See thats exactly what I was talking about. Many Pakistanis don't even know the proper history of their own country. They only know what the government propaganda teaches them or if its not that, then the propaganda by religious parties and other self-motivated forces.
First of all, there's a difference between being 'fanatic', being 'moderate' and being 'secular'. Now I'm not too sure if Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be secular but what I do know is that he wanted it to be 'moderate' and NOT 'fanatical' as some of the Mullahs running around today would want it to.
That is the reason (Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be atleast moderate if not secular) that Pakistan was just named Pakistan. In 1956, Pakistan became a republic but even then, the name was Republic of Pakistan but when Zia Ul-Haq came in, 'he' was the one to change the name to ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan because of his religious zeal. History will never forgive that man.
See, you are confused here. You are right when you say that Pakistan was made for 'Muslims' but that does NOT mean it was made to be purely Islamic at all. That is the difference you fail to understand. It was made as a 'Muslim majority state' just like India was Hindu majority state; just like America is today a Christian majority state but was NOT founded on the basis of Christianity. Think about it.
As far as bad apples goes, unfortunately, the Mullahs 'are' the bad apples of the Pakistani society. So far they have done NOTHING for the country's betterment, instead carried out rallies and continue to do so, and cause harm to public life and property. That scares the foreign investors away and in the end it is Pakistan that suffers. Their rallies don't have any effect on any western countries at all. That shows how narrow-minded and self-serving they are.
The Mullahs did NOT go themselves to fight against communism if that is what you think. They sent illiterate poor young men who had nothing else to do with promises of Heaven and finances for their families (which the US and Arab states were ready to grant). They still continue to do so. Hell, they don't even send their own sons or relatives to fight because they know that at the end of the day, its all politics and religion is only being used as a pretext so why waste one's own family when you have millions other who would do anything for a few hundred dollars so that their families can have food on their tables for a few more days?
Its no big deal that the Islamic jamaats were the first ones to help earthquake victims. Obviously when they have militant training camps already established there and manpower available with finances in their accounts as well, they'll definitely jump in to fill in the vaccuum created to boost their standing amongst the poor masses. The army couldn't get there because it did not have soldiers stationed as close to ground zero plus it, itself suffered around 500 casualties which meant that even it found difficult to cope with the massive scale of devastation. In the end, the army faired better than anyone else when it got hold itself and its operations.
Mullahs protecting our country? NO! The Mullahs I am talking about here, are the political leader Mullahs of different parties and organizations. I'm not talking about a poor Private ranked soldier who has a beard and is more religious than others. That person would be called a Maulana. Mullah is a political term to make it clear. And talking about soldiers' attachments to religious jamaats, that is also the mistake made by Zia Ul-Haq the ultimate fanatic. Sure, religious interaction between soldiers is not bad, but it MUST NOT overshadow their sense of duty of protecting their country by becoming over-zealous.
Yes there is no doubt that Muslims should be governed by Islamic laws BUT provided that there are safe-guards against their abuse and misuse by the very people whom they're meant to govern. Take our Hudood laws for example. Such 'mockery' of Islamic laws, I think only exists in Saudi Arabia apart from our country. According to present Pakistani laws, if I don't like you, I can easily blame you for blasphemy or something similar and get you to suffer in jail in which way I would've settled by personal vendetta. Same goes for rape laws in our country. Utterly useless! The poor woman becomes the target of the authorities instead of the accused person.
Take Saudi Arabia for example, WHERE in Islamic jurisprudence does it say that women should not drive? or vote? Once again, Islamic laws are only good when they are NOT abused and misused by the people themselves. But that also applies to any other type of laws, doesn't matter if their Islamic or non-Islamic.
I hope the above explanations addressed some of the confusions in here.
Sorry to disappoint you. But you are wasting your money.
