Secularists should 'mend ways or leave country', says PTI lawmaker

[The Sandman]

Nice video. He's unfortunately right when he says that when the Pakistan movement was trying to garner support, some radical elements were given leeway to say and do what they wanted in order to gain more support.

I think here they did made a mistake maybe they just didn't realized the consequences of it in the future.

 

[Finer]

Secular and liberal toads claim
- Iqbal was secular
- Jinnah was secular
- Prophet S.A.W was liberal

All were Muslim! None secular nor liberal.

Secular and liberal are not title just like Sunni and Shia. Secular and liberal stands for equality, pro-life, progression, multiculturalism.

It is not coincident why Islam crushed the conservative dominated regions that thrived upon the outdated practice practicing inequality, demeaned women, anti-multiculturalism and anti-life.

It is not about the title, rather it is about what liberal and secular mean in general. That's why you use those words.

Conservative means not equality, anti-progression and anti-multiculturalism [with plural faiths as well]. That is why conservative lost to Islam which was deemed to liberal for them.

Today we live in the world where there is too many sections of Islam, too many political ideologies which uses Islam as cover to further their political goal. We are talking about more than 2 billion Muslim population with wide ranges of lifestyles and political ideologies.

It is easier to use the term 'Liberal/Secular' just to avoid the confusion on Islam that has many sections now.

Liberal/Secular is not title like Muslim. Rather, they are term just like poor and rich which boils to the category of the profile.

Similarity, there was two types that dominated most regions in 1900 to 1947 before Pakistan became official independence nation. The one that was conservative dominated region opposed Pakistan and the one that was liberal with secular background took foreign education and used that education to make the opportunity count; hence Pakistan where majority of conservative people now live that once opposed Pakistan.

Islam is Islam and a Muslim is a Muslim. That is all. There is no secular Islam / liberal Islam and no secular Muslim / liberal Muslim.

Islam is Islam. Muslim is Muslim. But Liberal and Secular are not title; rather they are term which explains the profile much like rich and poor, engineer and doctor. They are just term that defines your background.

The meaning of liberal and secular offers almost the same interpretation as Islam does just in case if you haven't noticed.

Those who claim to be secular &/or liberal Muslim, such toads are only doing so to justify their opinions and actions that are against the commands of Allah.

For examples? That is serious accusation.

 

[Verve]

There is liberals where Jinnah (R.A) and Allama Iqbal (R.A) left legacy behind and there is extremists that becomes terrorists aka khawarij that opposed Pakistan and killed the family of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The choice is clear as sky.

It is like light vs dark. Liberal/Secular are the light [pro-life, progress, equality, knowledge] and conservative/extremists/terrorist/khawarij are the dark that prefers darkness literally.

What about the inbetweeners / moderates?

Can you also answer the question below?

Blasphemy laws aside, for this question, what kind of relaxations in the Islamic laws would you like to see in Pakistan, as a liberal? Please be specific and provide reference to countries where such relaxations are in place.
None of the liberals here give very specific and detailed answers when asked this.

Islam is Islam. Muslim is Muslim. But Liberal and Secular are not title; rather they are term which explains the profile much rich and poor, engineer and doctor. They are just term that defines where you stand.

As a muslim, I do not feel any need to add liberal or secular to my belief system to feel secure or to be happy. Allah's words have more meaning and comfort than anything, and The Creator knows more than those who defined liberalism and secularism.

I find it disturbing that muslims are defining themselves as something other than being a muslim. Weak faith perhaps is the reason, how can a muslim give precedent over Allah's words. Maybe Islam is not their way of life.

 

[Finer]

What about the inbetweeners / moderates?

You are gonna to clarify more on this. Not sure what you are insinuating.

Can you also answer the question below?

I am not sure what points you are trying to make. Blasphemy law is the protocol undermines the freedom of speech and expression.

I don't know if you know this. Islam believes on freedom of speech and expression. In fact, it is first step to the journey of gaining curiosity. Asking the question is the fundamental rights of any human being. In fact, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was hurled with all kind of abuses, mistreatment of all kinds, yet he responded with polite smile and judged the situation with mercy. After all, Islam was sent as mercy for the whole mankind.

Historical-wise, there was no blasphemy law that registered within that period of time when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and His Companions (R.A) ruled. Blasphemy law was defined as political ideology became official later in order to keep the expanding community in control like sheep even though that political ideology contradicted Islam big time and still is.

That political ideology went to be used by British Kingdom and now in Pakistan 40 years later thus defying the vision of Allama Iqbal (R.A) executed by Jinnah (R.A) who left with the hint; Islamic democracy meaning Islamic liberal/secular.

As a muslim, I do not feel any need to add liberal or secular to my belief system to feel secure or to be happy. Allah's words have more meaning and comfort than anything, and The Creator knows more than those who defined liberalism and secularism.

I find it disturbing that muslims are defining themselves as something other than being a muslim. Weak faith perhaps is the reason, how can a muslim give precedent over Allah's words. Maybe Islam is not their way of life.

Good for you but those who opposed Pakistan do feel the need to title it just to demonize Liberal which is the case here. Why do you think liberals oppose Blasphemy law? Because it is un-Islamic and quite contradictory to Islam.

Unfortunately, when Liberal Muslims people oppose Blasphemy law, then they are demonized as liberal treating in a sense as if they are satan. As Muslim if you speak against Blasphemy law and certain outdated practices that Mullah endorse, then you will be outcast with the special title. Why? Because they believe our opposing to barbaric outdated practice to be un-Islamic. Then that leads to the debate what is Islamic and what is not Islamic. 1400 years later, too many political ideologies have scattered all over the world leave the whole world including Pakistan in confusion.

They see conservative/extremists as Islamic and liberal as Jewish conspiracy whereas we see liberal as Islamic and conservative/extremists as barbarism because we [liberal] believe Islamic endorses equality, pro-life, pro-women, multiculturalism; not to mention moderation in life 'n' practice and strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression. Hence the struggle between one side of the party and other side of the party. We use the term just to avoid the confusion. That is all.

It has nothing to do with corrupting the faith. If anything, liberal/secular group are trying to revive the true Islam that used to be practiced 1400 years ago, the very same Islam that crushed barbaric conservative dominated cultures. Whereas, the conservative dominated cultures are trying to corrupt the faith taking the nation to the darkness.

 

[Verve]

You are gonna to clarify more on this. Not sure what you are insinuating.

Those who are neither liberal nor extremist.

I am not sure what points you are trying to make.

I am not trying to make a point. I am trying to understand what Shariah/Quranic laws (I'm assuming you've read the Quran and understand the laws that are clearly defined within) would liberals and seculars like to do away with and not made to adhere to.

It's not a difficult to understand question, is it?

 

[Finer]

Those who are neither liberal nor extremist.

That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is claiming to be liberal/secular. But the terms are needed to make the point what true Islam stands for.

Again, liberal/secular are just the term like rich and poor. It is based on principles that aligns with Holy Quran. Whereas the interpretation of conservative barbaric ideology contradicts Holy Quran on many things like women, equality, progression, knowledge and multiculturalism [with plural faiths as well].

I am not trying to make a point. I am trying to understand what Shariah/Quranic laws (I'm assuming you've read the Quran and understand the laws that are clearly defined within) would liberals and seculars like to do away with and not made to adhere to.

It's not a difficult to understand question, is it?

It is better if you forget Shariah laws. That is political ideology devised to keep the population in control like sheep. If anything, Shariah Laws is anti-Islam is used by terrorist-oufit aka TTP/ISIS and further that political ideology to terrorize innocent people all over the worlds.

In fact, in Islamic word; they are Khawarij aka terrorists which Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) warned us aka the whole mankind about khawarij and ordered us to kill khawarij aka terrorists on spot. Verily, they are cancer to the mankind and the biggest enemy of GOD.

That should make clear why you should stay away from Shariah laws which has nothing to do with Holy Quran. I suggest you read Holy Quran to understand what Its stands for and understand the background of Jinnah (R.A) and Allama Iqbal (R.A) to get know what liberal/secular stands for. It is simple at that.

In simple words;

Barbaric conservative group cultures are like Amish but with violence.

Liberal is like technological culture world where equality, education, pro-life, progression, multiculturalism, freedom of speech/expression are deemed as sacred.

 

[Verve]

Unfortunately, when Liberal Muslims people oppose Blasphemy law, then they are demonized as liberal treating in a sense as if they are satan.

Misuse of law and taking the law in own hand, I disagree with as well and should be punished severely. However I am in agreement with the law itself, specifically the one that covers the insult of our beloved Prophet S.A.W. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech anywhere in the world and should not be in Pakistan either. Only those who want to cause unrest in the society would do such acts, not those who want peace and calm.

Politicians are responsible for more deaths and migrations per year than this law since it came in force. We have implementation of law problem. When that's fixed, then those who misuse this law will be taken care of as well.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I am trying to understand what Shariah/Quranic laws would liberals and seculars like to do away with and not made to adhere to.

IMO no Muslim would like to do away with Quranic laws ...


There are only four offences for which a specified punishment is stipulated in the Quran , namely adultery, theft, slanderous accusation and highway robbery .... Now if one were to review the whole theory of these hudud from a strictly Quranic perspective, the hudud can no longer be seen as mandatory and fixed penalties ....

The four Quranic verses on hudud consist basically of two provisions each, one specifying the offence and its punishment, and the other that provides for reformation and repentance. There is no expatiation beyond these terms. The question that arises is that the fiqh blueprint on hudud has essentially ignored the latter portion of the text. Only the penalties were adopted but no provision was made to implement or contextualise the repentance (tawbah) and reformation (islah) aspects of the hudud. A structure of penalties, indeed a penal system, was thus envisaged that provide virtually no space for an educational and reformative exercise - presumably because of the shortcomings of the pre-modern system of criminal justice .



Modern criminal law and jurisprudence (like Qur'an) also advise a restrictive approach to punishments. Two things become absolutely clear if one reads the Holy Qur'an :

1) Allah says that there is no compulsion in religion [2:256], It is a matter of free choice, No one is allowed to to force anyone in religious affairs. The Holy Qur'an does not prescribe any worldly punishment for religious offenses. It is for Allah alone to decide the punishment for religious offences (in this life and/or thereafter)

2) Crimes that create disorder in society (theft , robbery etc.) are punishable offenses



In any modern Secular state ;

1) Religion is a personal matter and not the business of the state

2) Crimes that create disorder in society are punishable offenses



So, a "state" based on Quranic teachings would be "secular" (in essence)! After all, Muslim Philosophers like Ibn e Rushd (d.1198) are considered "founding father of modern secular thought" in western Europe ... Secularism is not as "western" as Mullahs will have us believe ...

 

[VCheng]

Good for you but those who opposed Pakistan do feel the need to title it just to demonize Liberal which is the case here. Why do you think liberals oppose Blasphemy law? Because it is un-Islamic and quite contradictory to Islam.

Such problems arise only because there is no one unified version of Islamic Law possible that a majority of scholars can agree upon to be implemented uniformly. This opens up a whole litany of issues that are far more divisive than unifying.

 

[Verve]

That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is claiming to be liberal/secular. But the terms are needed to make the point what true Islam stands for.

Again, liberal/secular are just the term like rich and poor. It is based on principles that aligns with Holy Quran. Whereas the interpretation of conservative barbaric ideology contradicts Holy Quran on many things like women, equality, progression, knowledge and multiculturalism [with plural faiths as well].




It is better if you forget Shariah laws. That is political ideology devised to keep the population in control like sheep. If anything, Shariah Laws is anti-Islam that only terrorist-oufit aka TTP/ISIS endorses and use that tactics to terrorize innocent people all over the worlds. In fact, in Islamic word; they are Khawarij which Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) us aka the whole mankind to kill khawarij aka terrorists when we find them on spot. Verily, they are cancer to the mankind and the biggest enemy of GOD.

That should make clear why you should stay away from Shariah laws which has nothing to do with Holy Quran. I suggest you read Holy Quran to understand what Its stands for and understand the background of Jinnah (R.A) and Allama Iqbal (R.A) to get know what liberal/secular stands for. It is simple at that.

In simple words;

Barbaric conservative group cultures are like Amish but with violence.

Liberal is like technological culture world where equality, education, pro-life, progression, multiculturalism, freedom of speech/expression are deemed as sacred.

You are good at refusing clear and concise answers. So I will really simplify it for you below.

'Do not marry unbelieving women' - this is what Allah says explicitly and this is also Shariah. Now, do you think that a liberal/secular state should enforce that law on muslims or not?

Allah says 'do not', not 'may not' .. plz note that.

 

[niaz]

In my opinion, nothing that Jinnah said in the speech you've quoted is against what is taught in Islam. Your thoughts on Jinnah's speech where he said that 'Pakistan should be based on Islamic Socialism'?

May I ask why you may prefer a secular or liberal or liberal secular system over a system based on Shariah/Quranic laws? Does Islam, as per your personal understanding (& not what someone tells you), teaches persecution of minorities and takes away their rights?

Blasphemy laws aside, for this question, what kind of relaxations in the Islamic laws would you like to see in Pakistan, as a liberal? Please be specific and provide reference to countries where such relaxations are in place.
None of the liberals here give very specific and detailed answers when asked this.

Objectives Resolution was presented on March 7, 1949 and adopted on March 12, 1949. This was good 6 months after the Quaid had died. This was certainly not his aim or idea.

Pakistan is 95% Muslim, hence Islam or Quran could never be in danger in Pakistan. Not being secular, personally have no objection to it. Call it nostalgia but I hanker after Pakistan of 50’s & the 60’s when there were no sectarian killings, Christian Churches did not get burnt and bigots like Mumtaz Qadri did not exist. I detest Zia ul Haq and his legacy.

It is I alone who will have to answer to the Almighty on the day of judgement and it is not the State’s responsibility to ensure that I go to heaven. If I am guilty of blasphemy, I want to be tried in a court law not shot dead by a Mumtaz Qadri.

If you want to know what kind of Pakistan I would like to see, please go to Dubai or Oman. Unlike Saudi Arabia & Iran; despite these states being monarchies, no one is allowed to force his religious views and or kill other citizens simply because they belong to a different sect or religion thru accident of birth.

 

[M. Sarmad]

..... thoughts on Jinnah's speech where he said that 'Pakistan should be based on Islamic Socialism'?

Theistic Socialism, as opposed to atheistic socialism, does not put restrictions on practicing (any)religion.

In Jinnah's own words:

“Democracy is in the blood of Musalmans, who look upon complete equality of manhood [mankind]…[and] believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.”

Complete equality of mankind ! Do you get it now ?

 

[Finer]

Misuse of law and taking the law in own hand, I disagree with as well and should be punished severely. However I am in agreement with the law itself, specifically the one that covers the insult of our beloved Prophet S.A.W. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech anywhere in the world and should not be in Pakistan either. Only those who want to cause unrest in the society would do such acts, not those who want peace and calm.

Politicians are responsible for more deaths and migrations per year than this law since it came in force. We have implementation of law problem. When that's fixed, then those who misuse this law will be taken care of as well.

Islam is pro-freedom of speech and expression. Your personal opinion has nothing to do with Islam, and if anything, it is just personal which is not enough to justify for Blashepmy laws which is built on political ideology motivated by personal vendetta.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) didn't initiate blasphemy law nor practiced blasphemy laws. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) believed in freedom of speech/expression; hence the expression "To you is your and To us is our" which applies in lifestyle, faith and philosophy in general. Basically, no coercion in life whether in faith, marriage and anything in general.

What gives barbaric conservative culture group rights to implement the blasphemy law against the wills of the nation and then defy Islam along with the visions of Allama Iqbal (R.A) executed by Jinnah (R.A).

I don't care about your personal opinion because your point have nothing to do with Islam at all. Judging by Islam in knowledge, blasphemy law has no place in Islam, neither does the modern society nor has any place in the vision of Allama Iqbal (R.A).

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Let's make a trade, I'll trade you 3,000 pure blood Amurekan Bible Belt Christians for @Armstrong , @The Sandman , @Akheilos , @django , @Hell hound , @Gufi , and @Moonlight .

 

[Verve]

Objectives Resolution was presented on March 7, 1949 and adopted on March 12, 1949. This was good 6 months after the Quaid had died. This was certainly not his aim or idea.

Pakistan is 95% Muslim, hence Islam or Quran could never be in danger in Pakistan. Not being secular, personally have no objection to it. Call it nostalgia but I hanker after Pakistan of 50’s & the 60’s when there were no sectarian killings, Christian Churches did not get burnt and bigots like Mumtaz Qadri did not exist. I detest Zia ul Haq and his legacy.

It is I alone who will have to answer to the Almighty on the day of judgement and it is not the State’s responsibility to ensure that I go to heaven. If I am guilty of blasphemy, I want to be tried in a court law not shot dead by a Mumtaz Qadri.

If you want to know what kind of Pakistan I would like to see, please go to Dubai or Oman. Unlike Saudi Arabia & Iran; despite these states being monarchies, no one is allowed to force his religious views and or kill other citizens simply because they belong to a different sect or religion thru accident of birth.

I asked what kind of Islamic laws you would want to do away with / have relaxations on. What you've said above doesn't answer this very simple question.