What's new

Secularism is the way forward

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of curse it does.

Hey, you know, Muslims are dangerous people? Proof; 99% of all terrorists are Muslims.

Why not go genocidal on us; after all the security does come first. You never know what those millions of Muslims living in secular countries are plotting.

Well there are countless instances in Pakistan/Afghanistan where women or men dressed in such garbs strap themselves with bombs and kill civilians.

Of course not that you would care about your own countrymen. But other nations do, and they take prudent action to neutralize a precieved threat.

Hoodies are also not allowed in some places, same reason.
 
I don't understand how one can lose islam by being secular.But i think its ur country ur choice in the end.So whatever happens let it be for the best.
 
The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.
But despite that they have the right to representation in Legislature and Judiciary. Need i remind you that minorities only constitute 2-4 percent of Pakistan's total population and from that you want a ''Head of the State''?

That is but a weak argument for some who not two posts ago was claiming that "Islam as religion grantees all rights to minorities"
that is one right which you have and your minorities do not.

It does not matter..what "percentage" of population they are!!..they are still your citizens from birth..but they are barred from certain posts simply because they are not from the majority community do not follow the majority religion.
 
Anjem Choudary talks of 7.7. - YouTube

This is the how your beloved clerics take advantage of secularism,then u dare spit in its name.Can you even think of anyone doing this in a muslim country ?He is not arrested or deported.
This one individual doesn't speak on behalf of entire Muslim race just like Anders Behring Breivik(Google him) doesn't speak for all Non-Muslims. Secondly it's not because of ''SECULARISM'' that he can express his views freely. Anyways, can i celebrate a day entitled as ''Lets deny holocaust'' in Europe or America? :whistle:
 
I believe we judge secularism way to harshly. It is not a concept that simply cannot go with Islam. If this was true then 53 million muslims wouldn't be living in Europe.

Its wrong to claim secularism is the cause of every problem. Ireland secularized itself and put itself on the path of development. It does not necessarily mean that if secular constitution is brought forward then Islam will be destroyed. Secularism respects all religions and gives everyone equal rights to practice their faith.

In Pakistan's situation where violence in the name of religion is raging we should openly think about a secular constitution... but we are currently too emotional and don't understand the benefits.

Why do we fear Secularism?

Many Pakistanis have a built in aversion towards the word secularism while taking an excessive pride in the Islamic Republic attached to Pakistan’s name. Despite the fact that many Pakistanis fail to follow the tenets of Islam and the word Islamic Republic makes a mockery of the meaning it remains a source of excessive pride. People claim that today the country is very far from Islam as very few people in Pakistan really follow the tenets of Islam however very few of them can answer the question whether it worthwhile to have an “Islamic Republic” only in name. However the real question is do we really have anything to fear from Secularism in the first place?


According to its dictionary meaning Secularism refers to the equal treatment of each and every religious group within the Nation and to the idea that religion should have a smaller role in politics and decision making because when it has too large a role people spend their time over their own separate interpretations of religion rather than Nation building and the tasks at hand.


Many Muslims in Pakistan fear secularism because they have a perverse idea of the concept fearing Islam will be diminished with Secularism. This is completely untrue. Pakistan’s Islamic identity will not be lost with a Secular system.


Will Secularism decrease Islam’s value in Pakistan?



Many Pakistanis continually fear that secularism will decrease the value of Islam or worse will eliminate Islam from Pakistan.
The fact is no one is pushing Islam away and with 95% of the population of Pakistan being proud and extremely pious Muslims for the most part it is impossible to even try. Islam will still be practiced by the majority of people as it is being practiced today without any hindrance whatsoever. The only difference perhaps will be that religion will be a personal matter. A person who does not follow Islam devotedly or a follower of a different religion or a sect of Islam will not be persecuted for having his own separate beliefs.


If seen in such a light Secularism is nothing to be feared. We can be proud Muslims and defend Islam as much or even more with a secular constitution as we can by labelling a country ruled by very corrupt people with barely any link to Islam an “Islamic Republic”. An Islamic Republic where the rulers themselves have no link to Islam and others often use religion as a tool to fulfill their personal interests.
The fact is only a country that has a constitution, laws (that are implemented instead of being cleared by people who can pay bribes) rules and regulations based on the tenets of Islam, the Islamic economic and judicial system based on the teachings of the Prophet should have the right to even call themselves Islamic Republic. Instead Pakistanis have tried to have Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. It's more than time we revised our direction.


The tenets of Islam support Secularism & harmony


“To you be your Faith, and to me mine.”
Ayat 109:6


During the rule of Ali Ibn Abi Talib the fourth Caliph of Islam a Jew stole a shield that belonged to the Caliph and claimed that it was his. He was brought to the court of Ali to settle the dispute. However due to lack of proof and according to Islamic law the Jew was allowed to keep the shield as Hazrat Ali could not prove he owned the shield. This was a verdict going against a Muslim Caliph in his own court. However Hazrat Ali accepted the decision calmly. On the other hand the Jew was dumbfounded as he had indeed stolen the shield. He was quick to embrace Islam and declared that he had lied in front of the entire court.


This was one example of how Islam spread to become one of the largest religions in the World and won hearts and minds. It was due to the insight and tolerance our ancestors had that we got to where we are, that Cordova and Baghdad became centres of learning and Islam spread from the corners of Spain to the boundaries of far east.


Unfortunately many people in Pakistan do not understand that human rights and the equal treatment of all individuals in the country is more important in Islam rather than a notion of Islamic pride and superiority where labelling a country an “Islamic Republic” is deemed necessary. This pride comes from a past that our ancestors built with policies that we fail to understand today.


The Quaid E Azams Principles



“In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Quaid E Azam, February 1948


The above quote is the greatest proof that Quaid E Azam did not want a state that was built completely on the basis of religion. Unfortunately since his death the constitution has been changed to suit every new leader that came and the title “Islamic Republic” untrue it may be has been added along with many laws that are completely out of line with Quaid E Azams original ideas for Pakistan. If we look closely at many of his speeches we will notice Quaid E Azam was a staunch supporter of secularism with an added focus on Islamic thought and ideology. Therefore until he was alive the Islamic Republic was never attached to the countries name. That happened when Ayub Khan came into power.


Other speeches by Quaid E Azam that clearly supported the message of peace, harmony and equality between all groups whether they are ethnic or religious are stated below.


‘We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. No matter what is his colour, caste or creed is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations….”

“In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims – not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state.”

“[If you] work together in a spirit that everyone of you no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.”
11 August 1947


“The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.”
30th October 1947


Clearly Quaid E Azam understood that a Nation could not be built until differences in the minds of people were eliminated and people saw themselves as equal members of a single society regardless of faith or ethnicity.


Perhaps if that spirit was alive today Pakistan would not be afflicted with minor issues and infighting over Shia-Sunni, Barelvi-Deobandi, Ahmedi, and the principles of personal freedom would have given way to building a Nation that was the most glorious one in history. Unfortunately this destiny still awaits the Pakistani race which dreams for justice and equality. Many people continuously deny Quaid E Azam wanted a secular country fearing that Islam will be destroyed by such a move or fearing for their own interests but Quaid E Azam did indeed want a Nation that was Secular and gave equal opportunity to all inhabitants.


People try to deny this but the fact is that this is not a bad thing for us to be ashamed about being Muslims but something glorious in itself that a leader who did so much for Muslims, giving them a new homeland and independence still understood the morals of our ancestors because of whom Islam to spread.


Issues caused by the misinterpretation of Islamic Law & resources used to contain them



The fact that laws created to safeguard Islam are being used for the benefit and self interest of bad people does not do anything great for the image of Islam. A clear example is the blasphemy law, a law that makes an insult to Islam, the Prophet or the Quran illegal and punishable by death. This law has been used against minorities for a long time. However Muslims have fallen victims to this law as well.


An example of how this law is misused was the case of Mohammad Imran who was arrested in Faisalabad for blasphemy on the 28th of October 2007. He was falsely blamed because of a personal argument. After being arrested he was first tortured by the police, then the inmates and later he was placed in solitary confinement without anyone looking after his injuries. He was only released in April 2009 after being declared innocent.


Another example was the framing of Akhtar Hammed Khan, an 81 year old writer and sociologist by business interests and authorities unwilling to let his development work take place in Orangi, Karachi. He had launched a development project on the behalf of the people of Orangi. His project offering real estate loans on good terms and work to improve the condition of women through education, and access to employment and family planning was not well liked by these authorities. Thus they decided to book him on false charges with the police under the blasphemy laws. He was later released due to inadequate evidence but the case proves how the law is being used to settle personal scores and disputes.


Minorities have many such stories to share as 60% of all victims who are framed under this law are Non Muslims. The law has become a tool for fanatics, murderers and people seeking to settle personal scores yet the law still hasn’t been repealed due to the fact that militants have some influence on governance. Land disputes or personal quarrels are by far the main reason for people to be booked under this law.
Another such law is the Hudood Ordinance where in a case of Rape four witnesses are required to confirm that a rape has taken place. This is practically impossible. However the woman who complains that a rape has taken place is often booked for being with another man while the culprits of the rape run free.


Therefore the Hudood Law became a tool in the hands of rapists and today any woman can be raped and when she goes to the police to get justice the Hudood Law can be used to frame her as by claiming that she has been raped she also admits that she has been with another man and committed Zinah. Some figures claim that in the year 1979 there were only 70 women in Pakistani jails. A decade later, in 1988, this figure had risen to 6000 and over 80% of the women in prison were there because of these laws. It is said many more women do not even report rapes in fear of being persecuted due to this law.


Is Pakistan really Islamic?
Better to have a Secular constitution than Islam only in name



There is no doubt that our leaders found us a land that was a safe haven for Muslims and gave us freedom to make our own decisions without the fear of suffering biased treatment for the faith we followed. However the question today is how much Islam is being followed in the country?

For instance the Quran states:

“Keep yourselves away from bribes because it is kufr and one who receives them will never smell the scent of paradise”.

The fact is in Pakistan taking and giving bribes is so common that even a noble person can hardly live without paying one. Some honourable folk still struggle on but their lives are much more difficult. If a person has money it is a possibility he has given or taken a bribe at least once. Unfortunately the entire bureaucracy is at the forefront of this rot. Justice is sold and witnesses can be bought.


On the other hand while drinking is not allowed and a license is required in order to drink in Pakistan people who want to drink do so with impunity and with no fear of being punished. The law is not even being implemented while if a drunkard happens to get caught a simple bribe wins back the persons freedom. Also while adultery is considered a punishable law under the constitution it is practiced by many people in the country without any fear of punishment. The same goes for many other laws. It is virtually impossible to implement these laws and it costs resources to do so.


The fact is many laws related to Islam exist in Pakistan but they are there only in name. They are either being misused by people for their own interests or they are not implemented and people who commit heinous crimes are allowed to go free because of them without any fear of punishment while the innocent are framed. Particularly the law simply does not apply to government officials who can flout any rule because of their influence and power.


The real question for Pakistan today is whether it is sensible to have a false, broken and corrupt “Islamic Republic” in name or it is better to have a secular constitution that guarantees freedom to everyone and ensures that there are no vaguely addressed laws that make a mockery of our Religion and are misused for the benefit of a few criminals.

Havi Sultan: Why do we fear secularism?


The above article is an article to present to the Mullah that Secularism is not an UnIslamic concept. Islam can flourish under a secular setup as well. And it may very well be what Quaid E Azam actually wanted.

Also the question for us is what is the point of having a broken, twisted Islamic republic where Islam can't be seen anywhere. Why just call it Islam when there is no Islam? We should abandon our quest to somehow impose religion and stop trying as it is a waste of resources. Instead lets just accept that differences in religion and schools of thought within a religion exist and try to strengthen ourselves.

The future of Islam should not be us bickering over how much or how little the other follows his religion. Hope you like the article. If you do then go to the site and rate it or comment. Thanks.
 
forget about names librial secular extremest
is it so wrong that i want my country to work for a better future to all my country men what ever their religion or skin coulor is ?and every citzien to be equal ? what is wrong with that

When you die, on judgement day tell allah that you preferred man mad laws to the laws that allah wanted. tell him directly that you thought his laws were insufficient. See what the response is then.
 
The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.
But despite that they have the right to representation in Legislature and Judiciary. Need i remind you that minorities only constitute 2-4 percent of Pakistan's total population and from that you want a ''Head of the State''?

One might argue that since the conception of the Modern Day Nation State, the roles of Muslims and Non-Muslims along with the relations between the two have evolved. Whereas in the past religion or some other ideology was the source of unity...now territorial nationalism has taken root and people, irrespective of their religious affiliations, do own up to said State as their own ! Whereas in the past, the Muslims or the Non-Muslims, depending upon one's reference point, were 'Conquered People' whose loyalties could not be ascertained, at least not nearly as in the present sense, we do need to revisit the assertion that Muslims and Non-Muslims can exist only in a state of exclusivity from each other. One might also argue that since Non-Muslims, alike, one may refer to the articles posted in the Express Tribune, by two Christians and a Dalit, also took part in the struggle for Pakistan...they too must be accommodated as equal citizens of the state, enjoying the same rights and having the same obligations as all others. One might, additionally, give the example of the Constitution of Medina, whereby this concept of 'Egalitarianism' was adopted by the Prophet ! And in that case he was the Head of the State by virtue of being a Prophet and because the People of Medina, irrespective of their religious affiliations, actually invited him to the City to arbitrate between them. Had the Muslims and the Non-Muslims existed peacefully in the years succeeding Islam's birth in Arabia and the many centuries afterwards...our polity would not be modelled around such an ideology of exclusivity (by the way this was practised by all and certainly not unique to Islam); now, however, the dynamics of our relations with each other have vastly changed and we should, in turn, revise our ideology of Governance to reflect that change !
 
That is but a weak argument for some who not two posts ago was claiming that "Islam as religion grantees all rights to minorities"
that is one right which you have and your minorities do not.

It does not matter..what "percentage" of population they are!!..they are still your citizens from birth..but they are barred from certain posts simply because they are not from the majority community do not follow the majority religion.
Every country has a set of rules (Eligibility criteria) regarding the seat for the ''head of the state'' . Minorities are guaranteed all rights by the Islamic injunctions, even though ALCOHOL is strictly prohibited for Muslims in Pakistan, it's made available to the non-Muslims, can same be said about BEEF for minorities in India?
Percentage matters a lot, after all, one will be elected via voting and i doubt if 4% can ever outclass 96%.
 
Every country has a set of rules (Eligibility criteria) regarding the seat for the ''head of the state'' . Minorities are guaranteed all rights by the Islamic injunctions, even though ALCOHOL is strictly prohibited for Muslims in Pakistan, it's made available to the non-Muslims, can same be said about BEEF for minorities in India?
Percentage matters a lot, after all, one will be elected via voting and i doubt if 4% can ever outclass 96%.


As i said India respects all religions equally ..if Indian restaurant do not serve beef ..they do not serve pork either.
And yes beef is available for those who want to eat beef at home..beef is not banned in India ..it is Cow slaughter which is banned certain states(again respecting religious sentiments)..but you do know, cow is not the only animal from which beef comes from ..right!!

Your percentage theory is foolish..are you telling me then people in Pakistan vote on basis of religion and not the eligibility of the candidate..So if a Non Muslim..were to stand in elections ..he would simply voted out because he is not a Muslim??
If such were the case in India ..we would never had our PM from minority community .
 
Well there are countless instances in Pakistan/Afghanistan where women or men dressed in such garbs strap themselves with bombs and kill civilians.

Of course not that you would care about your own countrymen. But other nations do, and they take prudent action to neutralize a precieved threat.

Hoodies are also not allowed in some places, same reason.

How many suicide attacks carried in burka occurred in West? ZERO! How many robberies, rape, murders have occurred in jeans shirt dress? MANY MANY MANY! so according to your logic Jeans shirt should be banned as well.
 
As i said India respects all religions equally ..if Indian restaurant do not serve beef ..they do not serve pork either.
And yes beef is available for those who want to eat beef at home..beef is not banned in India ..it is Cow slaughter which is banned certain states(again respecting religious sentiments)..but you do know, cow is not the only animal from which beef comes from ..right!!

You percentage theory is foolish..are you telling me then people in Pakistan vote on basis of religion and not the eligibility of the candidate..So if a Non Muslim..were to stand in elections ..he would simply voted out because he is not a Muslim??
If such were the case in India ..we would never had our PM from minority community .
You are trying to erect your subjectivity on sand, with a pinch of crookedness to mislead others. Off course, it's upto the majority to decide(Based on the population percentage, people are given the right of representation), who they want to elect or not. Interesting thing is, so far no such candidate has ever emerged from the minorities in Pakistan, who inspired the nation, you are pitching in a hypothetical situation, but still you have been aptly answered. If still, your anxiety persists, then i think PROZAC will work.
 
Quote "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." Unquote

This is not a question of being allergic to ‘Secularism’. Muslims can live in secular and Christian countries and can be as good or even better followers of Islam as the inhabitants of theocratic states such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. This is because one could be outwardly pious and practicing Muslim but that could be due to the State or peer pressure, not due to the love of Allah. On the other hand, a practicing Muslim living in a secular country is doing it because of his sincere beliefs.

What we are debating here is whether Secularism is the way forward for the world in general and Pakistan in particular.According to the Oxford Dictionary of British history:

“Secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs. The word was derived from the secular education movement for the complete separation of religious teaching from other forms of education.”

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with being secular or secularism. I would also agree that secularism is probably the way forward for most of countries of the world. The case of Pakistan & Israel is however an exception to this rule. These are the only two countries of the world that were created on the basis of religion alone. Pakistan was meant to be and should be a liberal progressive democratic Islamic State. Simultaneously, it must be made clear that since according to the Pakistan Constitution, no laws can be passed which are contrary to Islam; this integral part of the constitution makes the imposition of ‘Sharia Laws’ irrelevant. One of the main reasons is Sharia according to which school of Islamic thought?

Let me explain why?

Ibne Taymiyah believed that the first three generations of Islam (Arabic: Salaf) – Muhammad, his companions, and the followers of the companions from the earliest generations of Muslims – were the best role models for Islamic life. Their practice, together with the Qur'an, constituted a seemingly infallible guide to life. Any deviation from their practice was viewed as bid‘ah, or innovation, and to be for bidden.

Ibne Tamiyah issued a fatwa that the Mongols could not, in his opinion, be true Muslims despite the fact that they had converted to Sunni Islam because they ruled using what he considered 'man-made laws' rather than Islamic law or Sharia.

Ibne Taymiyah was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the Ijma of jurists and theologians of his day because his views differed from the Islam as understood and practiced by majority of the ulema of the period. For example no Hadith can be quoted that which supports the fatwa issued by Ibne Tamiyah against the Mongols.

Ibne Tamiyah was a relatively minor scholar until the Wahhabis came to power. Takfiri thought did not exist before him. One of his advocates; Syed Qutub of Egypt went so far as to legalize ‘Suicide’; something considered ‘Haraam’ by all the previous scholars and certainly not sanctioned thru teaching of Quran or Sunnah.

As Muslim and follower of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and I consider ‘suicide bombers’ are following a dictum contrary to the teaching of Islam but many Muslims obviously disagree.

My point of view therefore remains that secularism is not the way forward for Pakistan, but I also oppose theocracy. Muslims have not agreed on single code for centuries and this is not going to happen now. Theocratic state would imply forcing beliefs of one school of Islamic thought over another.
 
Quote "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." Unquote

This is not a question of being allergic to ‘Secularism’. Muslims can live in secular and Christian countries and can be as good or even better followers of Islam as the inhabitants of theocratic states such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. This is because one could be outwardly pious and practicing Muslim but that could be due to the State or peer pressure, not due to the love of Allah. On the other hand, a practicing Muslim living in a secular country is doing it because of his sincere beliefs.

What we are debating here is whether Secularism is the way forward for the world in general and Pakistan in particular.According to the Oxford Dictionary of British history:

“Secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs. The word was derived from the secular education movement for the complete separation of religious teaching from other forms of education.”

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with being secular or secularism. I would also agree that secularism is probably the way forward for most of countries of the world. The case of Pakistan & Israel is however an exception to this rule. These are the only two countries of the world that were created on the basis of religion alone. Pakistan was meant to be and should be a liberal progressive democratic Islamic State. Simultaneously, it must be made clear that since according to the Pakistan Constitution, no laws can be passed which are contrary to Islam; this integral part of the constitution makes the imposition of ‘Sharia Laws’ irrelevant. One of the main reasons is Sharia according to which school of Islamic thought?

Let me explain why?

Ibne Taymiyah believed that the first three generations of Islam (Arabic: Salaf) – Muhammad, his companions, and the followers of the companions from the earliest generations of Muslims – were the best role models for Islamic life. Their practice, together with the Qur'an, constituted a seemingly infallible guide to life. Any deviation from their practice was viewed as bid‘ah, or innovation, and to be for bidden.

Ibne Tamiyah issued a fatwa that the Mongols could not, in his opinion, be true Muslims despite the fact that they had converted to Sunni Islam because they ruled using what he considered 'man-made laws' rather than Islamic law or Sharia.

Ibne Taymiyah was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the Ijma of jurists and theologians of his day because his views differed from the Islam as understood and practiced by majority of the ulema of the period. For example no Hadith can be quoted that which supports the fatwa issued by Ibne Tamiyah against the Mongols.

Ibne Tamiyah was a relatively minor scholar until the Wahhabis came to power. Takfiri thought did not exist before him. One of his advocates; Syed Qutub of Egypt went so far as to legalize ‘Suicide’; something considered ‘Haraam’ by all the previous scholars and certainly not sanctioned thru teaching of Quran or Sunnah.

As Muslim and follower of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and I consider ‘suicide bombers’ are following a dictum contrary to the teaching of Islam but many Muslims obviously disagree.

My point of view therefore remains that secularism is not the way forward for Pakistan, but I also oppose theocracy. Muslims have not agreed on single code for centuries and this is not going to happen now. Theocratic state would imply forcing beliefs of one school of Islamic thought over another.

Niaz, good points, if you ever do get the time read this chapter from Iqbal's 'Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam' : The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam
 
Secularmap.PNG

Bangladesh is not even a secular country, as secularism means a complete separation between church and state. But for Bangladesh this is not the case. Islam is the state religion of Bangladesh according to the constitution. No secular state can have any state religion. No secular country has laws based on religion. But Bangladesh's family law (Marriage, Divorce, Child custody, inheritance) is based on Islamic religion. Islam studies is compulsory in the syllabus of academic curriculum in public schools. So Bd is not truly a secular country, what we have is freedom of religion and a tolerant society. Non-Muslims are free to practice their faith and celebrate their holidays durga puja, christmas etc. Pakistan should remain Islamic republic as 98% of the population are muslims and Islam is it’s founding cornerstone. As for countering ethnic & secterian divisions Pakistan should promote, Islam based pan-nationalism as national identity, and tolerance for minorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom