At this point, let's keep it to the religious persecution part that you brought up as a justification for claiming that it was a 'intolerant and barbaric society'.
"Religious persecution' was brought up in support of other arguments of 'regressive cultural norms' pre-Islam that you sought to deny - they are part of the argument, and therefore the regressive cultural practices of South Asia that have used religion and distorted religion are in fact relevant to the argument since they support the position that it is not religion but man and cultural norms that are the issue.
I would have to say that that kind of intolerance has only increased now and become more institutionalized and justified by religion. A new "prophet" and his supporters are likely to face much more hardship today, especially in an Islamic society.
It has been 'institutionalized' because of the concept of nation states and strong central governments/authorities that support particular interpretations of religion, it has not become institutionalized because of the faith, but because of those who choose to distort it to maintain power and ensure that their regressive cultural/social views continue to be dominant.
I talked about the supposed inferior status of women in pre Islamic society as one example that is frequently cited.
You talked about "religious intolerance" which has only increased, not decreased.
I used my example of religious intolerance in pre-Islam Arabia to support the argument of other regressive social practices that you sought to deny.
I would agree that this "individual" thinks that way and some more also think that way as well.
One could well argue that there would have been "moderate people" then as well.
Sure, just as I am sure not all Indians are 'Islam/Pakistan haters and baiters' like you, and no no retraction from me on what I said earlier - I have followed your posts for a long time now and your hatred for Islam/Pakistan is pretty obvious. Deny it all you want, but that is who you are. You were in fact banned the last time around for such rants, though you have displayed more self-control this time.
Great thoughts. Has it ever been a reality?
Muslim historians would argue it was during the first four Caliphates, and today's Turkey would be another good example.
But societies and nations are run by people, not Angels, and people are inherently flawed and diverse, and therefore societies and States are always going to be flawed and never perfect. All people can do is continue to argue in favor of improvements and change in society and government, as flaws continue to be identified.
---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------
Yes, you think it is wrong because the society is not "secular enough", others think it is wrong because the society is not "Islamic enough".
Your diagnosis is probably correct, the "ilaaz" os this "marz" has no common agreement.
The argument itself is flawed - it should not be a question of 'Secular State vs Theocratic State', but of what kinds of values we wish to see implemented in our State and society - equality, justice and freedom for all.
Getting caught up in the 'Secular vs theocratic' argument only hardens positions on both sides and prevents meaningful discussion and reform of the existing State structure, within the existing ideological boundaries.
