I've heard that before, and I do not fully believe it. At least, I think that even if that may have been the intention in a few people's minds, that is not what happened in reality. Anyway I am aware of that stand, which is why I did not use "Islamic republic" in my post, I used the more general "made to benefit one particular religion".
Reality and intent hardly ever match.
Pause for a moment and look at the contradiction in the first two parts of the first sentence of your post. (Before the first and second comma.) If it wasn't t benefit one particular religion only, then you would have said that Pakistan was made so that everybody could practice their religions freely. When you say "made so that muslims" could practice freely, you are already giving special preference for that religion.
Not a contradiction, perhaps I should have worded it better. It was made for freedom to worship, but Muslims happened to be the majority among the minorities, which is why they got the power.
And when you end the sentence with "mainly for muslims", what am I supposed to infer? That really is not secularism, is it? Pakistan was made for muslims, that's what you are saying. Do you honestly think that hindus, sikhs, parsis etc would equally feel it to be their home, when you say that?
No, that is not what I'm saying. Like I said in the above portion, Muslims just happened to be the biggest minority group. Regardless of it's title, which was in reality nothing more than ceremonial, Pakistan's intent was for the people within it's territory to be able to worship freely. Though, like I said before, intent and reality hardly ever match.
Not to mention the fact that once a religion is declared as the favored one, inevitably the next thing to happen would be people fighting over who is a true adherent and who isn't. Whos is a real muslim and who is a kafir, who is a real christian and who is a heathen, and so on. That's not unique to Pakistan or islam.
That's not actually true. State religions can be nothing more than ceremonial, and don't actually have to affect the dynamics of the political landscape of the country.
When partition happened, as you know, millions of people had to migrate. Why do you think that was necessary, if both countries were for all religions?
Simple, there was a fear that India's Hindu majority would try and get revenge against Muslims, after the Brits left. Taking a look at India's history, can you honestly tell me that Muslims and Hindus have gotten along in India, and have never had problems with unltranationalist Hindu groups?
About your last sentence - yes, I know that Pakistan was not made only for muslims to live in. That's why I said "for the benefit of muslims". But the fact is that after the event, Pakistaniyat has been more and more associated as being the same thing as muslimness. "Pakistan ka matlab kya..." And all the laws of Pakistan support islamic laws, but not any other.
That's your interpretation. Association doesn't imply guilt. There is no book on Islamic law, a book of Sharia doesn't exist. Pakistani laws, while being Islam friendly, have clearly had to make secular laws, simply to make sure that it is keeping up with newer times and events.
In such situation, there is no way for you to persuade your countrymen to adopt secularism in public life. The country was made favouring islam, and "islam is the true word of god and way of life" (as most muslims believe), so why shouldnt political parties follow the true way?
This is a loaded question. If I say no, I will be labeled as not being Muslim, if I say yes, then I'll have to admit that you're right. The premise of your point is flawed. Pakistan favors Islam, because Islam is the largest religious group in the country, constituting 98% of the population. That does not mean that Pakistanis cannot be persuaded to adopt secularism. The popularity of PPP, a secular party, is evidence enough that Pakistanis are okay with secularism. The backlash against religious parties (despite my angry rant). is actually quite strong. Religious parties are having to prove their loyalty, and this situation is not going to win them any points. Hell, even Jamaat-e-Islami, the biggest religious party in Pakistan, has sided with the military and government AGAINST these other traitor religious parties.
BTW Jinnah himself has said something along the lines of "Islam is not just a religion, it is a complete code of life for muslims to live by." Doesn't that mean that the govt and politics cannot be immune to it? Iqbal, the conceptual founder of Pakistan, was very opposed to secularism and the seperation of church and state. He used to say that Christianity declined because of that separation. (I think that's true.)
It is a cod of life, he's not wrong, but that code is interpreted differently by every sect. There is literally no single book on Sharia, as Sharia in every single Muslim country is interpreted differently.
While I have great respect for Allama Iqbal, I don't have to agree with him. He's a man, not some god who's opinion I should always listen too. Even great men can be wrong; the proof is in the pudding. Christianity is alive and well, in fact it is actually growing, especially Catholicism.
Nothing wrong with what they said, they make a good point Raymond Davis was allowed to leave while making a mockery of the whole system so when they bring up the same concept they are not in the wrong.
The Raymond Davis situation was wrong as well, but in that case, we can understand from a geopolitical point of view why Pakistan allowed it. What would have happened if he was not released?
There is no pressure here, no geopolitical worry. These men are traitors.
I agree to whatever you are saying and that should happen in an ideal world.
But here we are talking about technicalities. Since terrorism charges are off, one can praise him without facing any consequences.
Blood money is legal in law as well in religion.
How can they be caught? Blood money concept should go.
That is my entire point. The nation's laws have been turned into a complete mockery and need major reform.
