Army magazine endorses Quaid’s vision of democratic, Islamic Pakistan

[SQ8]

There is no conflict between democracy and Islam, as long as all religion is kept in the personal space and strictly separate from matters of State.

The OP article continues to perpetuate this lethal admixture of religion and State and only goes to show just how fossilized the thinking remains at the highest levels and incapable of changing to deal with the mess that such mixing has created for Pakistan.

The idea is quite ill defined in the first place.

There is no such thing as Islamic democracy. Its a fake concept not compatible at all.

• Democracy is in the blood of Muslamans who look upon complete equality of man. I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Muslamans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.(Speech at Kingsway Hall, London. 14.12.1946)
• • There are no people in the world who are more democratic even in their religion than the Muslamans. (All India Muslim League Session, Lucknow, 1916)

 

[Mutakalim]

Your definition is as vague as child demanding caliphate in Pakistan. If we accept your definition at face value, Sood khori will become haram and whole Pakistani economy will collapse

Well brother you can say what you like. But according to Quran Its War against Allah and His prophet.

 

[OrionHunter]

Ansar Abbasi
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Talking about the challenge of terrorism and extremism facing the nation, the military magazine said, “At this juncture, any proclivity towards religious extremism, sectarianism, ethnicity and linguistic poles is deviation from Quaid’s vision of Pakistan.”

The editorial hoped that after having secured full peace from the menace of terrorism and violent extremism, Pakistan will be set to follow the ascending trajectory of progress and prosperity.

Famous words that translate to just blabber. Nothing is going to change in Pakistan unless and until the Pak Establishment discards its policy of supping with the 'good' terrorists - their 'strategic assets'.

It's a pity and a tragedy that Pakistan has forgotten the Qaid's vision of Pakistan. As long as Pakistan's foreign policy is in the hands of the defence establishment, nothing is going to change. The 'good' terrorists will continue to be the pawns of the PA to further its strategic interests especially in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

But sooner than later as always, the 'good' terrorists will morph into 'bad' ones and wreck havoc within Pakistan itself! As soon as the Peshawar pogrom is forgotten (I'd say a couple of weeks from now) it will be business as usual.

Pakistan unfortunately is not a nation state anymore. It's turned into a theocracy thanks to the religious fundamentalist seeds sowed by Zia. It would take an act of God to make Pakistan what it was prior to Zia's period. It's clear that the Qaid's dream of a modern Pakistan lies in tatters.

 

[Mutakalim]

Islam need reform

Reforms but only in the limitations of Shariah. Now shariah has four origins Quran, sunnah, Ijma(consensus) and Ijtihad. Well the issue of last two sources is debatable.

in case Islamic law fail to provide answer

Yeah thats a big IF. At this point Ijtihad Comes in.

Take example of Hazrat Umar (RA) era, He suspended Islamic laws of cutting hands of thief during the great famine in Madina .

this Issue is debatble. Create another thread than we can discuss about Solely Ijtihad. I recommend you the lecture given by tahir ul qadi. I can provide link if u want.

 

[The Great One]

The idea is quite ill defined in the first place.

This problem begins when people try to find compatibility or commonality between those two perhaps in an attempt to justify democracy to the more conservative types (or perhaps themselves) because Islam is so water-tight with regards to its instructions to the followers. Obviously no such thing exist. Those who founded Islam, never thought or cared for any such thing as democracy and vice-versa. These two were never conceived to co-exist. Democracy was about providing a new system where each human had some basic inalienable rights and where the society would not be ruled and governed by kings and queens as it had been in all the monarchic regimes thus far, with all that it entailed. Islam, well I'm not going to comment about it here (anymore). There may of course share some commonality but that would be purely accidental. Any attempt to bridge the gap between the two is rather comical, comparable to the Pope and his weird attempt to fit in evolution/big bang with creation. Clearly it shows tremendous intellectual dishonesty. Better to have them separated and left alone.

 

[SQ8]

This problem begins when people try to find compatibility or commonality between those two perhaps in an attempt to justify democracy to the more conservative types (or perhaps themselves) because Islam is so water-tight with regards to its instructions to the followers. Obviously no such thing exist. Those who founded Islam, never thought or cared for any such thing as democracy and vice-versa. These two were never conceived to co-exist. Democracy was about providing a new system where each human had some basic inalienable rights and where the society would not be ruled and governed by kings and queens as it had been in all the monarchic regimes thus far, with all that it entailed. Islam, well I'm not going to comment about it here (anymore). There may of course share some commonality but that would be purely accidental. Any attempt to bridge the gap between the two is rather comical, comparable to the Pope and his weird attempt to fit in evolution/big bang with creation. Clearly it shows tremendous intellectual dishonesty. Better to have them separated and left alone.

The first caliph was elected from amongst his peers..you need to update your knowledge... However, that was the only example of a democratic practice in that area and in that time. So they did co-exist. The biggest issue is trying to have them co-exist by sticking the practices and traditions of the respective centuries they belong to. The way the Caliph was elected back in the 7th Century is not the suitable method for electing a leader in this century.

Similarly, principles and practices that were used for determining outcomes as was best possible in the 7th century have no place today. So if say 4 eyewitnesses are required for a crime it was to establish proper evidence. Today that can be done via various methods due to the advances in technology.. hence the need for the four eye witness then moves onto the need for four people or experts to testify that the evidence is indeed accurate.

The issue is not with compatibility but the inflexibility shown whence deriving it. After all, it begs that question to those inflexible people who insist that the interpretation of laws as it were in the 7th Century is okay for the 21st but have qualms about riding out to battle on a horse against tanks...

 

[The Great One]

The first caliph was elected from amongst his peers..you need to update your knowledge... However, that was the only example of a democratic practice in that area and in that time. So they did co-exist. The biggest issue is trying to have them co-exist by sticking the practices and traditions of the respective centuries they belong to. The way the Caliph was elected back in the 7th Century is not the suitable method for electing a leader in this century.

Similarly, principles and practices that were used for determining outcomes as was best possible in the 7th century have no place today. So if say 4 eyewitnesses are required for a crime it was to establish proper evidence. Today that can be done via various methods due to the advances in technology.. hence the need for the four eye witness then moves onto the need for four people or experts to testify that the evidence is indeed accurate.

The issue is not with compatibility but the inflexibility shown whence deriving it. After all, it begs that question to those inflexible people who insist that the interpretation of laws as it were in the 7th Century is okay for the 21st but have qualms about riding out to battle on a horse against tanks...

Now I am confused about what I was talking. Whatever

'Shura' says Uncle Google. Fine I was wrong. But as I said, some commonalities may exist. Exception prove'th the law.

Crux of the post was that democracy is enough onto itself. Equality and Freedom are basic human rights understandable by all and requiring mere common sense. You don't need to have the word of G-d to 'believe' in it, do you? The point that all 'Islam was democratic' brigade fail to see is that democratic values don't need any ratification by any Islamic texts nor does it matter if it actually is opposed by it (yes, I said it, shoot me* ). In fact by bringing in Islam, they are directly impinging upon the rights and freedom of all non-Islamic people.

At any rate, today's version of Islam is hardly any democratic. Not to mention the outdated laws as you said. Better to keep it a distance.


*Please don't.

 

[SQ8]

Now I am confused about what I was talking. Whatever

'Shura' says Uncle Google. Fine I was wrong. But as I said, some commonalities may exist. Exception prove'th the law.

Crux of the post was that democracy is enough onto itself. Equality and Freedom are basic human rights understandable by all and requiring mere common sense. You don't need to have the word of G-d to 'believe' in it, do you? The point that all 'Islam was democratic' brigade fail to see is that democratic values don't need any ratification by any Islamic texts nor does it matter if it actually is opposed by it (yes, I said it, shoot me* ). In fact by bringing in Islam, they are directly impinging upon the rights and freedom of all non-Islamic people.

At any rate, today's version of Islam is hardly any democratic. Not to mention the outdated laws as you said. Better to keep it a distance.


*Please don't.

That is fallacious argument as well. See democracy is just a system and at no point do the texts "verify" it or otherwise.
Islam has thrived under kings where Democracy has little value... and under the idea of a Shura(uncle google isnt very accurate) and under dictatorship...it under these various "Islamic" rulers that non-muslims have suffered under democratic rule and have prospered under kings.. so the effect of Islam in the life of the common citizen depends upon the rulers rather than the system in place as such.

The idea that somehow Islam supporting democracy at some point "taints" democracy is something I find offensive personally.. it is a very bigoted view... more so the idea that there is a single version of Islam out today.

 

[The Great One]

That is fallacious argument as well. See democracy is just a system and at no point do the texts "verify" it or otherwise.
Islam has thrived under kings where Democracy has little value... and under the idea of a Shura(uncle google isnt very accurate) and under dictatorship...it under these various "Islamic" rulers that non-muslims have suffered under democratic rule and have prospered under kings.. so the effect of Islam in the life of the common citizen depends upon the rulers rather than the system in place as such.

Ummmmmm....................
I'm not sure which argument this refers to. Could you please specify

The idea that somehow Islam supporting democracy at some point "taints" democracy is something I find offensive personally.. it is a very bigoted view...

I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing.

more so the idea that there is a single version of Islam out today.

I'm not a Muslim so I'm certainly not aware beyond the generic headlines. I guess I am wrong at least here.

 

[SQ8]

Ummmmmm....................
I'm not sure which argument this refers to. Could you please specify


I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing.

I'm not a Muslim so I'm certainly not aware beyond the generic headlines. I guess I am wrong at least here.

The first part refers to the idea that Islam has worked only in democracy or thrives best in it. The gist of it is that Islam has a set of rules and principles that the leadership is supposed to practice for themselves and the community. That leadership can be a king, prime minister, president, chief executive or supreme chancellor overlord. The people should decide what system of governance they find acceptable.. and then that system of governance is to implement laws according the basic guidelines provided... so if in the 7th century the law for evidence was for four male witnesses to have been present at the scene of the crime...then the 21 century is 4 evidences that may include video, DNA or other means of proof that is authenticated by experts.
The same way there are guidelines for the personal life of every individual when are then construed on the modus operandi of governance by the leadership.

The issue is that right after the third ruler after the prophet.. the system implemented then fell prey to political infighting and very soon abuse of power and religious authority. That is a very HUMAN trait and hence has effected the rule of Muslims throughout their history at various junctures. There were rulers who were good human beings and those that were not.. The problem with Muslims(and vice versa non muslims) is that they try to justify that all of this rule was good(or bad).

The second bit is what could be construed from your post.. as if you feel offended that Islam too has a form of democracy practice in it earliest history.

Since you are not aware, perhaps drawing conclusions is then intellectually dishonest to yourself.

 

[Donatello]

That is fallacious argument as well. See democracy is just a system and at no point do the texts "verify" it or otherwise.
Islam has thrived under kings where Democracy has little value... and under the idea of a Shura(uncle google isnt very accurate) and under dictatorship...it under these various "Islamic" rulers that non-muslims have suffered under democratic rule and have prospered under kings.. so the effect of Islam in the life of the common citizen depends upon the rulers rather than the system in place as such.

The idea that somehow Islam supporting democracy at some point "taints" democracy is something I find offensive personally.. it is a very bigoted view... more so the idea that there is a single version of Islam out today.

I think Google is a female....because:
1) Have an answer for everything you ask (no matter good or bad)
2) Starts replying (showing result) before you can finish saying (typing your query)
3) Likes colorful new design everyday
4) Presents a gazillion shopping preferences to waste your time

 

[The Great One]

The first part refers to the idea that Islam has worked only in democracy or thrives best in it. The gist of it is that Islam has a set of rules and principles that the leadership is supposed to practice for themselves and the community. That leadership can be a king, prime minister, president, chief executive or supreme chancellor overlord. The people should decide what system of governance they find acceptable.. and then that system of governance is to implement laws according the basic guidelines provided... so if in the 7th century the law for evidence was for four male witnesses to have been present at the scene of the crime...then the 21 century is 4 evidences that may include video, DNA or other means of proof that is authenticated by experts.
The same way there are guidelines for the personal life of every individual when are then construed on the modus operandi of governance by the leadership.

The issue is that right after the third ruler after the prophet.. the system implemented then fell prey to political infighting and very soon abuse of power and religious authority. That is a very HUMAN trait and hence has effected the rule of Muslims throughout their history at various junctures. There were rulers who were good human beings and those that were not.. The problem with Muslims(and vice versa non muslims) is that they try to justify that all of this rule was good(or bad).

We might have been replying to 2 different persons LOL
'The first part refers to the idea that Islam has worked only in democracy or thrives best in it.'
This is just impossible. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere did I ever make any such claim.

The second bit is what could be construed from your post.. as if you feel offended that Islam too has a form of democracy practice in it earliest history.

Thats your interpretation. And it is WRONG. In fact I was happy that such thing exist.

Since you are not aware, perhaps drawing conclusions is then intellectually dishonest to yourself.

As I said, I was wrong. Intellectual dishonesty is a completely different phenomenon.

Now, I see, where some of the confusion may have been coming from.
I said this

The point that all 'Islam was democratic' brigade fail to see is that democratic values don't need any ratification by any Islamic texts nor does it matter if it actually is opposed by it (yes, I said it, shoot me* ). In fact by bringing in Islam, they are directly impinging upon the rights and freedom of all non-Islamic people.

This was in reference to peeps who try to say that democracy is 'Islamic' and compatible with Islam etc. when the correct thing is obviously that church and state inter-mixing are a complete no-no. That wasn't in reference to you and 'shura'.

 

[SQ8]

This was in reference to peeps who try to say that democracy is 'Islamic' and compatible with Islam etc. when the correct thing is obviously that church and state inter-mixing are a complete no-no. That wasn't in reference to you and 'shura'.

A lot of the antagonism against the idea of a mixed "Church and State" has to do with the Christian experiment(whereas the Bible provides no such reference at all) and the rather bad taste the dark ages have left in people's history palette.

First and foremost religion is a personal practice, hence it is left to the person to practice the worldly aspect of religion(not spiritual activities) on themselves and their community( alms, treating others well etc) and then protecting their community( stopping burglaries, prohibiting loud music that disturbs the neighbourhood .. etc) and acting against those that damage their community( Punishing thieves, murderers etc) . Hence, if a said collective of people abide by a common ethos/ideology/axiom/fundamentals/religion that gives a clear guideline on how to treat your fellow human being, what is permitted and what is not.. they would wish to govern themselves as a community based on these very principles(something not too different from what the founding father's of America did). Hence, when these people form a government.. they would expect that those they have asked to rule over them follow their ideals when implementing protection for their community or resolving disputes. Now if there is a minority that is part of the community.. and the level of participation it has..they will likely differ in their ideals. Hence, there become two solutions.. either the minatory and majority come to a compromise on how a common set of rules will be implemented.. or that the minority agrees on the majorities ideals for government in return for being granted rights for their protection from abuse of the majorities law against them(this was provided for in the first Muslim state by absolving minorities of any compulsion to fight for the state and from compulsory alms hence put themselves in danger.. in return they had to pay an equivalent tax to offset social welfare costs and defence expenditure). The requirement of this system(be it democracy or kingship or otherwise) that it is morally obliged to ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected and no citizen be forced to suffer at the other's behest. So a person who likes to drink should be able to but to protect those who wish to prevent alcohol from progressing within their community this person has to drink privately...hence.. a compromise(not like many western democracies and eastern oligarchies where the sentiment and rights of others are trampled upon to "accommodate" a rebellious section to their "full" rights). So now we have an example of a system that has come up pretty much "For the people by the people".
This can be a state of Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists or those who believe in Roman gods and goddesses and their laws and beliefs. Yet, if you just replace those laws with those created by the interpretation of the Quran in accordance with the norms of the day(technology,society and so on).. suddenly.. we have a massive issue that is wholly offensive to the beliefs of "secularists" all over... do we not?

Regardless of whether this sort of formation of a system with ANY of the bold common things is susceptible equally to the "human" condition and so prey to political or personal misuse along with a host of other vices.. we seem to only focus as such on the Islam version of it these days.

 

[The Great One]

This can be a state of Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists or those who believe in Roman gods and goddesses and their laws and beliefs. Yet, if you just replace those laws with those created by the interpretation of the Quran in accordance with the norms of the day(technology,society and so on).. suddenly.. we have a massive issue that is wholly offensive to the beliefs of "secularists" all over... do we not?

False, (Warning: Views hurting religious sentiments offered, please turn away now)
Firstly, no secular person would accept the recognition of any religion when it comes to state affairs. Established laws can always be adapted to changing needs. Divine laws cannot. And why do you need the 'interpretations' of Quranic law anyway. Are humans too dumb to respond to present challenges that we need to read and re-read old albeit Holy books.
Accepting the supremacy of any religion will grant it legitimacy and state backing. It cannot be challenged anymore which greatly hinders human thought in addition to all archaic laws (no matter how modern the 'interpretation' which incidentally only came into existence because of 'modernists' who believes in no religion). Religion cannot tolerate Science because religion is always going to be against it because Science relies on fact whilst religion.....................
Secondly, do you think that in a world run by Islamic laws as you say, Islamists or you yourself would tolerate if anyone one day decided to stand up and say, 'Oh wait, all this religion stuff is just bull'. Or if somebody decided to pull a Corpenicus on some of your core beliefs. Islam or Muslims if you prefer are one of the most violent suppressors when it comes to opposing views. Christianity probably was too in the old ages but rationality and atheists took care of it. Same can't be said for you guys. I'm sorry if it hurts your religious sentiments, but thats how it is.

Today, science and consequentially human standards of living wouldn't have progressed all the way if people would have killed everyone who dared to say that Earth is over 6000 years old or that human baby is concieved when a female egg is fertilized by a sperm and all that virgin-birth is just hocus-phocus. The pope wouldn't have been able to say today that 'god isn't a magician'.

State *wall of fire* Religion.

 

[FaujHistorian]

a... i said adding the word Islamic binds the authority so that you can make only laws ..

Sorry bro..

Adding the word "Islamic" simply brings in all the tribalism and anarchy into an otherwise civilized 21st century nation.

Medieval Christians made huge mistakes when they tried to mix religion and state

and now

Muslims are aping medieval Christians
instead of trying to avoid their mistakes.


Modern nation state is a new concept, and this is why you cannot find religious structures from 700 AD to support it.


many Pakistanis fail to understand the finer point

that separation of church and state is meant to protect the church/mosque from the likes of Mawdoodia and Mullah Aziz and Mullah Fazlu.

These Mullahs use sacred places in mosques in order to further their dirty politics.

I hope you all get this finer point.


Thanks.