is okay under secularism.

 

[zero]

Please don't forget to enlighten Mr. Modi and while you are doing that let your fellow Hindustanis know that Kashmiris are human beings and they have a right to live according to their wish.

I am hoping that Right to Self Determine is okay under secularism.

Hardcore Hindu fascist are those who are trying to spoil the image of my nation, and I am never a fan of them, I request lets not make it a flame game and involve in some fruitful discussion.

 

[MastanKhan]

I thought Islamist made Pakistan in the first place.

Hi,

Oh kiddo, you are ill informed. The maulivis of hind were against the formation of pakistan----Jamaat islami as well.

 

[MastanKhan]

ISLAM binds PAKISTAN. Its the only recipe which propelled its creation & can sustain it.

Hi,

A misconception one more time---pakistan was formed so that the muslims could live freely away from the hegemony of the others---have a land of their own, so that they may not be castigated by the high, the mighty and the strong---the muslims who had been subjugated for a hundred years and lost all wealth, positions of strength, left behind in education and jobs---a seperate nation was the only form of salvation for them.

Islam and islamic brotherhood---that may have played the trick---to get the vote---but other than that---we can dream.

 

[zubair723]

Hi,

A misconception one more time---pakistan was formed so that the muslims could live freely away from the hegemony of the others---have a land of their own, so that they may not be castigated by the high, the mighty and the strong---the muslims who had been subjugated for a hundred years and lost all wealth, positions of strength, left behind in education and jobs---a seperate nation was the only form of salvation for them.

Islam and islamic brotherhood---that may have played the trick---to get the vote---but other than that---we can dream.

No misconception here. Need to clear the brain of the 'idols' of west & all the ***** on the heart.
If ISLAM was not an issue then we would all have opted for small independent states based on languages & ethinicity housing the so called 'muslims'

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Zubair,

If that is what you think---it is fine with me---but the seperate state movement, as started by Syed Ahmad Khan was for the welfare and welbeing of the muslim community---so that they can be independent, have a better life and can be free to make choices.

If islam was the sole issue----then islami jamaat hind would have supported the partition.

 

[Meesna]

If we want to make Pakistan strong we must learn from our founding fathers, like Allama Iqbal, who was the 20th century's most influential Islamist IMHO!
NOT bigoted Wahabis!

Allama Iqbal was not a big fan of democracy..check his relevant verses on that. His views on democracy were more in line with Sufi Muhammad.

 

[zubair723]

Abdul Wahab may be a true reformer and all the damage could have been done by his followers.

Well MUHAMMAD (m.p.b.u.h) was the best , the seal of the prophets & led by his personal example for all his followers to come. What justice his followers today are doing to his name, to his way of life etc.

 

[zubair723]

Allama Iqbal was not a big fan of democracy..check his relevant verses on that. His views on democracy were more in line with Sufi Muhammad.

Yes you maybe right. But ALLAMA IQBAL empahsis was to evolve democracy more on the line of MEDINA. Where there should be a criteria of limited voting rights & who should be a candidate. A voter should be a role model as per QURAN & SUNNAH. In MEDINA model, a CANDIDATE cannot present himself

 

[Y2A]

Seculerism is a blunder itself, man made set of rules which the same man pludendered him self several time in vitenam,korea, kashmir and many other place.
Pakistan is an ideoligical state not a theocracy, Quaid-e-Azam declareed his intentions of looking forward for a state which will be islamic democratic walfare state, seculers of 30-40 yr back were suported by the ambasseies of USSR and Pakingg,and today they'vce fed up the US and westeren bloomed NGOs who won't say a word for the killing innocent people in drones and cross boarder attacks of NATO but yale thier hearts out over girl being "reportedly" whiped in a video claimed to be shooted in sawat in the month of "january" and people in the video expressing thier "ignorence" against brutal cold of sawat, intention was just to harm the peace deal in the area.

 

[Meesna]

Yes you maybe right. But ALLAMA IQBAL empahsis was to evolve democracy more on the line of MEDINA. Where there should be a criteria of limited voting rights & who should be a candidate. A voter should be a role model as per QURAN & SUNNAH. In MEDINA model, a CANDIDATE cannot present himself

I think Iqbal was wrong there. Who is going to decide a voter is a role model? If you ask Jamaat Islami only they are the jamaat of saliheen. So does Sufi Muhammad. Deobandis consider brelvis and shias heretic so no chance of a shia or brelvi to vote.

I think western democracy is better otherwise you are stuck in this endless debate and fighting over who is religiously correct and pious and we all know how many pious get diesel permits and other benefits from government.

Our problem is we always try to create utopian system but it being too ideal never works in reality. West on the other hand remains realistic in what can be done in a human society with differences and less then prophetic piety. No wonder they and other countries such as India who embraced western democracy are prospering while we are still cutting each other’s throats in quest to decide the pious ones.

 

[Y2A]

I think Iqbal was wrong there. Who is going to decide a voter is a role model? If you ask Jamaat Islami only they are the jamaat of saliheen. So does Sufi Muhammad. Deobandis consider brelvis and shias heretic so no chance of a shia or brelvi to vote.

I think western democracy is better otherwise you are stuck in this endless debate and fighting over who is religiously correct and pious and we all know how many pious get diesel permits and other benefits from government.

Our problem is we always try to create utopian system but it being too ideal never works in reality. West on the other hand remains realistic in what can be done in a human society with differences and less then prophetic piety. No wonder they and other countries such as India who embraced western democracy are prospering while we are still cutting each other’s throats in quest to decide the pious ones.

Jalal-e-paadshahi ho, ya jamhoori tamasha ho
Juda ho deen syasat say, tou reh jaati hai chengezi


Above verse is from Dr Iqbal's collection, and he looked right to me in every possible regard, when ever man had the chance to deny the supreme authority[Allah] he did what he love most, christians had probelems due to the strong rule of church over the society, and under that theocracy they never able to form a soverign walfare state, but we did, muslim state of madinah and later in most part of the mulsim rule(even though khilafat was replaced by kingdom) those people did formed walfare states, ottomons,spain and then mughals (not all) etc,
Liberal frustated enlightrd one among the westeran world consider church as the only obstacle in thier way so they limited it by modern democratic system, propagating seculerism and social darwinism, but in case of islamic shariya, your trying to judge the car by observing the driver, westeren democracy your talking about has its variants, right from athens to the moderan versions, french revolution resulted a french version, US has thier own blend and so do the UK and others, everey nation mold it according to thier needs and requirments , i agree that they are practising it in a manner that its providing more good to them socially but hiding its ethical (i m pointing towards westeran version) and moral drawbacks, latest one can be observe in india, i am not anti-democratic what i want to say we allready have that spirit of divercity and counciling regarding state maters in our shariya system, the question about the sectarian version of shariya becomes irrelivant when we see the iranian or version of islamic revulotion that although the majority is of shias but they do have sunni papulation which lived across iran and mostly peacefully.

 

[muse]

Poor Iqbal e Lahori - that he can be so misunderstood as or rather that he is so abused -- from Deen Iqbal points to a morality and ethics which inform the Siyasat.

But those who misunderstand or abuse Quran when they choose to interpret literally, will do little justice to Iqbal when they imagine the poetry of the artist as literal, as well.

 

[Zob]

i just wonder at times why do the people of the time follow the ones who are progressing currently......

well the followers are just that FOLLOWERS because they just adapt and accept whatever is in FASHION or FAD those days!!

ISLAM had a thriving and progressive society in ANDULUSIA & BAGHDAD while the rest of the world was going through dark ages!!!

muslims back then knew how to make fountains knew algebra & maths and sciences...and THAT my friend was the reason why the world loved anything and everything that was coming from the muslim world back then.....


TODAY the west has technology and is walking on the moon & WE think hey they are leading the world because of their life style & way of ruling their people!!!


however, the reason is simple EDUCATION,EQUALITY,JUSTICE & WELFARE something islam emphasised on!!!


so yes islam can be the religion of the state and the STATE shouldn't be ASHAMED of it....however non muslims should be given equal rights & privelages!!