All this debate is philosophically, based on those perhaps lived in 1000 AD or even before.
perhaps the proponents of Islamist world finally should make a jump of 1014 years and start living in 2014.
"1+1 = 2" was true back in 1000 AD just as it is true in 2014. Truth is truth and Islam is the greatest way to live and to govern a state whether we're talking 1400 years ago, today or tomorrow.
There is a reason why Baghdad under Islam was once the centre of world learning and Islamic states like Al-Andalus were 700 years ahead of the rest of Europe technologically and socially. Islam represents the Type 1 civilization that's commonly referred to as the next step in human progression.
In 2014, religion does not define the basis of a nation state, borders do, culture does, and resources unique to those borders do.
Religion defines a significant amount of the culture of both Muslim and non-Muslim nations. Religion dictates what we eat and how we prepare our food, what we wear, our social habits, etc...
Have you ever heard of something called a "civil war"? The US went through one, France had one, China had one, etc... when did "borders" or "resources" or even a common ethnicity ever keep a nation together or prevent its inhabitants from fighting? A nation is defined by its people and a common ideology they share. We are an ancient civilization that has fashioned itself into an Islamic Republic and those who are opposed to Islam are always free to live elsewhere.
Any nation which uses religion in its fundamental structures is damned to remain a backward underdeveloped state.
Interesting...
India is supposedly "secular" nation yet not only is it a backward undeveloped state it will remain one for the well foreseeable future.
Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Qatar, Malaysia, etc... are not a "secular" states yet they're by far more developed than the secular India whose citizens, particularly Hindus, walk over each other trying to migrate to Muslim states.
It also seems that Indian "secularism" has done nothing but increase peoples suffering:
While "Islamist" Pakistani's are a lot happier.
http://media1.intoday.in/indiatoday/WorldHappinessReport2013_online_2.pdf
As Ha-Joon Chang, one of the worlds most prominent development economists alive today, would put it Western development is abnormal.
The West developed on slavery, theft and exploitation without which they'd be the modern undeveloped shit holes of the world. Pakistan and India, under the Mughal empire, had a GDP (PPP) per capita equivalent to that of Britain's prior to the occupation. However, under the British Raj (made possible by the Indians allowing themselves to be enslaved) our GDP (PPP) per capita only grew a measly 60% in 90 years (while Britain's grew 700% in the same time) but after independence our GDP (PPP) per capita grew 300% in 30 years (five times the growth in a third of the time). This is further supported by research papers like "Did Colonialism matter for Growth?" written by Prof. Graziella Bertocchi and Prof. Fabio Canova who came to the same conclusion that the effects of colonialism (though specifically in reference to European colonialism in Africa which was the main focus of their paper) were almost totally negative and following colonialism African economies grew rapidly.
So please start focusing on the nation-state and then define its unique problems and solutions that are based on the unique resources of the state.
I don't understand how this has anything to do with secularism or is in any way anti the Islamic state.
In fact while the "secularists" have been campaigning for Pakistan to be more dependent on handouts and reliance on the rest of the world it's the religious Muslims that have been campaigning for a greater focus on meeting Pakistan's own needs by utilizing our own resources.
"Abu Huraira is reported to have heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is letter for one among you to bring a load of firewood on his back and give charity out of it (and satisfy his own need) and be independent of people, than that he should beg from people, whether they give him anything or refuse him. Verily the upper hand is better than the lower hand, and begin (charity) with your dependents." (Sahih Muslim B5V2267)
Not a good idea for a good poster like yourself to repeat 5th grade school history book propaganda.
What propaganda are you referring to?
Pakistan was created for Muslims by Muslims though there were some Christians who did play influential roles as well (some of whom also reverted to Islam).
Pakistan being an Islamic state never meant non-Muslim Pakistanis weren't welcome to live within it but they, like all people, need to abide by the laws of the Islamic State just as people are obliged to follow the laws of whatever country they settle in. Considering Islam allows for freedom of worship I don't see what anyone's problem would be with Sharia unless they were drunks, drug addicts and corrupt and wanted to engage in crime and immoral behavior within Pakistan.
Look at the men behind the All India Muslim League and responsible for the creation of Pakistan.
Chaudhary Rehmat Ali was the name who came up with the name Pakistan as well as men like
Sir Syed Khan, Allama Iqbal, Agha Khan III, etc... and even
Jinnah were all Islamic nationalists all advocated for an Islamic state.
Jinnah himself even confirms that Pakistan would be a state based on "pure social justice and Islamic... Islamic socialism... not other -isms"
