‘Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan’

[Sugarcane]

Sir if the system is not according to Islam the system is kufr sir and those who are not trying to change it are being part of that kufr Sir we have to change that system even if we have to give our life for that

 

[Zarvan]

Mr stop attacking Hadees Mr if you problem with HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW Mr their are several people HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told things to do so it depended on what people he dealt and what he told them and what he asked them go and study hadees before talking **** which enemies of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW often to do and than also attack Quran

 

[Zarvan]

I think your whole brain is washed and flushed

I am not brainwashed I follow Islam and follow ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW but enemies of Islam and HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW first attack saying of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and than him and than come to Quran and tafseer on their master pervaiz is proof of it in whole Tafseer he has attacked all concepts of Islam and his pets are also doing the same job

 

[Sugarcane]

I am not brainwashed I follow Islam and follow ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW but enemies of Islam and HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW first attack saying of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and than him and than come to Quran and tafseer on their master pervaiz is proof of it in whole Tafseer he has attacked all concepts of Islam and his pets are also doing the same job

 

[Zarvan]

Yes go ahead talk bullshit shows you background and you reality

 

[Sugarcane]

Yes go ahead talk bullshit shows you background and you reality

Enough of your bullsh!t - No need to go on personal attack and no need to become sole protector of Islam when you don't know abc of Islam. Be happy with your bloodthirsty mullahism and enjoy electric dance or bhangra on bollynaats

 

[Zarvan]

Enough of your bullsh!t - No need to go on personal attack and no need to become sole protector of Islam when you don't know abc of Islam. Be happy with your bloodthirsty mullahism and enjoy electric dance or bhangra on bollynaats

Sir I know Islam and I study Islam Sir on daily bases you need to study Islam and stop attacking Islam and its concepts because you master will attack Quran in fact he did his whole Tafseer and concepts start from attacking Hadees and end up in attack Quran and his paid do.. are doing same

 

[Sugarcane]

Sir I know Islam and I study Islam Sir on daily bases you need to study Islam and stop attacking Islam and its concepts because you master will attack Quran in fact he did his whole Tafseer and concepts start from attacking Hadees and end up in attack Quran and his paid do.. are doing same

This is the last time i am warning you - no need to go on personal, What do you know about me? If your mullah can't stand against simple question - does it mean you start calling other qadiani. Pity on your daily base study on Islam & your idiot teacher.

 

[somebozo]

Sir I know Islam and I study Islam Sir on daily bases you need to study Islam and stop attacking Islam and its concepts because you master will attack Quran in fact he did his whole Tafseer and concepts start from attacking Hadees and end up in attack Quran and his paid do.. are doing same

One can spend their entire life studying Islam and accomplish nothing but also end up dumber.
For 1400 years we cannot agree which sect is right and still fighting about the rights of 7th century Khilafah.

3 Khalifa Rashidun were murdered on duty by disgruntled populace.

Commander of Believers and Mother of Believers went to war with each other - 10,000 innocent Muslims died.
Nothing has killed Muslims in scores as big as Islam itself.

The advent of Islam created a massive exodus of Semitic tribes, Persian traders and Assyrian Christians from Arabia who traditionally dominated the spheres of science, arts, engineering, metallurgy, warfare etc. This pushed Arabia into 1400 years of backwardness and a dependency on talent import which continues to this day. While the displaced people moved towards Europe and flourished well.

This is the last time i am warning you - no need to go on personal, What do you know about me? If your mullah can't stand against simple question - does it mean you start calling other qadiani. Pity on your daily base study on Islam & your idiot teacher.

Violence is the easiest tool to silence critical minds. This is what all Mullahs follows. Everything which cannot be explained is raised to the status of holy cow!

 

[Awesome]

I'm a secularist, ukhaar lo jo ukhaarna hai!

 

[Sugarcane]

Violence is the easiest tool to silence critical minds. This is what all Mullahs follows. Everything which cannot be explained is raised to the status of holy cow!

No doubt in that. Islam is hijacked by barbaric creed who want to control every aspect life. Few days before my marriage, one expert of Islam was telling me the Islamic method & position of sex, I don't think they have spared anything.

 

[Patriots]

@haviZsultan I would answer to your article point to point … You can see below:

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. Scholars claim that today the country is very far from Islam because very few people in Pakistan really follow the tenets of Islam however very few of them can answer the question whether it's 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.

First thing is this you have accepted that many Pakistani has failed to follow to tenets of Islam, no other argument is there. But kindly tell me who is the main responsible to this failure. Isn’t it the government who didn’t try to make the state an Islamic state?

It is never worthwhile to have just the name of “Islamic Republic” without making an “Islamic Republic”.
First question is that Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism. Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi Ulema, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.
The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries like for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.

It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.

Will Secularism decrease Islam’s value in Pakistan?


Many Pakistanis continually fear that secularism will decrease Islam's value 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 that a country that calls itself an Islamic Republic should have 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. A country lacking the Islamic economic and judicial system based on the teachings of the Prophet can't be an Islamic Republic. It's not that Pakistanis haven't tried. If proof is needed one needs to look at Zia's Islamicization. Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. It's more than time we revised our direction.

Completely disagree with your fact that Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. Actually it has not been tried except Zia era and that was his self – interest he didn’t do for Islamization. If people take bribes & do other sins as per Shari’ah then kindly tell me where is the fault of Islamic ruling system in it? Firstly Islamic ruling system could be imposed here with its full spirit for 60 years. Secondly this is rulers failure who shows to themselves as secular in front of west world except Zia-Ul-Haq because at that west world had need to Islamization against USSR.
If you say that all above mentioned corruptions can be remove from our society. So, check other secular states e.g. All these corruption you can find in India too, might be it would less over there but it can’t be said that has not.
Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected. Islam strongly emphasizes faith in Allah. Islam emphasizes life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.

Is Islam really incompatible with secularism? Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.
The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic Ulema and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The Ulema were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.

The tenets of Islam support Secularism & harmony

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

At the time of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal unfortunately Moatazilah had forgot above mentioned Ayat. The Caliph Mamoon Ur Rasheed had accepted their beliefs & mostly fawning Ulemas had also accepted too, in his pressure but some righteous Ulema did not so, and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was one of them. They punished to him and he was imprisoned with chains. He had pressurized that accept their beliefs that Allah has created the Quran instead his it is word of Allah, but insisted against them. Afterwards he had been died in the prison. Their secularism was slept somewhere at that time.

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.

I would thank to you that you accepted that how the justice have been done at the time of 4th Caliph. This could be possible in an Islamic state. On the one side was the Jew (A non-Muslim) and other side was the ruler of the time. But court ruled the favor of Jew.

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.

This is the fault of people & rulers not the Islamic governing system.

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 solely 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 Azam's 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 were eliminated and people saw themselves as equal members of a single society regardless of faith or ethnicity.

But don’t forget that Pakistan had been built on the name of Islam. You quoted to Quaid – e – Azam. That was he who had presented two nation theory. If Pakistan was not going to be theocratic state. Then why we had separated from India. If we were create a secular state then Why did we put the slogan for separate Muslim state? Why united secular India was bad for us? Why did we sacrifice millions of lives? It means at same time Maulan Abul Kalam Azad (according to you Wahabi) was right that Pakistan should not be built.

Anyhow, it is pleasant thing that you consider to quoting example of 4th Caliph that all people can get same privileges in Islamic state.

Perhaps if that spirit was alive today Pakistan would not be afflicted with religious issues and infighting between Shia-Sunni, Barelvi-Deobandi, Wahabi-Mainstream Muslim, 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 conservatives continuously deny Quaid E Azam wanted a secular country believing that such a concept is against Islam when it is not. Perhaps they fear for their own interests but Quaid E Azam did indeed want a Nation that was Secular or Socialist and gave equal opportunity to all inhabitants.

Who would guarantee that sectarian separation could be remove to being a secular state? Give any example from present world.

People try to deny this but the fact is, being Muslims this is not something for us to be ashamed of but something glorious. That a leader who did so much for Muslims, gave them a new homeland and independence, still understood the morals of our ancestors because of whom Islam spread is truly remarkable.

Again same question will raise that why did we need for independence for Muslims? What was the bad in united India?

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. But when she goes to the police to get justice the Hudood Law can be used to frame her, because 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.

Kindly explain. Is law faulted or implementation could not occur in righteous way?
How do we blame to law? Why do we not condemn to rulers that they failed to enforce in right way.

Is Pakistan really Islamic?

Answer is “NO”

Better to have a Secular constitution than Islam only in name

Wouldn’t it be the hypocrisy..??? If you agree that in Islamic system all people whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim can get all privileges then why do we need secular constitution? And for you information our constitution is secular at this time except some articles which were Zia Ul Haq included by amendment.

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?

Same thing you mentioned again n again.

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. On the other hand 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.

Again same question raises in mind that where is the fault of Islamic system? This is the lack of implementation and this can be done by rulers & law enforcement agencies.

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.

You have repeated same type of arguments again n again.

Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Quranic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Madina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Madina.

There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Quran's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) used to consult his companions in secular matters.

In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state. Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.

 

[livingdead]

No doubt in that. Islam is hijacked by barbaric creed who want to control every aspect life. Few days before my marriage, one expert of Islam was telling me the Islamic method & position of sex, I don't think they have spared anything.

ha ha. did he say missionary is haram?

 

[Sugarcane]

ha ha. did he say missionary is haram?

Ab tum mazay laina chahtay ho???

 

[Federer]

I'm a secularist, ukhaar lo jo ukhaarna hai!

Allah would see that in Narak (or Jannat?)

On the Earth, You need to come up in front of the Foot Soldiers!