Secularism is the way forward

[mehmeTcc]

Secularism is not meant for Muslim countries, it's simple as that.

So, we are not a Muslim country?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Secularism is not meant for Muslim countries, it's simple as that.

One of the main reasons why most of them are where they are,this rigid intolerant behaviour is incompatible in 21 st century global village.

 

[Wright]

So, we are not a Muslim country?

You people have an identity other then islam. You Turks are proud of that, thus you dont need to bring religion into everything to make yourself feel better and give ones self false self esteem by laching onto Arab history.

Pakistan is not the same. If it loses islam it loses its defining characteristic.

One of the main reasons why most of them are where they are,this rigid intolerant behaviour is incompatible in 21 st century global village.

Yup, if you cant evolve you become obsolete. They still have kings in the 21st century.

 

[PAKBARBIE]

why is the current generation so allergic to the world secular? even the "thinkers" of our country are against this word. any mention of secular evokes anti-West sentiment. Can't a person be religious while living under secular governance. most of us pdfers take for granted that we are welcome into these western countries and are allowed to express ourselves religiously whereas being a minority in pakistan could lead to persecution. i belief that pak was founded on an islamic identity (culture) but religion was not meant to be the identity of the state rather only the people. as we know the islam of the sub-continent is not homogenous. by moving towards an islamic state we have made the society so much more intolerant and regressive.

 

[Peregrine]

So, we are not a Muslim country?

Well i don't know much about your country, but Turkey seems like a modern state, but modernization is not dependent upon secularism to thrive.

One of the main reasons why most of them are where they are,this rigid intolerant behaviour is incompatible in 21 st century global village.

Secularism has nothing to do with keeping pace with time and global trends.

 

[ares]

This thread exemplifies..how ignorant people can be!! don't even understand the meaning of world "Secularism" but would rather bash it to prove their ignorance.

People Secularism stated simply is complete separation of 'the state' and the religion/s ie. The state will not interfere in matters of religion and nor will it allow the religion to interfere in the matters of the state.

All these people bashing secularism either live in secular countries(which respects all religions equally) or in country which has Islam as state religion..why not try living as minority in a country with a different state religion ..for example these Muslims should try living in Israel ..let see how their opinion changes towards secularism.. because this is exactly what they are asking their minorities to endure in their own country.
Or is it they do not give two hoots about the minorities since they are the majority?

Secularism is not meant for Muslim countries, it's simple as that.

Secularism is not for bigots..who want their religious ideals to be treated with respect but are not ready to give the same respect to other religions!!

 

[Wright]

Well i don't know much about your country, but Turkey seems like a modern state, but modernization is not dependent upon secularism to thrive.


Secularism has nothing to do with keeping pace with time and global trends.

I wonder why it is then, that the nations that top the global HDI, patents per capita, GDP per capita, rankings tend to be secular.

 

[Peregrine]

Secularism is not for bigots..who want their religious ideals to be treated with respect but are not ready to give the same respect to other religions!!

Your jibe about non-secular state's is as hollow as your head. The whole world knows, who disrespect ''Religions'' and who doesn't. Going by your logic that makes the secular states the biggest ''Bigots'' who carry out blasphemy in the name of ''freedom of speech''.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

Secularism is not for bigots..who want their religious ideals to be treated with respect but are not ready to give the same respect to other religions!!

Yes, "respect" to other religions.
That's why the Islamic headscarf is banned in several countries, and many other countries talk about banning Islam all together.
Turkey, supposedly the ideal Muslim country, even they banned the headscarf for women in Unis.

 

[Peregrine]

I wonder why it is then, that the nations that top the global HDI, patents per capita, GDP per capita, rankings tend to be secular.

I wouldn't know, since i am not an expert on economics. I know the drift of your argument and what you are trying to covey is nothing but your dogma and has no correlation with reality.

 

[ares]

It is ironic how Pakistan was created because some Muslims of the subcontinent feared, being of minority religion, their religion might not be given the same respect as other religions in India..but when they achieved their own country(where Muslims were in majority).. they forgot all about its own minorities and created a 'Islamic country'.

 

[Armstrong]

why is the current generation so allergic to the world secular? even the "thinkers" of our country are against this word. any mention of secular evokes anti-West sentiment. Can't a person be religious while living under secular governance. most of us pdfers take for granted that we are welcome into these western countries and are allowed to express ourselves religiously whereas being a minority in pakistan could lead to persecution. i belief that pak was founded on an islamic identity (culture) but religion was not meant to be the identity of the state rather only the people. as we know the islam of the sub-continent is not homogenous. by moving towards an islamic state we have made the society so much more intolerant and regressive.

I've always understood it to be thus : Secularism - A complete disassociation of religion and politics ! With the assumption, as per Holyoakes (I'm paraphrasing of course), that in due time Providence from God will be replaced with Providence from Science and religious values will be replaced by Secular or, to use his words, materialistic i.e wordily, values. Now such a thing, as per my understanding, doesn't conform to Islamic Polity whereby Providence does indeed come from God and Religious values do indeed form the basis of sense of ethics and morality; by the way...this is not to say that there doesn't exist a complete unity between Religion (as we see it) and Science but the way Science is often, in practice, used to castigate religion as something archaic goes against how Islam, as per my understanding, perceives Science to be - a miracle of the Almighty ! Furthermore, when I talk about religious values, I do not for a moment imply, a regressive and extremist interpretation of religious values but simply that there are certain standards of propriety and consequently a sense of right and wrong that our religion postulates which aren't entirely agreed upon by others who prescribe to a different belief system.

As for your ideological stance with respect to Pakistan ! I believe that when one reads the words of Jinnah and sees that they talk about 'Equal rights for all', one might misconstrue that to be Secularism whereas if one were to listen to Jinnah when he talks about 'Islamic Socialism' one is equally liable to think that he wanted Pakistan to be a 'Theocracy'; however, as I have understood Jinnah to be, is that he wanted Pakistan to be a religiously and legally pluralistic state where complete impartiality is maintained with respect to all minorities - religious or otherwise. Now how is this different from Secularism ? I'll tell you how; it allows for the Muslims and the Non-Muslims alike to table resolutions in the Parliament which have a religious connotation to them and yet at the same time it ensures that someone as esteemed as Justice (R) Rana Bhagwandas should become the President of Pakistan ! In essence what this means is that Jinnah wanted a 'Democratic State' in the purest sense of the term. Additionally, if one were to read Iqbal in conjunction with Jinnah, certain things are made much clearer; namely as to 'Why we need Pluralism instead of a Separation of Religion and Legislation' - Iqbal talks about how, us Muslims, have fallen into a deeply troubling state of Taqlid or Imitation whereby the doings and the opinions of Jurists of ages past are still adhered to as something as sacred as the Quran itself ! What we need is Ijtihad (or consensus to construct a legal opinion) done by the Parliament to bring about, to use Iqbal's own words, a 'Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam'; whereby everything from the role of women, the role and more so relations with Non-Muslims, Governance, Islamic Economics, the Shariah...every Islamic injunction with a communal aspect, needs to be reassessed in the light of modernity ! What this essentially means is that let the Parliament, as representatives of millions of People, decide on these issues, instead of individual jurists to avoid the poison of Sectarianism and the misuse of religion by those with a vested interest ! The assumption is that because People would be indirectly involved in a transparent parliamentary process and that a consensus always requires 'acceptable compromise' and the ensuing debate a much more informed opinion, people will actually own up to these decisions. The concepts of 'Collective Wisdom' and 'Transparency', integral to the Democratic process will ensure the mitigation of the abuse of religion by individuals with a vested interest of their own !

P.S I think most of our problems stem more from an abysmal state of Governance then Ideology per se ! Don't get me wrong...I'd want Pakistan to mend her Ideology to be more in line with what Jinnah wanted (whether its Secular or Pluralistic) but our prime concern should be to take care of the problems that we can within the confines of the already existing frameworks because many of them, I believe, also have a solution within the existing laws and regulations of the country. For example; state of the art education for all, equal rights and opportunities for all, no miscarriage of justice, an end to nepotism etc. - take care of them and the ball would have started rolling !

 

[ares]

Your jibe about non-secular state's is as hollow as your head. The whole world knows, who disrespect ''Religions'' and who doesn't. Going by your logic that makes the secular states the biggest ''Bigots'' who carry out blasphemy in the name of ''freedom of speech''.

No you nincompoop..they treat all religions with equal respect/disrespect(up to you to decide) .. if their is freedom of speech to criticize one religion(blasphemy), then their is freedom of speech for criticizing all other religions too.!!
There is no bias towards any particular religion.

 

[Peregrine]

It is ironic how Pakistan was created because some Muslims of the subcontinent feared, being of minority religion, their religion might not be given the same respect as other religions in India..but when they achieved their own country(where Muslims were in majority).. they forgot all about its own minorities and created a 'Islamic country'.

The thread is about ''Secularism in Pakistan'' not ''Treatment of Minorities'', Islam guarantees full rights and complete freedom to the minorities. However, if the minorities are denied their rights and are subjected to intolerance & discrimination then the responsibility for that lies on the government not the religion. It's no secret that Pakistan is in state of war against terrorism and extremism, the resources of the government are not sufficient enough to provide security to the citizens and also make sure that the law is being implemented in every corner of the country.

 

[Wright]

Yes, "respect" to other religions.
That's why the Islamic headscarf is banned in several countries, and many other countries talk about banning Islam all together.
Turkey, supposedly the ideal Muslim country, even they banned the headscarf for women in Unis.

Very old and worn out argument. Security comes first. The good of the community comes first before religion.

Sikhs are barred from wearing their ceremonial daggers in my country for the same reason.

If the people of a nation think the full body arab style covering is a threat to national security, they have a right to petition for its control in public places.

I wouldn't know, since i am not an expert on economics. I know the drift of your argument and what you are trying to covey is nothing but your dogma and has no correlation with reality.

Yes, like the reality that most muslim nations rank low in terms of standard of living. Got it.