Secular Pakistan or Islamic state Pakistan?

[neutral_person]

that and an islamic state are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, the very nature of an Islamic state defends all faiths and religions.
It is an integral part of being one. So all these states who people think are "Islamic" are actually not since they don't fit the definition, ie defending all faiths.

No, the purpose of a state is not just to defend all faiths. As a matter of fact, keeping minorities alive is the bare minimum a state can do for its citizens. The purpose of a state is also to give its citizens equal opportunities/treatment. There are several laws in Pakistan (supposedly based of Islam) which are in direct contradiction of equal opportunities and/or treatment:

1) PM/Pres of Pak cannot be a non-Muslim.
2) Socially, Muslim men are allowed to convert non-Muslim women into Islam and marry them, but the reverse is not possible. Non-Muslims can convert into Islam, but the reverse is not possible constitutionally as it is said so in the Quran.

 

[Rusty]

No, the purpose of a state is not just to defend all faiths. As a matter of fact, keeping minorities alive is the bare minimum a state can do for its citizens. The purpose of a state is also to give its citizens equal opportunities/treatment. There are several laws in Pakistan (supposedly based of Islam) which are in direct contradiction of equal opportunities and/or treatment:

1) PM/Pres of Pak cannot be a non-Muslim.
2) Socially, Muslim men are allowed to convert non-Muslim women into Islam and marry them, but the reverse is not possible. Non-Muslims can convert into Islam, but the reverse is not possible constitutionally as it is said so in the Quran.

both your points are rather silly.
The US has laws that say that only those born on US soil can be President, meaning that no Indian who immigrated to the US will ever be president. Yet Indians are still going there by the droves.
In the UK, which has a huge Indian population, no Indian can become PM because you have to part of the Church of England to be PM.
So what is your defense for them?

you are doing what I used to do when I was a child. Comparing two things and finding out how they are different and then declaring your thing is better because of those differences. It's a rather childish argument really.

As for socially, well that's not part of the government is it?


And if protecting minorities is the bare minimum, then why don't you throw a hissy fit at Myanmar who are not even doing that?
Oh right, they are Buddhists and the oppressed minority is Muslim, so that's alright

 

[MilSpec]

both your points are rather silly.
The US has laws that say that only those born on US soil can be President, meaning that no Indian who immigrated to the US will ever be president. Yet Indians are still going there by the droves.
In the UK, which has a huge Indian population, no Indian can become PM because you have to part of the Church of England to be PM.
So what is your defense for them?

you are doing what I used to do when I was a child. Comparing two things and finding out how they are different and then declaring your thing is better because of those differences. It's a rather childish argument really.

As for socially, well that's not part of the government is it?


And if protecting minorities is the bare minimum, then why don't you throw a hissy fit at Myanmar who are not even doing that?
Oh right, they are Buddhists and the oppressed minority is Muslim, so that's alright

A country that constitutionally discriminates minority religions is the core issue here. If a minority's right to attain his maximum human potential is constitutionally discredited, especially in the country that was formed to provide political rights to a minority seems trivial.

 

[neutral_person]

both your points are rather silly.
The US has laws that say that only those born on US soil can be President, meaning that no Indian who immigrated to the US will ever be president. Yet Indians are still going there by the droves.
In the UK, which has a huge Indian population, no Indian can become PM because you have to part of the Church of England to be PM.
So what is your defense for them?

you are doing what I used to do when I was a child. Comparing two things and finding out how they are different and then declaring your thing is better because of those differences. It's a rather childish argument really.

As for socially, well that's not part of the government is it?


And if protecting minorities is the bare minimum, then why don't you throw a hissy fit at Myanmar who are not even doing that?
Oh right, they are Buddhists and the oppressed minority is Muslim, so that's alright

I was talking specifically about Pakistan because thats what the topic is about. Most of your argument seems to be, US/UKdo it wrong (they dont) so its OK for us to do it as well. I dont see the reason of bringing in US/UK/Burma and my hypothetical views on them, I will be glad to share them with you in a separate thread.

US definitely does not have any restrictions, as long as your a a citizen by birth, you can become PM, which is a fair law. Dont really know much about the UK law, but if the law means you have to be Christian to be PM, then yes it is wrong. You will have to clarify if belonging to the Church of England = being Christian as a requirement. Burma, again dont know much about their system, what happened with the killings is of course wrong.

I would again like to ask you, do you not agree that giving equal treatment and opportunities is the responsibility of a state? If yes, then the 2 points I mentioned are clearly in direct violation of that...

1) PM/Pres of Pak cannot be a non-Muslim.
2) Socially, Muslim men are allowed to convert non-Muslim women into Islam and marry them, but the reverse is not possible. Non-Muslims can convert into Islam, but the reverse is not possible constitutionally as it is said so in the Quran.

P.S. This is not meant as an attack on Pakistan, just a pro-Secular argument for all nations, to not use religion as a base for discrimination.

 

[MilSpec]

islamic, as Pakistan came on the base of two nation theory solely. If quaid were more fan of secular, then he must have then struggled for a united ind+Pak, as india was supposed to be securlar...
Islam is for ALL and universal by default (for all minorities as well!!).

Two nation theory; "Muslims minority in India will not get political recognition and rights due to hindu majority, hence separate stat pakistan"
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................But the new nation of pakistan's minority should never have the right to run for the top political posts for "political recognition/rights of minority"....

Thats what Mohd. Ali Jinnah envisioned.

 

[MilSpec]

Islamic, following true Islam will be secular.

The true Islam is being ignored hence minorities are being neglected.

Any democratic constitution that prohibits the political candidature of an individual based on his religion and disregards his capabilities/leadership/skills seems trivial to me.

 

[Hulk]

both your points are rather silly.
The US has laws that say that only those born on US soil can be President, meaning that no Indian who immigrated to the US will ever be president. Yet Indians are still going there by the droves.
In the UK, which has a huge Indian population, no Indian can become PM because you have to part of the Church of England to be PM.
So what is your defense for them?

you are doing what I used to do when I was a child. Comparing two things and finding out how they are different and then declaring your thing is better because of those differences. It's a rather childish argument really.

As for socially, well that's not part of the government is it?


And if protecting minorities is the bare minimum, then why don't you throw a hissy fit at Myanmar who are not even doing that?
Oh right, they are Buddhists and the oppressed minority is Muslim, so that's alright

Laws based on place of birth and religion are two different things. In a nation, having laws based on nationality is completely valid. Any religion based laws are wrong.

 

[MilSpec]

that and an islamic state are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, the very nature of an Islamic state defends all faiths and religions.
It is an integral part of being one. So all these states who people think are "Islamic" are actually not since they don't fit the definition, ie defending all faiths.

Defending a certain community and equality are two different things. Agreed in an islamic Utopia, minorities will be defended.
Assume a prolific bureaucratic with years of experience in foreign affairs, ideal to be a foreign minister, cannot be considered for the position just because he is a non-muslim is "constitutional discrimination against minority". It doesn't make any sense in a democracy.

P.S. Even a mughal king like akbar had enough sense to ensure right person for the right job, irrespective of religion

 

[Rusty]

A country that constitutionally discriminates minority religions is the core issue here. If a minority's right to attain his maximum human potential is constitutionally discredited, especially in the country that was formed to provide political rights to a minority seems trivial.

Please tell me how that is discrimination?
How can a Christian be the leader of an Islamic state?
By that logic the Vatican is the most evil country on earth because they don't even allow non Catholics to be citizens, forget about being the pope.

The problem is that you people think that this is some kind of big deal, when in reality it is not.
A lot of countries on earth have limits on who can be the president or PM of the country, ie see above.

This had nothing to do with their rights. In an Islamic state, freedom of Religion is represented. Minorities can make their own sites of worship, they can even form political groups. They have all the freedom of any other citizen.

 

[Zarvan]

What was Quaid-e-Azam's vision regarding this, you think that he wanted a secular pakistan, or a islamic theocracy state, please share your opinions regarding this?

:

Jinah never wanted a secular Pakistan in fact he many times mentioned Quran and Sunnah as law of Pakistan but I give a dam about what Jinah wanted or not what as a Muslim I only look at it is what ALLAH and his PROPHET SAW want and what his companions did that is the law for a Muslims and that is what a Muslim has to follow not Jinah if Jinah sayings of Jinah are according to these three standards I accept them other wise I throw them away

 

[Rusty]

I was talking specifically about Pakistan because thats what the topic is about. Most of your argument seems to be, US/UKdo it wrong (they dont) so its OK for us to do it as well. I dont see the reason of bringing in US/UK/Burma and my hypothetical views on them, I will be glad to share them with you in a separate thread.

US definitely does not have any restrictions, as long as your a a citizen by birth, you can become PM, which is a fair law. Dont really know much about the UK law, but if the law means you have to be Christian to be PM, then yes it is wrong. You will have to clarify if belonging to the Church of England = being Christian as a requirement. Burma, again dont know much about their system, what happened with the killings is of course wrong.

I would again like to ask you, do you not agree that giving equal treatment and opportunities is the responsibility of a state? If yes, then the 2 points I mentioned are clearly in direct violation of that...



P.S. This is not meant as an attack on Pakistan, just a pro-Secular argument for all nations, to not use religion as a base for discrimination.

Requirements to Become President of the United States

You are wrong
In the US it is law that you must be born on US soil to be President.
In UK you must be Christian to be PM.

The Point I am making is that, you people objecting to this criteria is really silly.
If I said "you had to have a university degree to be President"
Does that mean it is discrimination?
By your logic it does.

 

[Alpha1]

Pakistan was made as a (lab of islam) by its founders! No one can change that! Islam also protects the rights of minorities!
Islam is much better than man made BS snakularism! Dummunism! Or capitalism

 

[Rusty]

Laws based on place of birth and religion are two different things. In a nation, having laws based on nationality is completely valid. Any religion based laws are wrong.

how are they differnt?
Both of them are placing restrictions on their citizens on who can be the President
Are you born in India?
If so, even though you are a US citizen, you will never ever become the President.

So why no crying about that?
the US law banning you from becoming president is much more relevant to you than Christians not being able to become PM in Pakistan.

Defending a certain community and equality are two different things. Agreed in an islamic Utopia, minorities will be defended.
Assume a prolific bureaucratic with years of experience in foreign affairs, ideal to be a foreign minister, cannot be considered for the position just because he is a non-muslim is "constitutional discrimination against minority". It doesn't make any sense in a democracy.

P.S. Even a mughal king like akbar had enough sense to ensure right person for the right job, irrespective of religion

what are you talking about?
the only position a non Muslim cannot take is the PM.
All other positions are open to them.
In fact we have even had a Hindu Chief Justice.
Tell me, did your beloved Akbar allow a Hindu to become the next Mughal emperor?

 

[Alpha1]

And contrary to popular belief on PDF im not fascist ! The name @ultrafascist0alpha
is just my alias on World of tanks game!

 

[somebozo]

Islam is a religion Pakistan is a country better to keep both separated.