Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot then, brother.
I think there has to be paradigm shift over the fact that all seculars are Anti Islam. To offset this thinking I call my thinking Islamic secularism based on the models of the Prophet, Umar and Ali. These leaders who are better than all of us understood that the power of Islam was in its truth, and its ability to convert willfully, those from other religions. To do so a different policy is needed than what is present in Islamic countries in other times.
Now because there are so few minorities in Pakistan the focus to convert with love and respect has been depleted and rather a focus on (extra and superior) muslim rights has been envisioned. Lets leave the argument whether Jinnah was secular behind. We will never agree on that brother. But let us admit at least that the rulership system and philosophy of the government at that time was far different in that time.
Personally I don't see the problem in trying to mimic muslim spain, Umar's RA firm belief, Ali's RA justice and Muta zilties secularism. There has always been an undercurrent in Islam for secular thought. Many movements promoting such have risen and fallen at certain times. If we were to believe the prophet was an Islamic secularist then it would be easier to understand that we are not anti Islamic, but are rather reverting to original Islamic philosphy which Iqbal said was lost when Ijtehad was lost and during the Mongol invasion, after which most rulers ruled very orthodoxically without tolerating different lines of thinking.
I would advise you to listen to me even if you do not agree with me. I am as loving of Islam as anyone else.
We all know that every party with secular credentials has tarnished the nations image and has forgotten its principles to work with mullahs. Rather than giving love to the Ahmedis and winning them over Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared them kaffir and pandered to the mullahs. This is the same man who defended his right to drink. I am not saying all liberals drink but I am for personal freedom and the personal link between man and Allah. The point is Islamically secular leaders have not necessarily in the past been secular leaders.
Also the Islamic system is viewed uniquely by many. When there are some who say Islam forces you to have a beard and women to have niqab others say this is a personal choice and each muslim is responsible for his or her faith. That is why the Quran says in clear terms, "to you be your faith, to me be mine."
Islam has many aspects of secularism incorporated into the various movements like the Roshaniya, Din E Ilahi, Mutazilite and Rushd philosophies.
Btw what you said about ANP goes for any party in Pakistan. There are neither nationalists nor true representatives of Islam in Pakistan. And the populace does not need them if they themselves are nationalists and seek a personal link with Islam/Allah.
Coming back to the law, as I said the Prophet did not kill people over blasphemy. Even the treaty of Hudaiba was blasphemy in the fact that it refused to recognize Muhammad SAW as prophet. Yet it was signed and called a victory for the caliphate. Brother try to imitate the prophet. I am as against blasphemy as are you, but I have in mind a
different reaction towards it.
I see this (treaty of Hudaibiyah) as a necessary but hard bargain. In my eyes it enabled the birth of the caliphate through a strong peace deal the like we have with America. Any action that brings back the caliphate should be treated as such.
But you talk about an Islamic system, this is the Islamic system where all the muslim world is under one ruler and one caliph, possibly elected by the pious muslims. If this crucial aspect of Islamic governance has been lost then shouldn't we try to bring it back. Brother, the caliphate is the system of Islam, not the nation state. Also there is the fact that after trying for 60 years we have failed to introduce the tyrannical and our own perception of Islamic law. What makes you think we will succeed now or shouldn't we acknowledge that there are or have been more liberal understanding of Islam that exists which has been ignored?
I have studied Islamic history relentlessly and minimally Islamic doctrine and if you do the same with an open mind you will know what Allah wants and a lot of our notions are unfound. In short I am a follower of Muhammad Farooq Khan and my favorite philosopher is Ibn Rushd. We have made Islam a thing to be imposed when it is not.
Also if we live in fear we will always live in fear. Isn't that the logic of fighting TTP? If the only thing holding this law together is the mob then this is a problem. Under threat of violence (if this law is deleted) we want to maintain it. This is not a strong defence brother. Taliban also say unless all men grow beards and all women stay at home and even then wear niqab and we do not accept their views as Islamic the shelter and dam would break and flood so we should accept their wishes? A wrong is a wrong. The blasphemy law is based on a poor understanding of how the Islamic system works as well as the failure to understand what the Prophet would do in such a situation.
And one more thing. The foreigners like the British supported people like Abdal Wahab too. The US worked hand in hand with Laden and Haqqani was called to the US during the Soviet war. America in reality supports mullahs rather than secularists because they know secularists will not tolerate American aggression. I am for a soft policy internally where freedom reigns and a tough policy towards a tyrant like USA or any western country.
