So even with the blasphemy law, mullahs in parliament and an entire ministry for Islamic affairs and hajj without there being equal one for yatra of hindus or others is lack of religion in Pakistan? Then the fact you equate secularism with lack of religion which isn't necessarily true. We aren't puppets at all. We just want things to be like how they were in early Islamic states which we believe were an Islamic brand of secularism. Anyone who has read about Ibn Rushd, Mutazilites and other contemporary muslim movements which were secular by nature would not equate secularism with being out of the parameters of Islam. Secularism is a concept, Islam is a religion. Both can thrive together
We have tried to impose Islam for 60 years +. Yet you say we are a secular state. If you couldn't be satisfied in decades how will you be satisfied in the future no matter how much religion we force. This is the problem with the mullahs too. They will never be happy. Not even with a Taliban's Pakistan. There is always the demand for more religion, more Islam? Is it not better to let all people decide how much or how little they want to follow religion rather than imposing it?
That is not true. How can you blame us like that? Aren't European Muslims muslims anymore. They live in secular societies. I know they aren't perfect always but a lot of families stick to Islamic values in these secular societies admirably. We have to get rid of the notion that secularism is anti islamic. It is the source of the problem.
Also what I call for is more freedom. Equal rights for all. Within the parameters of Islam and modern secular concepts. Ataturk was praised highly by Iqbal by the way. Both Jinnah and Iqbal wanted a secular Pakistan.
Glad you are at least against these parties. But apply the concept to a wider level. How about removing all the mullahs from power? Of course nothing can be done without our vote as that would be equally against freedom as is the scarf or minaret ban in some European nations.
But since you don't support JI you might know the reasons. There is the potential for religion to be used as a tool to further certain narrow minded interests, many of which have nothing to do with Islam. Has the JI ever stood against American barbarism? It will never because the mullah can always be bought. I am not saying this is not the same with others but there is a tendency for personal interest to eclipse religious interest.
Progress is not generally affected by how much the role of religion is. But we do waste resources in some cases. If we focus on small things we will always be distracted. For example when we walk into the mosque in Pakistan today people will demand we keep our shalwars paincha's up, keep a beard and follow religion the way they themselves follow. The real idea should be establishing muslim unity and ijtehad (reformation which Iqbal wanted was abandoned and associated with the fall of Islam when it was abandoned-there is according to him, a need that Islam be reinterpreted according to modern times-Islamic ideals change with time. We have to evolve to fit these needs.)... Islamic reformation is a necessity of modern times.
Just because the west adopted a concept doesn't mean that west developed it. The first time the idea of a secular society in its most noble form was introduced by a muslim spaniard named Ibn Rushd or Averoes. There have been other Islamic movements too with an undercurrent of secularism like Pir Roshan's Roshaniya or Akbar's Din e Ilahi.
My argument is that Islam in its early years was secular. Ali and Umar were secular, one whos own court gave a verdict in favor of a jew, the other who refused to pray in a church in fear it would be converted by his future followers into a mosque.
@Hell hound @somebozo @Irfan Baloch @Kaptaan @Doordie @war&peace @Zibago @The Sandman
...
