Separation of Mosque and State

[TankMan]

fascists hate abortions, religious people also do
fascists are totalitarians, religious people also are
fascist are misogynist, religious people also are
fascists are xenophobic, religious people also hate minorities
fascists are expansionists, religion of Christianity and Islam also are
fascists are racist, trust me religious people also are, the choice melt down to being an Arab or Nordic in origin
and above all this code of ethics the fascists waved around was infect derived from the religion
that is why there are commonalities, because both manifest the same thing a society have to offer.. traditions.
my point is that fascists kill and punish people for the same reasons as religious governments will kill or punish them for,

Seriously?

First of all, what on Earth do you mean by "Religious people"? Do you realize you'e just generalised 6 billion people? Oh how I hope this is satire....

yes they do believe in a superior race.. that was their staple no doubt but every religion do connect it self with such a superior race
Judaism with Jews
Islam with Arabs

Islam explicitly states no one man is superior to another by virtue of anything other than his deeds. Explicitly.

"An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person,3 except in piety"
Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037

i said that in the face of compulsive evidence the church officials have accepted the theory of evolution BUT they have realigned creationism with evolution by saying god must have created a process of evolution and helped it along the way and then should have send Adam and eve down from heaven on some point to manifest the bodies which were evolved.

Except... the Church hasn't realigned creationism with evolution which is why it's still one of the most widely debated issues in the world.

I fully agree with the idea of aligning science with religion - let's not forget how many scientific discoveries originate from the Islamic Golden Age - a time during which Islam was a dominant, ruling ideology. But let's not jump onto the Secularist bandwagon. What is needed is proper intellectual discussion among Muslims without devolving into infighting and sectarianism.

Secularism is just running from the issue and pretending religion doesn't matter, when it does to billions of people worldwide. If the majority population believes the state should be run based on religion, imposing secularism onto them is, ironically, directly against Democracy.

traditions.
my point is that fascists kill and punish people for the same reasons as religious governments will kill or punish them for,
the end result is loss of human life..

And yet again you show an astounding lack of knowledge. Governments kill or punish people because of politics and power-hungry ruthless leaders. The Communists in Russia and Maoists in China were both Secularist and Anti-Fascist. Yet they killed people in the millions.

Saying that religion is the cause for the most deaths is one of the most preposterous claims that has been accepted into public discourse since the recent rise of this new brand of borderline-militant Secularism.

Let's look at some actual research shall we:

"Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature"

"The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as ‘religious in nature’ – a little under 7%."

"The Institute for Economics and Peace report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html
https://www.str.org/blog/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars#.WFNL_tKLTZ4

Religion has just become a punching bag for psuedo-intellectuals who want to sound smart while avoiding the real issues of dirty politics, greed, imperialism, and especially class divide. Those are the true causes of death and violence.

The two ideologies responsible for the most deaths in history are completely secular in nature: Capitalism and Communism.

Today, starvation kills many, many more people than religion ever could directly or indirectly. Meanwhile we have enough food to feed all the starving people a few dozen times over. Seriously, look it up

http://www.stopthehunger.com/

people who died of hunger this year 10,725,901


Why don't we deal with that before we go on sanctimonious crusades to destroy 6 billion people's religious beliefs?

Liberal fascist is an oxymoron.

And why do you hate liberals so much ?




Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is hailed as the father of the two nation theory. He, in a lecture given by him before a large and very influential audience of Muslims in Lucknow, on 18th December, 1887, said :

" ..... Gentlemen, I am not a Conservative, I am a great Liberal.... "


Allama Muhammad Iqbal said :

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam..."

and

"The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to re-interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life, is, in my opinion, perfectly justified."

(Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam)



And Jinnah fits quite closely the model of the classic liberal politician. He wanted a Liberal constitution for Pakistan as well (as recorded by Fatima Jinnah in "My Brother")



The Fact is : "Pakistan movement was strongly opposed by extremist Muslims aka Mullahs and their followers, supported by moderate Muslims, and spearheaded by Liberal and Secular Muslims"


The Irony is "today Liberal and secular Muslims are "traitors" on the payroll of CIA/Mossad/RAW etc., Moderate Muslims are 'Wajib ul Qatl Mushriks', and the Mullahs are 'the representatives and protectors of the ideology of Pakistan' " !!!

I see the red flag in your profile pic and say, from one socialist to another, that you need to realise something. There is a difference between the true Left and modern 'Liberals'.

I agree that Iqbal, Jinnah, and Sir Syed were Liberal - but that word has changed meaning since then. Today's liberalism is more accurately called Neoliberal Capitalism, and it has hijacked the Left Wing in the West.

No one is saying Mullahs are representatives or protectors of Pakistan. In fact, they are a major problem and were against Iqbal and Sir Syed, they were even against the creation of Pakistan.

Iqbal was an islamic socialist. He believed that Socialism and Islam are compatible, in fact, that Islam was socialistic in the first place. This is true to a great extent. Socialism does not need to be secularist - it is completely compatible with most religions.

Furthermore, Iqbal was a - dare I say it - 'Salafi'. Salafi in the sense that he disagreed with Taqlid (blind following) and supported Ijtehaad. That is the fundamental difference between say, a Hanafi Sunni and a Salafi

The building of khudi is also why Iqbal advocated a return to ijtehad, rather than blind faith in taqlid. Iqbal believed that the practice of ijtehad was a constant evolution for the better. Iqbal lamented the loss of ijtehad (legal advance) in the Islamic world through the early political triumph of conservative Ulama over the Mu’tazila, the perversion of Sufism into asceticism, and the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols. He greatly admired personalities such as ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, and Syed Ahmed Khan, and the modernists, who were trying to bring back such ijtehad, which contextualized Islamic law according to new challenges and discoveries, without retreating from the core spirit of Islam (quite apart from modern extremist takfiriinterpretations of such individuals). Rejecting both the ‘narrow, medieval, aesthetic dogma’ of the contemporary Ulama, and the ‘mystic, monkish and ascetic’ trends which had developed in contemporary Sufism, Iqbal saw Islam as the birth of inductive intellect.

http://www.stratagem.pk/cover-story/iqbals-vision-of-the-sovereign-state/

Strangely enough, it is the ghair-muqallids like the ones Iqbal admired who are labelled extremists nowadays. Mostly because of the Takfiris who have hijacked the idea in a way. The key thing here, though, is that he rejected both the Mullahs and the Westerners

http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/zarb-e-kaleem-076-maghrabi-tehzeeb.html
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/bang-e-dra-163-tulu-e-islam.html
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/bal-e-jibril-131-farman-e-khuda.html

Just because you are religious doesn't mean you have to be a rightist close-minded conservative molvi. And just because you are left-wing doesn't mean you have to support the West.

Similarly, there is a strange role reversal in the left-right dynamic: the Left has become the opposite of what it's supposed to be.

The people @Verve called 'Liberal Fascists' exist only to defend Western Imperialism and neo-Liberal Capitalism, two of the most destructive ideologies in history. The reason we do not hear about them much is because they are currently in power.

It it true that 'Liberal Fascist' is an oxymoron. But they exist. They are people who believe in forcing secularism and "democracy" (read: pro-Western foreign policy + Capitalism) down the throats of people.

The true left does still exist though it is very weak, probably the best example I can cite is Noam Chomsky.

Anyway, the key point I am making here is that Liberal doesn't mean what it used to, and 'Liberal Fascists' do exist (personally I prefer the term 'Psuedo-Liberal')

 

[malik_qasim]

Seriously?

First of all, what on Earth do you mean by "Religious people"? Do you realize you'e just generalised 6 billion people? Oh how I hope this is satire....


Islam explicitly states no one man is superior to another by virtue of anything other than his deeds. Explicitly.

"An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person,3 except in piety"
Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037


Except... the Church hasn't realigned creationism with evolution which is why it's still one of the most widely debated issues in the world.

I fully agree with the idea of aligning science with religion - let's not forget how many scientific discoveries originate from the Islamic Golden Age - a time during which Islam was a dominant, ruling ideology. But let's not jump onto the Secularist bandwagon. What is needed is proper intellectual discussion among Muslims without devolving into infighting and sectarianism.

Secularism is just running from the issue and pretending religion doesn't matter, when it does to billions of people worldwide. If the majority population believes the state should be run based on religion, imposing secularism onto them is, ironically, directly against Democracy.

And yet again you show an astounding lack of knowledge. Governments kill or punish people because of politics and power-hungry ruthless leaders. The Communists in Russia and Maoists in China were both Secularist and Anti-Fascist. Yet they killed people in the millions.

Saying that religion is the cause for the most deaths is one of the most preposterous claims that has been accepted into public discourse since the recent rise of this new brand of borderline-militant Secularism.

Let's look at some actual research shall we:

"Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature"

"The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as ‘religious in nature’ – a little under 7%."

"The Institute for Economics and Peace report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html
https://www.str.org/blog/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars#.WFNL_tKLTZ4

Religion has just become a punching bag for psuedo-intellectuals who want to sound smart while avoiding the real issues of dirty politics, greed, imperialism, and especially class divide. Those are the true causes of death and violence.

The two ideologies responsible for the most deaths in history are completely secular in nature: Capitalism and Communism.

Today, starvation kills many, many more people than religion ever could directly or indirectly. Meanwhile we have enough food to feed all the starving people a few dozen times over. Seriously, look it up

http://www.stopthehunger.com/

people who died of hunger this year 10,725,901


Why don't we deal with that before we go on sanctimonious crusades to destroy 6 billion people's religious beliefs?

so your argument is that Islam is better and counting it with other religion is disrespecting it???
good luck with that...
i believe all the milk and honey in existence cannot undo what has been done to the reputation of Islam.
i do not want to malign you faith,
why will you bring it in am argument???
the same religion is also a theocracy based on the fundamentals of Arab supremacy. just because it says do not lie or do not deceit, it really does not means it don't..
certainly there are a lot of ways to study the religion of Islam, two different interpretation do not have to agree
the reality is Islam it self as a single entity do not exist, it never have, and its curse is, that it never will be..
its more like an umbrella under which different types of Islams exists and operates.. and there are interpretation you will not want to agree with.. no matter how devote you will be, you will always remain a hindi to them..
and all that empathy to human race and my lack of my knowledge gibberish for what?
defense of Islam.. well done sir.. you really are a champion
and as far as living in a utopia is concern,
i will choose any irreligious Scandinavian state over fundamental Saudi Arabia or Islamic republic of Iran any day my friend..
and am sure you will too..
problem with people with your state of mind is
that you people sincerely thinks that Islam has never been given a fair chance,
when you are asked to go and live under ISIS ruled Syria under sharia law.. then you will call them non Muslims and a western conspiracy to defame Islam..
fact is you people have no idea what sharia law looks like, and the moment you people will have a taste of it and see what it do to the society, you people will turn secular faster then a person is beheaded there.
and still you will argue that Islamic law is never implemented correctly..
well if it has never been implemented then it means it is UN implementable...
its UN REALISTIC... the faster you realize it the better.

and about those world wars and Islamic expansionist wars..?
question is that did the belligerents in those world wars have learnt there lessons, implemented those lessons? make a word a better place for there citizens?
answer is YES THEY HAVE
did they want to make the same mistakes twice.. NO
now come to the Islamic expansion wars..
did Muslims learn any lessons from those wars..
did they made a world a better place..
do they want to start another wave of such wars...
the answer to that is summed in a single sentence..
"Muslim ROMANTICIZE these wars.."
there is no comparisons..

and pop Francis said this,
The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said

many high ranking catholic officials and pope him self believe in these theories..
but let us not forget that Catholics are a fraction of Christianity not Christianity as a whole.
and my previous comments has clarified my position and differentiated between
socialism and communism..

 

[war&peace]

Seriously?

First of all, what on Earth do you mean by "Religious people"? Do you realize you'e just generalised 6 billion people? Oh how I hope this is satire....


Islam explicitly states no one man is superior to another by virtue of anything other than his deeds. Explicitly.

"An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person,3 except in piety"
Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037


Except... the Church hasn't realigned creationism with evolution which is why it's still one of the most widely debated issues in the world.

I fully agree with the idea of aligning science with religion - let's not forget how many scientific discoveries originate from the Islamic Golden Age - a time during which Islam was a dominant, ruling ideology. But let's not jump onto the Secularist bandwagon. What is needed is proper intellectual discussion among Muslims without devolving into infighting and sectarianism.

Secularism is just running from the issue and pretending religion doesn't matter, when it does to billions of people worldwide. If the majority population believes the state should be run based on religion, imposing secularism onto them is, ironically, directly against Democracy.

And yet again you show an astounding lack of knowledge. Governments kill or punish people because of politics and power-hungry ruthless leaders. The Communists in Russia and Maoists in China were both Secularist and Anti-Fascist. Yet they killed people in the millions.

Saying that religion is the cause for the most deaths is one of the most preposterous claims that has been accepted into public discourse since the recent rise of this new brand of borderline-militant Secularism.

Let's look at some actual research shall we:

"Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lays out the simple facts. In 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature"

"The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as ‘religious in nature’ – a little under 7%."

"The Institute for Economics and Peace report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html
https://www.str.org/blog/is-religion-the-cause-of-most-wars#.WFNL_tKLTZ4

Religion has just become a punching bag for psuedo-intellectuals who want to sound smart while avoiding the real issues of dirty politics, greed, imperialism, and especially class divide. Those are the true causes of death and violence.

The two ideologies responsible for the most deaths in history are completely secular in nature: Capitalism and Communism.

Today, starvation kills many, many more people than religion ever could directly or indirectly. Meanwhile we have enough food to feed all the starving people a few dozen times over. Seriously, look it up

http://www.stopthehunger.com/

people who died of hunger this year 10,725,901


Why don't we deal with that before we go on sanctimonious crusades to destroy 6 billion people's religious beliefs?


I see the red flag in your profile pic and say, from one socialist to another, that you need to realise something. There is a difference between the true Left and modern 'Liberals'.

I agree that Iqbal, Jinnah, and Sir Syed were Liberal - but that word has changed meaning since then. Today's liberalism is more accurately called Neoliberal Capitalism, and it has hijacked the Left Wing in the West.

No one is saying Mullahs are representatives or protectors of Pakistan. In fact, they are a major problem and were against Iqbal and Sir Syed, they were even against the creation of Pakistan.

Iqbal was an islamic socialist. He believed that Socialism and Islam are compatible, in fact, that Islam was socialistic in the first place. This is true to a great extent. Socialism does not need to be secularist - it is completely compatible with most religions.

Furthermore, Iqbal was a - dare I say it - 'Salafi'. Salafi in the sense that he disagreed with Taqlid (blind following) and supported Ijtehaad. That is the fundamental difference between say, a Hanafi Sunni and a Salafi


http://www.stratagem.pk/cover-story/iqbals-vision-of-the-sovereign-state/

Strangely enough, it is the ghair-muqallids like the ones Iqbal admired who are labelled extremists nowadays. Mostly because of the Takfiris who have hijacked the idea in a way. The key thing here, though, is that he rejected both the Mullahs and the Westerners

http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/zarb-e-kaleem-076-maghrabi-tehzeeb.html
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/bang-e-dra-163-tulu-e-islam.html
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/bal-e-jibril-131-farman-e-khuda.html

Just because you are religious doesn't mean you have to be a rightist close-minded conservative molvi. And just because you are left-wing doesn't mean you have to support the West.

Similarly, there is a strange role reversal in the left-right dynamic: the Left has become the opposite of what it's supposed to be.

The people @Verve called 'Liberal Fascists' exist only to defend Western Imperialism and neo-Liberal Capitalism, two of the most destructive ideologies in history. The reason we do not hear about them much is because they are currently in power.

It it true that 'Liberal Fascist' is an oxymoron. But they exist. They are people who believe in forcing secularism and "democracy" (read: pro-Western foreign policy + Capitalism) down the throats of people.

The true left does still exist though it is very weak, probably the best example I can cite is Noam Chomsky.

Anyway, the key point I am making here is that Liberal doesn't mean what it used to, and 'Liberal Fascists' do exist (personally I prefer the term 'Psuedo-Liberal')

This is unfortunate that an able TTA like you is feeding the troll rookie. Just report and rate his posts and move on bro. He just got unbanned and factually he was banned for the similar crap last time.

 

[TankMan]

so your argument is that Islam is better and counting it with other religion is disrespecting it???
good luck with that...

No. My argument is that different religions, different sects of different religions, and different members of different sects have different views. You literally just said "all religious people are fascists". All 6 billion of them.

Look up Martin Niemoller. One of the staunchest critics of fascism was a Christian pastor.

the same religion is also a theocracy based on the fundamentals of Arab supremacy. just because it says do not lie or do not deceit, it really does not means it don't..

The 'religion' is not a 'theocracy'. The religion is a religion, a set of ideas and morals. You really need to look up the definition of theocracy. Theocracy may be derived from religion, but they are different things.

The theocracies you are talking about, presumably Iran and Saudi Arabia, are not in accordance with Islam. Dictatorship, monarchy, and totalitarianism are strongly condemned in Islam.

As for "Arab supremacy", didn't I just quote a hadith that proves you wrong. It literally says "Arabs are not superior to non-Arabs".

Islam is what the scripture says and what the Prophet preached.

Islam is not defined by the wrongdoings of Muslims. If you want to criticise Muslims, go ahead. I'll join you. In fact, one of my first threads on this forum was me screaming at Muslims at the top of my lungs (figuratively and literally).

BUT you can not say that Islam itself promotes "Arab supremacy", because it literally, explicitly, unequivocally PROMOTES THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. Now, whether or not Muslims actually follow those teachings is another matter. Which is why I said we should criticize some Muslims, not Islam itself.

ust because it says do not lie or do not deceit, it really does not means it don't..

The religion IS WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS IT IS. For God's sake man. You are saying that the scripture is lying about itself!!

That is essentially the same conspiracy theorist logic that you've been condemning. Whatever I say, no matter what evidence I bring to you, you can just deny it with "the scripture is lying".

certainly there are a lot of ways to study the religion of Islam, two different interpretation do not have to agree
the reality is Islam it self as a single entity do not exist, it never have, and its curse is, that it never will be..
its more like an umbrella under which different types of Islams exists and operates.. and there are interpretation you will not want to agree with.. no matter how devote you will be, you will always remain a hindi to them..

Islam's core is the Quran and Hadith.
I'm fine with Islam being an umbrella. That's how it should be. If only we didn't split ourselves into sects over every minor disagreement, we'd be fine.

As for interpretations I will not want to agree with- no offense, but you need to break free from your experiences and look at reality impartially.

I'm assuming you were mistreated by Emaratis or Saudis, with all the "you will always be a Hindi to them" stuff. I've been through that as well.

They are wrong and deplorable. But I've met plenty of Arabs who don't believe in that. Plenty of Arabs who embrace me as a fellow Muslim and a human being. The way Islam teaches.

The racist Arabs and the Saudis do not represent all Arabs. They do not represent Islam either. No more than Breivik represents your beloved Scandinavian countries.

Those "interpretations" you are talking about are not interpretations. There is no way you can misinterpret "Arabs are not superior to non Arabs". Those people simply do not follow Islam. Even if they are Muslims.

problem with people with your state of mind is
that you people sincerely thinks that Islam has never been given a fair chance,

Islam was given a "fair chance", and it worked for 400 Years. It was called the Islamic Golden Age.

Ever heard of Algebra? Alchemy? Anaesthesia? Optics? Surgery? Universities? Ibne Sina, Ibn al Haytham, Al Zahrawi; Jabir Ibn Hayyan. Islamic Science. Even the Westerners acknowledge it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/29/muslim.inventions/

Islamic Welfare State - Bayt ul Maal and Zakat for wealth distribution - it existed long before your beloved Scandinavian countries.

Oh, and the first Islamic university? It was founded by a woman, Fatima al Fihri. And you know who translated all those Greek works to Arabic? A Christian, Hunayn Ibn Ishaq.

But I digress - the point of all that was to show you that Islam is compatible with - in fact, it strongly encourages - Science, Multiculturalism, Women's rights, and Social Welfare. But before you accuse me of dwelling on the past, let me move on.

when you are asked to go and live under ISIS ruled Syria under sharia law.. then you will call them non Muslims and a western conspiracy to defame Islam.
fact is you people have no idea what sharia law looks like, and the moment you people will have a taste of it and see what it do to the society, you people will turn secular faster then a person is beheaded there.
and still you will argue that Islamic law is never implemented correctly..

Do you even know what "Sharia" means? How it's supposed to be derived? You are seriously misinformed about Islam, its history, and its potential. YOU are the one who has no idea, my ill-informed friend.

As for ISIS, If ISIS represents Islam, Anders Breivik and Adolf Hitler represent Europe. I'd rather live in Islamic Iran than Nazi Germany - wouldn't you agree?

well if it has never been implemented then it means it is UN implementable...
its UN REALISTIC... the faster you realize it the better.

Historically it has been implemented.

But of course you secularists won't accept that, that's 'dwelling on the past', "we need to look at the present and worship the West because they are powerful". Nonsense.

Even if it was unimplementable, I'd rather believe in an unimplementable ideal than become a complacent sheep worshiping the Westerners and their Secular Capitalism that has murdered millions just because they happen to be the ruling nations of our time.

This is unfortunate that an able TTA like you is feeding the troll rookie. Just report and rate his posts and move on bro. He just got unbanned and factually he was banned for the similar crap last time.

I appreciate your concern bro, but unfortunately many people do hold his views, mostly Muslims who move to the West or second generation immigrants - I've met many such people in real life, which is why I wouldn't dismiss him as just a troll.

I've got some time on my hands that I don't mind spending on saying what needs to be said

 

[mrrehan]

I am surprised most people reaping the benefits of living in a secular society in the west are so vehemently against separation of mosque and state .

It doesn't matter why someone is living in western *secular* society "YOU CAN'T MAKE CHANGE IN YOUR RELIGION?" If yes then name it something by yourself. And as far as *Secular* is concern this is highly debatable. Your so called *Secular* world is changing like the NATIONALIST government in Indian

 

[TankMan]

and pop Francis said this,
The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said

many high ranking catholic officials and pope him self believe in these theories..
but let us not forget that Catholics are a fraction of Christianity not Christianity as a whole.
and my previous comments has clarified my position and differentiated between
socialism and communism..

Big Bang is easily reconciled with religion. God caused the Big Bang. End of debate.

I was talking about the theory of evolution, which you mentioned in your previous post. That hasn't been accepted by Christians yet. Please don't say evolution and big bang are the same thing, they're really not.

 

[Cherokee]

It doesn't matter why someone is living in western *secular* society "YOU CAN'T MAKE CHANGE IN YOUR RELIGION?" If yes then name it something by yourself. And as far as *Secular* is concern this is highly debatable. Your so called *Secular* world is changing like the NATIONALIST government in Indian

No one is asking you to change religion . What is being discussed is either religion should influence government or not . IMHO it should not . There is a reason why most developed countries in the world have complete separation of church and state . Also it is hard to understand what "Nationalist" government has to do with secularism .

 

[cocomo]

fascists are homophobic, religious people also are
fascists hate abortions, religious people also do
fascists are totalitarians, religious people also are
fascist are misogynist, religious people also are
fascists are xenophobic, religious people also hate minorities
fascists are expansionists, religion of Christianity and Islam also are
fascists are racist,

Brother I'd be happy to talk to you on principles, you don't have to be religious to be all these things. When you accuse people of something, quote it from their scripture. Don't just paste things from Sam Harris or someone.

 

[EnggineerShahjehan]

yes

If ever im given option to opt between Islam or Pakistan (Which ALLAH forbids must never ever happen), will always go for Islam,,,Just a hypothetical assumption,, Im sure this stage will never come, Insha ALLAH.

And Trust me except the Islam their is nothing common between Punjabi's,Sindhi's Muhajjir's , Pashtun's and Balochi's etc,,, This Islam is binding force between all these sub nations,,,

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

In Pakistan I am not sure why but there is this misconception that Seculism means you are not Religious , not true. Folks can enjoy their faith but it does not mean they should have bias in their judgement as Humans

Reading few of the posts in the thread , I am once again not suprised to see resistance from some corners
100% Absolutely no harm in having a Muslim Leader , fantastic stuff

However my argument generally is the Leadership should learn from the Positivity of our Prophet in dealing with
Muslims and None Muslims. During his time there were court cases and yes there were religious minorities

I think if we really dig deep there is a saying that Prophet was "Rahmettul, Lil Alamain"

'mercy to the universe', or 'mercy to the worlds'.


Note: You do realize that Even in Time Period of Prophet Mohammad and even in Ottoman Empire , various religions were part of cities and governments

Example Jews were quite prominent in their role in Governments in Ottoman Era as we used to refer them as People of the book , they used to be like "The Lobby" in white house these days. Not making this up 100% real and again it shows Muslims have always been secular and open minded


One can be a religious person in private , but still be a generous and kind person to all people in society
That is all there is to this concept of secularlism

During Prophet's time , he listened to court cases involving people from different religion routinely and this went on in later Governments (of course these were not full fledged countries at that time but small tribes or cities) , but the idea was firmly there.


1- Wahabism (Came around 1800 - 1900) period when the Gulf region was arid desert and there were constant mutnies against Turkish Empire.

2- Sharia , is just merely a set of rules to govern society of People and in the religion there is room to add teaching about certain adjustments. The so call Sharia came in aftermath

Example of Adjustment Provision:

• Well as you know , TV were invented Is it haram for people to watch TV or Internet?
  
• Well you know Planes were invented Can you pray on plane ?
  
• Is it Kufr if you wear Shorts ?
  
• Ok some lunatic invented a Iron Horse (Car) Should I ride it ?

So yea ... it is all allowed you know people make changes in laws and regulation


Sharia is just constitution a set of rules for a society of that time
all of this stuff below did not originate in Qaran

Modern Governance --------------------------------Islamic counter Part
TAXes --------------------------------- Zakat
Constitution/Law --------------------------------- Sharia
Rights -------------------------- Haquk Ul Ibad (Rights of the People Women, family, parents, Children )
Capital Punishment (Hanging, Drug Injection, Shooting) ---------------------------Capital Punishment


So when people say something like oh we can't change our rules and regulations but I think we do change some rules now and then

a) Driving Cars
b) Listening to Radios
c) Taking pictures , capturing souls of humans in camera and Selfie using that Selfie Stick
d) Using Internet all the time etc
e) Buying Banking products
f) Eating with fork and spoon ( I doubt folks had these back in the day)
g) You know Sharia can't explain how days/nights work on North pole and South pole
you know sun never sets , can you imagine fasting on North pole or south pole
So such rules need "educated" scholars to review the hypothesis and come to agreement
on a universally acceptable solution or answer



> People certainly should love their faith but they must make an effort to study the source and translations directly
Emphasise on these areas , try to make an effort to read the Quran and its translation fully end to end.

> Don't take your "Data" from some lunatic guy with grade 6 education


As stated before

We need to focus on

a) Education
b) Poverty Reduction
c) Social Welfare


When people start to pray 5 times a day and pay full taxes to Government and Poor people (Zakat) then we can worry about the other laws in the rule book


Below are instruments from Turkish Empire 1300-1900 approximate time frame
Wahabi culture states , no music is not good for you

Lets see Ottoman Era Women costume

So some where between the 17th century and 19th century an idealogy was created
about this, and obviously Music is not good for humans

Now below is Palestinian Traditional Attire again nothing like what we see in imports from Afghanistan / Saudia or even Iran

From a neutral Vintage point I don't see much difference in what Iran / Saudia do they look as extremist as the other , becasue they can't see middle ground anymore

And I have to admit I do see some of these shades in action of some local Pakistani shades of Wahabism due to influence from Saudia due to work ties or may be due to schools that were setup in 70/80's that imported that mindset into society

I think folks who are Muslim should be very happy and Proud of being such and be extremely happy that they were lucky enough to join this wonderful faith and at same time be thankful for Pakistan as it allows you and me to be able to Go to Mosque and hear the Azan

But at same time it is absolutely important the quality of Teachers who teach religious matter is "extremely high" and they also teach about working with other cultures and there is GREAT emphasis on minorities

Create a generation of Leaders who Lead you forward !!! not bunch of followers who follow the sheap hearder with grade 6 education or who listen to Hakim Baba to cure illness


One final example:

When a bird sings on tree we say , "Oh look, that beautiful bird sings praise of Allah!" how beautiful

When man or women sing folks (some really cus I don't), "Oh look what a arse hat singing haram all the time , wasting his life , this guy is going to the devil's hell , rot in hell you filthy bastard"

And if you will respond back and tell that person mind your business , well then you know all hell will break loose in the open forget the afterlife , you have ofended his honor

This small example shows minor point

 

[Mutakalim]

Personal faith, no place in state

Your opinion has no place in place in Shariah.

Surprisingly the first such system was introduced in muslim ruled, christian majority spain.

Rule of Ummayad is itself Biddah. Dictatorial rulership has nothing to do with Islam. Also, do read about the concept of Biddah. I have used this term in specific context.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Those of you who want secularism are playing in the hands of ..... guess who ... yes ... the Zionists ... read the below extract from the Protocols of the elders of Zion. Have a guess as to whom invented Secularism and Marxism?

You just want to prove a point by stating 'currently' only in your question. You must also be one of those who believed that Islam spread due to sword ONLY, right? You don't want to look at the last 2000 years of history? Currently only yes? If only humankind on earth was only this 'currently' in duration?

Just answer the question

 

[war&peace]

I appreciate your concern bro, but unfortunately many people do hold his views, mostly Muslims who move to the West or second generation immigrants - I've met many such people in real life, which is why I wouldn't dismiss him as just a troll.

I've got some time on my hands that I don't mind spending on saying what needs to be said

Yeah in that it is good and many time I do the same ...so that some impressionable minds without knowledge may not subscribe to such BS. However being an overseas Pakistani, whenever I visit Pakistan...I see an increase in the number of such elements who unfortunately are local Pakistanis but still they want to follow west sometimes even more than the west does.