What's new

No One Can Seperate Islam and Pakistan: Gen. Kayani

Where should we draw the line between 'religious' and 'secular?'

Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World


Trying to run modern states while remaining shackled to medieval religious laws is a bad idea; theocracy is a dead end. Muslim countries, though they have had a later start than Western states, can surely come to acknowledge the virtue of allowing individual freedom in religious belief while preventing any one orthodoxy from prevailing in matters of government. Adopting secular government would be a giant step forward in improving human rights and the prospects for democracy in Muslim majority countries. Even devoutly religious people can accept that genuine faith flourishes when individuals are free to choose, without having religion imposed upon them by their government

Muslim-majority countries are in trouble. Most struggle with dire poverty; the exceptions are oil-rich states which are merely wealthy, not creative contributors to human culture. [3] They are either undemocratic in government or have the formal apparatus of democracy with serious imperfections in practice. Corruption runs rampant. Whenever they come into competition with Western powers, the results are dismal. Militarily, Muslim states are dependent, often negligible. In terms of scientific and technological productivity, tiny Israel is more significant than almost all Muslim nations. Many, even those sometimes considered relatively advanced like Turkey, are colonies in all but name

Ever since their first encounters with a newly industrialized West, Muslims have come out on the losing side. "What is to be done" is a two centuries old question for Muslims. [4] And it has long been clear to many in the ruling elites that Muslim countries had to accept some degree of Westernization or risk enslavement if not annihilation. Having suffered lopsided defeats on the battlefield, military officers were typically at the forefront of reform. Starting from the mid-nineteenth century, they pushed their countries to adopt Western knowledge and institutions. They often faced significant opposition from traditional religious elites. The perception of the military and bureaucratic elites -- probably an accurate one -- was that without a concerted, state-organized effort to join the modern world, the crisis they were facing would become a much more complete disaster.

Interesting you might want to read it:]
Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World
 
.
I think Kiyani's message was listened by people to whom it was concerned, be it ANP or MQM. Both parties denied that they ever put such suggestion like changing name of country.

I think now this debate must ended.

The statement was intended for a multiple of audience in a multiple ways. That was ek teer, do nishan kind of statement.
 
. . .
Religion and State :what: Do they work well together ? I know Faux news claims America is a christian country which likes to follow half a dozen commandments at best :lol:
 
.
:) look at the participation of Indians on this thread which indeed proves your above statement otherwise

The point of discussion is NOT the change of name, but the comments made by COAS on the issue.

Indians have interests in this news, as it shows increasing clashes between civil government and military.
 
.
The point of discussion is NOT the change of name, but the comments made by COAS on the issue.

Indians have interests in this news, as it shows increasing clashes between civil government and military.

as this is internal affair, you can carry on and stop dragging this silly discussion further

i dont see Pakistanis going on indian forums and talking about indian federation
 
. .
The point of discussion is NOT the change of name, but the comments made by COAS on the issue.

Indians have interests in this news, as it shows increasing clashes between civil government and military.

Clashes... hahahaha

Where do you see clashes. Zardari is on appeasement mode now a days just do a quick go through Islamabad news in last 4-5 days ;)
 
.
Religion and State :what: Do they work well together ? I know Faux news claims America is a christian country which likes to follow half a dozen commandments at best :lol:

Most americans are christians,,, more or less,,but the goverment gos a great lenght to not favor one religion over another,,,the laws against religious discrmination in the USA is severe....

But if a person is objective and intelligent its not hard to see that on the average the more religious a goverment the more poorer and backward the country.....
 
Last edited:
.
Where should we draw the line between 'religious' and 'secular?'

Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World


Trying to run modern states while remaining shackled to medieval religious laws is a bad idea; theocracy is a dead end. Muslim countries, though they have had a later start than Western states, can surely come to acknowledge the virtue of allowing individual freedom in religious belief while preventing any one orthodoxy from prevailing in matters of government. Adopting secular government would be a giant step forward in improving human rights and the prospects for democracy in Muslim majority countries. Even devoutly religious people can accept that genuine faith flourishes when individuals are free to choose, without having religion imposed upon them by their government

Muslim-majority countries are in trouble. Most struggle with dire poverty; the exceptions are oil-rich states which are merely wealthy, not creative contributors to human culture. [3] They are either undemocratic in government or have the formal apparatus of democracy with serious imperfections in practice. Corruption runs rampant. Whenever they come into competition with Western powers, the results are dismal. Militarily, Muslim states are dependent, often negligible. In terms of scientific and technological productivity, tiny Israel is more significant than almost all Muslim nations. Many, even those sometimes considered relatively advanced like Turkey, are colonies in all but name

Ever since their first encounters with a newly industrialized West, Muslims have come out on the losing side. "What is to be done" is a two centuries old question for Muslims. [4] And it has long been clear to many in the ruling elites that Muslim countries had to accept some degree of Westernization or risk enslavement if not annihilation. Having suffered lopsided defeats on the battlefield, military officers were typically at the forefront of reform. Starting from the mid-nineteenth century, they pushed their countries to adopt Western knowledge and institutions. They often faced significant opposition from traditional religious elites. The perception of the military and bureaucratic elites -- probably an accurate one -- was that without a concerted, state-organized effort to join the modern world, the crisis they were facing would become a much more complete disaster.

Interesting you might want to read it:]
Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World
The above is another flawed analysis like many others by so-called secularists

(Religious Institution


The Religious Institutions and Modern Challenges

By Back to Religion Editorial Desk

This interview is published as a part of "Back to Religions?" special coverage page.



In Islam, No one speaks on behalf of God.

On the role of religious institutions, the relation between religion and science, Back to Religion? editor conducts an e-mail based interview with Imam Hatem al- Haj, the Associate Professor of Fiqh, Shariah Academy of America, and the President of The Building Blocks of Islam.
Imam al- Haj starts the interview by the following introductory comment:

"The theory of secularization is based on certain premises, which include a certain degree of indifference to the religious institutions, if not religion in principle. It also claims, those institutions have, more than ever, become differentiated from the modern secular societies.

The proponents of this theory aim at compartmentalizing the religion within certain institutions, which are subsequently compartmentalized into certain areas of personal life. According to this theory, those religious convictions, are not to cross the bounds set for them and venture into public life or even contribute to shaping people's political orientations or world views.

Apparently, the theory is failing, and it is quite felt all over the world that religion still rules over a large section of people's collective awareness and intellectual constitution.

It is time for an introspective analysis of the various impacts of those religious institutions on humanity. In the following answers to a group of questions submitted to IslamOnline.net, I will attempt to do that, with a focus on Islam, since I don't claim to be an expert in any other religion." The Religious Institutions and Modern Challenges - IslamOnline.net - Art & Culture),

who either don't know or conveniently ignore the fact that the rigidity of priests/Clergies in Western Churches had led the scientific/exploratory minds along with conniving politicians to segregate state from church, whereas much of the core of today's science had emerged in Masjid/Worship-centers under Islam. So, there isn't any need to draw line between secularism and Islam or Communism and Islam because Islam offers the best of everything and much more. Infect, as much as I'm reading, understanding and analyzing it; I'm finding it a complete code of life, thanks.

Another link in this regard,

Christian Fundamentalist and Rational Secularist United Front - IslamOnline.net - Politics in Depth
 
Last edited:
.
thank you for an intelligent and well thought out and researched response,,but from what I read it seems some prefer a religious vs a 'secular goverment,,, but no where do I see anything that an any way says that a religious society and goverment functions better then a secular one. In some ways they do though, for example there seems to be far less drug use and crime in Islamic countries....
 
.
...for example there seems to be far less drug use and crime in Islamic countries....

Yes, like there is very little opium production in Afghanistan, predominantly Muslim, and like there is very little suicide bombing of innocents - prohibited by Islam, in Pakistan.
 
.
Yes, like there is very little opium production in Afghanistan, predominantly Muslim, and like there is very little suicide bombing of innocents - prohibited by Islam, in Pakistan.

Satistically from what I know there is less drug use and crime in Islamic countries then non Islamic countries,,,, I stand by what I said as a fact,,,.
 
.
i think most Pakistanis --especially the educated and also elite classes -- are pseudo-secular in one way or the other.

its mostly the rural areas and some of the middle-class where people tend to be more conservative --even though there are exceptions to this too.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom