What's new

Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

Its the likes of you that create Populist like this
Sorry but you are not someone i can take seriously. Your inner hatred for islam and muslims is despicable, please do not write a word to me again. Even though i know how much you like that guy which you have posted repeatedly.

If you can't respect people's personal religious preferences you shouldn't be here. Go to some islam bashing sites, you will be very helpful in such sites i am sure. Don't waste your breath here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
Reading this thread, I am quite meet.

I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread i was solely referring to your post #287

The thing is you try to detect the "thing" which prevents progress. And you present that "thing" as Islam, yes you use fancy words and describe them in very long and elaborate sentences, but ultimately what your conclusion comes down to is that secular principles will lessen corruption and result in progress and development in the Muslim world. That is the essence in your posts, as your clarify here:


But the current problem we are facing in the Muslim countries is not lack of secularism, it is lack of good state governance and state building. You cannot forcefully implement secularism in a country whose population mostly consists of conservative muslims/christians, if you do that you shoot yourself in your own feet. While trying to solve a problem you create deeper problems and rifts in your society.

What i meant with African standards during the times of secularists in Turkey is obvious. When the so-called secularists were in power for many decades right until 2002 Turkey was in very deep mess. Our economy was very bad, a GDP per income of around $2-3 thousand. Today it is about $13.000 and steadily growing. Why don't you research that yourself? In other words, the current success of Turkey in societal and economic terms is not a product of secularism, it is the product of islamist AKP.

In fact, I think,why the majority of Muslim countries (as a large collection of Muslim society) do not have the "good governance"? This is really a problem.
 
. .
p (-) 0ENiX, I can take the liberty to ask? Do you have any ideas about Iran?I mean, the other of "only two" Muslim countries.
 
.
Although Turkey is a major textbook, but here is really no one cares about the Iranian model?
 
.
Iran’s democracy has a major flaw. A non-elected body, so called Council of Guardians, decides who can contest the elections. The same council has the authority to veto any laws passed by the Majlis.

Any model where a self-appointed body is higher than elected representatives, negates the essential principals of democracy.
 
.
Iran’s democracy has a major flaw. A non-elected body, so called Council of Guardians, decides who can contest the elections. The same council has the authority to veto any laws passed by the Majlis.

Any model where a self-appointed body is higher than elected representatives, negates the essential principals of democracy.

Why are so mesmerized on democracy?

I'm sorry, I leave, I come back after some time.
 
.
Iran’s democracy has a major flaw. A non-elected body, so called Council of Guardians, decides who can contest the elections. The same council has the authority to veto any laws passed by the Majlis.

Any model where a self-appointed body is higher than elected representatives, negates the essential principals of democracy.


Do not know if you found when talking to a Muslim country, what people often complain about? When discussing Iran, a Muslim country, people only complain about the imperfect democracy.Sir, it has to explain a lot of things.Do not you think so?
 
.
And democracy in all countries are limited, you know, it is no different in essence.Of course, a gilded cage is different and broken cage.However, for developing countries, a system first is good governance, so at this point, Iran is unimpeachable, I think.
 
.
I think, frustration of the Turkish "secular party " and success of secularism in Iran, is a great lesson for the Muslim countries.They are quite thorough reflects to the essence of "secularism".
 
.
p (-) 0ENiX, I can take the liberty to ask? Do you have any ideas about Iran?I mean, the other of "only two" Muslim countries.

When I visited this thread previously, I was a bit busy, so I quickly skimped through the thread without reading some of the posts, that is why I am replying a bit late. Anyway, Iran is a theocratic Shia Islamic Republic, & I only know a bit about Shias & their beliefs. The Iranians I met while I was in university despised their government for their "lack of freedom" as they described it.
 
.
Do not know if you found when talking to a Muslim country, what people often complain about? When discussing Iran, a Muslim country, people only complain about the imperfect democracy.Sir, it has to explain a lot of things.Do not you think so?

I like democracy because IMO it is the best system for a country. There is an on-going debate in Pakistan whether parliament is supreme or the Constitution is supreme. In a democracy, neither is supreme.

What is constitution? It is nothing but a framework of laws agreed among the elected representatives of the people as to how they like to be governed. That is why elected representatives have the power to change/amend the constitution as is the case in all democracies prime example being the United States. Therefore in a democracy; it is the people who are supreme. Democracy is therefore essentially secular.

In Pakistan’ Objectives resolution, supreme power lies with Allah and any law considered to be against Islamic principles will be struck down. The same is the case with almost all Islamic countries.

Therefore no country that is essentially religion based, be it Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan can be truly democratic. This would also be true in a deeply Catholic Country. In my humble opinion, a country has to be secular to be truly democratic.

This is easier said than done. US declared that all people were equal, but it took a couple of hundred years and Martin Luther King for blacks to get equal rights.

I personally wouldn’t want Pakistan to be secular either. However, I would want Pakistan to have a liberal progressive state. I have lived in UAE for about 6 years. I think despite being an Islamic kingdom, Dubai sets an example of tolerance and liberalism that other Muslim countries such as Pakistan can copy.

No one forces anyone to offer prayers or fast. However, during Ramdan, all night clubs are closed, sale of alcohol in the hotels is forbidden and no one is allowed to drink or even smoke in public. Other than Ramadan, there is a mosque at every corner as well as huge number of night clubs, and it is up to the individual whether he wants to pray or drink in a bar.
Despite the wine sold in the hotels and night clubs, no one bothers any female walking alone even in the middle of the night. I would be happy with current constitution of Pakistan and happy with the imperfect democracy, if the Quaid’s vision as described in his 11th August 1947 speech is followed.

However, there are members here who rubbish Pakistan and founding fathers as well as Ata Turk on ‘Alleged’ membership of a masonic lodge. As if being a Freemason overshadows all the good deed that the person has done.

There are many such bigots in Pakistan who provide succour and support terrorists to kill other Muslims in the name of Islam. And call even cold blooded killers such as Mumtaz Qadri, who shot the man he was supposed to protect on the mere suggestion that he was against blasphemy laws; a hero of Islam.

As long as such enemies of Pakistan remain part of the society Pakistan will continue to remain breeding ground of suicide bombers and a terrorist haven.

I am a human being first, then a Pakistani and lastly a Muslim. If I am not following the right path, I shall answer to Allah on the day of judgement. My family has been Muslims for countless generations. I have no need to for Wahhabi bigots to teach me to be a good Muslim

In my humble opinion, any national hero who defies colonial powers such as Ata -Turk is a true hero and worthy of all the honour and fame that his nation can give him.
 
.
I almost completely agree with you Niaz.

My difference of opinion is on one thing. Ofcourse i recognize that Pakistani's alone have the right to decide the future of Pakistan.

My question: Why do you not want Pakistan to be completely secular?
Let alone the question that many say that if Pakistan had to be secular, why the need to separate from India at all. Those are stupid things.

My question is on the present perspective - today- why do you think Pakistan should not be secular? You want a liberal progressive Islamist state. Why? Why does the state have to have any religion? People can be perfect Muslims without living in an Islamic state.
There are two views of secularism:
1. Western version: Where the state shuns religion and all religious symbols and thus treating them equally.
2. Indian version: Where state state embraces all religions and works towards betterment of each equally.

This is the theoretical part. So what prevents Pakistan from following a perfect implementation of the Indian concept of secularism? Note: India is not able to implement the constitutional idea. However like you said in your post, it is always a work in progress. This is called top induced change. The people of a country may not be secular, but since the state is, they slowly and slowly take to it. Like US took X number of years in giving some semblance of equality to the Black population even after constitutionally declaring it.
It may take another 300 years for India or any other nation to achieve what we declare as the idea. But why not work towards it.

Why should the 2 or 3% of Pakistani minority be treated any differently at all. Whether for good or bad, they should be equal in the eyes of the state?

You give an example of US, but my point is, US is not the ultimate democracy, you can make a better one. Holding the US(or any other country) as the best a nation can achieve is a huge fallacy.
Why should Pakistan not strive to achieve that perfect secularism of state, where each religion is treated equally and embraced equally? Where it is the ultimate choice of any human to choose any religion or no religion and the State has no role in that apart from facilitating whatever he wants for his personal life.
 
.
indias system is supposedly secular but their people are most certainly not secular minded...you'd be foolhardy to believe otherwise

very communal minded people; only difference is, theyre better at hiding it -- until mob mentality sets in
 
.
Back
Top Bottom