Secular blunders

[Meesna]

Nice article by Nadeem F. Paracha. Stating the obvious but worth reminding.

Secular blunders

In the 1970 elections, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party had routed the Islamic parties. But by 1973 Bhutto was under pressure from the PPP’s leading ideologues, asking him to hasten the regime’s socialist agenda. In response, Bhutto purged the PPP of its radical founding members. He then came under the influence of the party’s ‘conservative wing’ that encouraged him to appease his staunchest opponents, the Islamists, (especially the Jamat-i-Islami), which had declared the PPP’s socialism as 'un-Islamic.'

Though in private, Bhutto accused the Islamic parties of being 'anti-socialist American stooges,' in public he went along with some of his advisers’ counsel and declared the Ahmaddiyya community non-Muslim, naively believing this concession would appease and contain his Islamist opponents. The truth is, the Islamists were only emboldened by this gesture.

Also, while purging the left-wing radicals in the PPP (from 1974 onwards), Bhutto is also said to have ‘allowed’ the student-wing of the Jamat, the IJT, to establish a strong foothold on campuses which, till then, were mostly dominated by radical left-wing student groups such as the NSF.

Bhutto, like Sadat, had ignored the Islamist challenge to his regime, and seemed more concerned about imaginary 'Soviet/ Indian-backed groups.' His pragmatic indulgence in this regard had the reverse effect. Instead of containing the Islamist parties, his constitutional concessions only emboldened them. Not surprisingly, he was toppled by a reactionary general whom he had handpicked himself, shortly after the Islamist parties unleashed a countrywide movement against the PPP regime in 1976, calling for Sharia rule.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Secular blunders

 

[Comet]

I think this shouldn't be taken as a blunder. Any politicain would do that just in order to lighten up things at the opposition. Ofcourse, if he hadn't declared Ahmaddiyya community as non-Muslim, his own government may have gotten into danger.

 

[Patriot]

He is right.We should never have given that much freedom to Islamists..Mark my words if Pakistan is divided further it will not be because of India but because of these Islamists.

 

[Comet]

He is right.We should never have given that much freedom to Islamists..Mark my words if Pakistan is divided further it will not be because of India but because of these Islamists.

I thought Islamist made Pakistan in the first place.

 

[Patriot]

I thought Islamist made Pakistan in the first place.

Are you comparing Jinnah with bigoted Islamists like General Zia, Mullah Omar or bigoted Mullahs who opposed creation of Pakistan?

 

[zubair723]

ISLAM binds PAKISTAN. Its the only recipe which propelled its creation & can sustain it.

 

[Comet]

Are you comparing Jinnah with bigoted Islamists like General Zia, Mullah Omar or bigoted Mullahs who opposed creation of Pakistan?

No it is you who is associating name of Islam with these guys.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

No it is you who is associating name of Islam with these guys.

Why shouldn't one? Didn't each one of those use Islam as a medium to carry out their evil deeds?

 

[Patriot]

i dun understand why the whole world is so obsessed with secularism.. i think Islamic tenets are the most applicable tools in any constitution...
just tell me one thing that doesnt exist in islam... plus did declaring ahmadis as non muslims made us extremist...
nadeem farooq sahab needs a dose of sanity... please provide him some...!

Because Secularism preach tolerance among people where as the first thing Islamic scholars ( people like Dr Israr) tells you is that Christians should be declared 2nd Class citizens of Pakistan etc.Extreme Islamists preach pure hatred.

 

[Coolyo]

No it is you who is associating name of Islam with these guys.

Agreed!

The fact is that Islamists like Allama Iqbal and Jinnah founded this nation on the principals of Islam!

Islam is the foundation of this nation, and is what makes this nation so great!

The secularists have in turn only harmed this nation!

The WAHABIS that "Patriot" is talking about, does NOT represent the views of the Islamists that helped found this great nation!

Don't label all practicing Muslims as Wahabis!

 

[Coolyo]

Because Secularism preach tolerance among people where as the first thing Islamic scholars ( people like Dr Israr) tells you is that Christians should be declared 2nd Class citizens of Pakistan etc.Extreme Islamists preach pure hatred.

Well people like Israr are Wahabis, and do NOT represent the views of which this nation was founded on!

True Islamic values (That of the holy Prophet (S)), are that of tolerance, humanism, peace, justice, and love!

You sir are extremely misguided when it comes to this matter!

If we want to make Pakistan strong we must learn from our founding fathers, like Allama Iqbal, who was the 20th century's most influential Islamist IMHO!

NOT bigoted Wahabis!

 

[zubair723]

Well people like Israr are Wahabis, and do NOT represent the views of which this nation was founded on!

True Islamic values (That of the holy Prophet (S)), are that of tolerance, humanism, peace, justice, and love!

You sir are extremely misguided when it comes to this matter!

If we want to make Pakistan strong we must learn from our founding fathers, like Allama Iqbal, who was the 20th century's most influential Islamist IMHO!

NOT bigoted Wahabis!

FYI ALLAMA IQBAL rated ABDUL WAHAB the fouder of WAHBISM as a true reformer.

 

[zero]

Friends secular as a word may sound confusing, but the real value of secularism is to value human thought, respect his believe and ideology, secularism is not usually practiced in personal level but practiced in administrative level, under a secular government everybody is equally protected. Secularism protects a person from religious interference, i.e. no person can force an individual in the name of religion, as he have the liberty to practice his belief. Under a secular government also you can belief your religion in full faith, the government won't stop you. It is usually good to protect the faith of the minorities, but also proves beneficial for the majority as it creates a win-win situation.

Think it this way, why the system (the government) should be religious. A person have the right to choose his own religion and decide his own faith and it should be respected. Religion cannot be enforce in a persons mind forcefully, to accept a religion a will is required, then what is the purpose of such a government, the best purpose a government serves is to protect a person or the general public as a whole. A government is not a person but it is a system so how can it be religious, as a task a government is to protect not to enforce a religion. That's a secular government where IMO nobody have to loose anything.

I beg my pardon if you feel that I am saying something wrong, but by heart I have no intention to do so, if you feel my words offensive I am ready to back off.

 

[Comet]

Friends secular as a word may sound confusing, but the real value of secularism is to value human thought, respect his believe and ideology, secularism is not usually practiced in personal level but practiced in administrative level, under a secular government everybody is equally protected. Secularism protects a person from religious interference, i.e. no person can force an individual in the name of religion, as he have the liberty to practice his belief. Under a secular government also you can belief your religion in full faith, the government won't stop you. It is usually good to protect the faith of the minorities, but also proves beneficial for the majority as it creates a win-win situation.

Think it this way, why the system (the government) should be religious. A person have the right to choose his own religion and decide his own faith and it should be respected. Religion cannot be enforce in a persons mind forcefully, to accept a religion a will is required, then what is the purpose of such a government, the best purpose a government serves is to protect a person or the general public as a whole. A government is not a person but it is a system so how can it be religious, as a task a government is to protect not to enforce a religion. That's a secular government where IMO nobody have to loose anything.

I beg my pardon if you feel that I am saying something wrong, but by heart I have no intention to do so, if you feel my words offensive I am ready to back off.

I agree with you in terms that secularism is seen as win-win thing.

But:
Our Prophet(S.A.W) did not teach us that. He destroyed all those Idols in the Kaaba at the time he got Makkah back.

Since, by makers of Pakistan, Pakistan was seen as a nation made on the footsteps of Madinah we ought to have a governtment that is similar to the one in Madinah. We are not SUPPOSE to be seculars.

 

[SSGPA1]

"while purging the left-wing radicals in the PPP (from 1974 onwards), Bhutto is also said to have ‘allowed’ the student-wing of the Jamat, the IJT, to establish a strong foothold on campuses which, till then, were mostly dominated by radical left-wing student groups such as the NSF."

This was a calculated move to weaken the Left power base within his own party.

I don't agree with this Islamist vs. Non-Islamist idealogy because majority of Pakistanis are Muslims (Islamist) and there can't be any Islamist vs. Non-Islamist.

Bhutto was ousted by the CIA because he initiated the nuclear bomb project.