Secularism in Pakistan-A solution to Pakistan's religious problems?

[laiqs@mi]

dear thats what shaheed zulfiqar ali bhutto and shaheed benazir bhutto wer trying to appaly in pakistan
in pakistan only one party which wants sercularism in pakistan is pakistan peoples party but there leader killed in time to time
others all like imran khan nawaz sharif wants to talabanize pakistan in name of islam

o teri khair ...........
shukar hai firaon aur namrood PPP main nahi they yar

 

[laiqs@mi]

dear thats what shaheed zulfiqar ali bhutto and shaheed benazir bhutto wer trying to appaly in pakistan
in pakistan only one party which wants sercularism in pakistan is pakistan peoples party but there leader killed in time to time
others all like imran khan nawaz sharif wants to talabanize pakistan in name of islam

o teri khair ...........
shukar hai firaon aur namrood PPP main nahi they yar

 

[haviZsultan]

Don't mix up "good governance" and "secularism". Turkey was called the "sick man of Europe" today it is the 2nd fastest growing economy on the planet. Sounds great but who brought Turkey to this point? Oh yea i remember thats a guy called Erdogan who has increased the per capita income by 288% in 8 years has a "hijabi" wife , runs an "Islamist" party , regularly prays and considered to be a "danger to Turkish secularism" -- exactly that would be why !

First of all you believe Erdogan is an Islamist and are giving one of the worst examples in this belief. I strongly disagree.

You are also claiming a person who believes in secularism can't be a hijabi or pray 5 times. A strong difference in opinion. This first sentence proves that you and me are bound to disagree. I think of secularism as seperation of religion from politics. Simple as that. A person should have the freedom to do as he wishes. This includes praying 5 times a day or banging his girlfriend. It is no business of the state. The state should neither stop one from following his religion nor stop one from going after materialistic gains.

As far as Erdogan is concerned you are totally wrong. To put ur theory in the bin.

“I am a non-secular Muslim,” he said, “but I am the prime minister of a secular state and I say, ‘I hope there will be a secular state in Egypt.’ One must not be afraid of secularism. Egypt will grow in democracy and those called upon to draw up the constitution must understand it must respect all religions, while also keep themselves equidistant from the followers of all religions so that people can live in security.”

Erdogan speech during Egypt visit.

As the qoute proves he believes in the theory of secularism for any state as it provides freedom to all. Hes even suggesting the same for Egypt for Godsake!

Also do note that despite being a secular country Hassan Nisar himself has called Turkey the leader of the Muslim world. Entirely true. Despite being a secular state Turkey has done more for Muslims than our slave countries which are always at the feet of Zionist controlled America.

Aeronaut you have given a very bad example. The head of Turkey fully believes in Secularism which greatly weakens your argument.

Ok since your 3 digit IQ level determines that all of us have been "brainwashed" then you can "prove" how Islam & Secularism are the "Same path". Just give it your best shot and yes do NOT forget to give an example.

As I know from previous conversations with conservatives... you will not count the same things as secularism as me. You have to understand that our differences are caused by a fundamental difference in thinking. Having been taught about the superiority of Wahabi Islam from birth you just cannot tolerate the idea I am promoting.

I even thought long whether to reply to this bcauz usually such debate ends with no effect, no change and a change in thinking is what I want to bring forward. I want people to accept secularism as a possible solution.

Examples of secularism which of course u may call tolerance or whatever but are by all means secularism:

However, people would be wise to look backwards at the actions of one of the first Caliphs, Omar, when his Rashidun Army conquered the city in the year 637 AD. The Christian Patriarch Sophranius, upon surrendering, asked as a condition of the city’s capitulation, to be allowed to surrender to the Caliph himself rather than to a military leader. When Omar reached the city, the Patriarch invited him to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (which is the site of the Cruxifiction, see my separate entry on the subject).

Anyway . . . Omar was both sensitive about keeping the Christian Church autonomous and also didn’t want to set a precedent for Muslims to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. So he prayed, with Sophranius, just a few feet away at a spot where King David was said to have prayed. Omar then built a mosque on the site so that future Muslims could pray near to, but not violating, the sacred Christian site.

Umar at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Another:

Although one would expect Saladin to be hated among the Crusader nations, he became one of the most esteemed Muslim figures of the medieval Islamic world because of the generosity he displayed towards the Christians despite the brutality Muslims had endured at the hands of the Crusaders. When the Christians had overtaken Jerusalem during the very first Crusade, they carried out mass atrocities and killings, creating a bloodbath in which the Muslim residents were the most prominent targets, as graphically documented in the PBS series Islam: Empire of Faith. In the words of the chronicler of Crusades, Raymond of Agiles, the massacre was so extensive that the Crusaders “rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.”

When Saladin retook Jerusalem, the Christians waited for a similar onslaught. However, Salahuddin not only spared the Christians but treated them honorably, allowing those who wished to leave to do so in peace, and for those who wished to stay to do so in harmony. Truly, he was a living example of the tolerant, progressive, and inclusive faith which was so dear to his heart. By showing restraint and peaceful treatment, Salahuddin was upholding the central tenets of Islam such as freedom of religion and protection of non-Muslims.

Moreover, his chivalrous conduct toward King Richard I, and the mutual respect which ensued despite their warring roles, won him further accolades in quarters that could not bring themselves to despise him. “When Richard falls sick at the siege of Acre in 1192, Saladin not only sends his personal physician Maimonides over to treat him, he sends ice to help him fight the fevers and certain healing fruits. When Richard’s horse is killed during battle, and the English king finds himself on foot facing the entire Muslim army, the Muslims let him walk by their entire phalanx without attacking. Later, Saladin sends him two fresh mounts so he will not be at a disadvantage,” wrote Michael Hamilton Morgan in Lost History.

Salahuddin Ayubi and Christians

During the reign of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb (4th ruler of Islamic state after the prophet), he lost his Shield in a battle and a Jew took it. After knowing that the Jew had it, the Prince of the Believers, as Islamic rulers were called, asked the Jew to give him the shield back. The Jew refused and insisted that this shield belonged to him and not Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, Ali took the case to court.

As the Jew and Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, stood before of the judge called Shuraih. The judge said:”Please lay your case O Aba AlHassan (meaning The father of AlHasan, this way of figure of speech in Arabic is called Kunya, that is when you call a man by his son’s name and it is considered a sign of friendship and closeness)”. While he called the Jew with his name (without titles) Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, refused that the judge privileged him by calling him in a way to show friendship and did not do the same thing with the Jew.

After each one finished stating his case, the judge decided that by the Islamic law and due to lack of proof that the shield belonged to Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, then the Jew owns it.

The Jew could not believe that Justice would be applied in the Islamic state even against Ali, the Caliph who is at the same time the Prophet’s beloved and trusted cousin. Then the Jew said: “I declare that there is but one God and that Muhammad is His Prophet. O Prince of the believers the shield was yours, I followed your army while you were leaving “Seffeen” and it fell from your camel “ALAwrak””
Ali said: “You became a Muslim so I give it to you”

Another famous story is the story of a Copt and Amr Ibn Al-'As, the ruler of Egypt. The ruler's son, proud of his parentage, hit the Copt's son with a whip. The Copt complained to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, who then summoned Amr and his son to Madinah. Umar gave the whip to the Copt’s son and said, “Now whip this son of noble parents” After he had done so, Umar said, “Now whip the bald head of Amr, because his son beat you on account of his father's authority.” The Copt repaid, “I have already whipped the person who whipped me.” Then 'Umar turned his face to Amr and uttered his everlasting words, “O Amr, since when do you treat as slaves those who were born as free men?”

What is most remarkable about this incident is the fact that people ruled by Islamic officials were so aware of their humanity and honor that even a slap was totally inadmissible. On the other hand, in Roman and other times, many similar and even worse injustices went unpunished, for the injured party could at make any protest or complaint. In the Islamic state, however, a citizen could take advantage of his rights and self respect, even if he had to travel from Egypt to Madinah to do so. Such a journey would not be in vain, for he could be sure that his case would be given due consideration and that his complaint would be dealt with justly.

Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab had appointed Sabi Qaysariyyah in bookkeeping and managing other affairs of Muslims.

After the conquest of Egypt, Umar Bin Al-As, the eminent companion of our noble Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, had appointed and allowed the Byzantines to remain in their various important posts.

Caliph Umar Ibn El-Khattab, who was stabbed by a non-Muslim called Abu Lulu, a Zoroastrian and a fire worshipper. The Caliph, on this death bed due to his severe wound, he admonished people around him in respect of the rights of non-Muslims in the following words: “Admonish whoever becomes Caliph after me concerning the fair treatment of non-Mislims. He must fulfill his pledge of protection towards them, and should fight for their rights and should not take more work from them beyond their capacity.”

Examples of tolerance

Some people have made a mess of our religion. Islam and Secularism are one and the same thing.

But an Islamic state won't be a free and peaceful state ?? Won't allow liberties , your argument is flawed and self-defying.

When I claim Secularism and Islam are one concept.... I believe that an Islamic state-a true Islamic state running by the principles of secularism can be a peaceful state. But it cannot if we believe Wahabism is Islam.

Pakistan isn't a peaceful state because we have imposed the mullahs version of history, their version of religion upon society. You are not ready to accept how detrimental this is to our society. We are preaching intolerance. Instead of speaking about what forced to us to go for independence and the problems we try to sound more like religious bigots and focus on the "evils of Hinduism" and talk about Sati. We claim a Hindu and Muslim can never live together. What about the 5-7 Million Hindus in Pakistan. Wheres their place? A society cannot be built when there is hatred in the hearts of the people for each other just because their shalwars aren't high enough.

By preaching intolerance we are creating the jihadis and intolerant individuals.
A nation is not built by preaching hate for a particular religion.

Oh no no , now you are taking the debate to a gutter !

The first line of defense is denial. The entire idea is so alien to you because u have grown up on stories of 1 muslim=10 hindus etc.

Try to think critically. Europe remained at each others necks for years then ended up secularizing and having such unity that no one can dare challenge it. Secularism caused an economic boom in Ireland.

And Iran with Shia Islam in Iran , Lebanon , Iraq , Yamen , Syria is a beacon of peace ? - Lets not even discuss that bullshit here , i hate the sectarian apologetic arguments.

Dunno what you want to say.

oh maybe because we have had 60 years of non stop conflict , low literacy rate , chronic unemployment , dysfunctional judicial state institutions ?? Muslims killing muslims with impunity doesn't necessarily reflect a interfaith conflict as there are more reasons than one.

These are just the branches of the problem. Wheres the root. What have we been taught. How do we view the world?

Follow the tenets of Islam when the state itself enforces Islam out of public life ? very intelligent !

There will be no religion in politics only. The state policy won't be directed by religion. The people can follow religion in their homes and mosques. When mixed with politics religion becomes a tool in the hands of people to be used and discarded for their own gains, a concept my book Badal is promoting.

The tenets of Islam bond with secularism. I cannot stress this further.

Our fore-fathers spread Islam in Turkey in Spain through secularism ? really??? Repeat it to yourself twice and see if it makes ANY sense. You can fool any history illiterate with this argument through "feel good" method but not someone who has a grip on history and yes -- oh yea i just remember there was a "Khilafat" in Spain and Turkey which for 800 years turned them into the beacon of knowledge for science. Secular Khilafat ? ---

That had to do with power. It was barely a khilafat though every lord and leader wanted to be a khalifa. Do you know during the time of Spain (at a time)... Umayads ruled in Spain. How many Khalifa's are their supposed to be? One. Yet since the end of the Ummayads there were 10-20 calling themselves Caliphs. Go figure what kind of Khilafat that was.

Their tolerance helped them rule. Otherwise the Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jews, Christians all would constantly be rebelling. We made this through our tolerance, through secular concepts. Not by putting a sword and rinkle's neck and telling her to convert. Then saying she did it of choice.

You are mixing up tolerance which is a social behavior with secularism which is a social governance structure. I can give you examples of states with NAKED secularism and they are extremely intolerant.

If they are intolerant then they are not secular states. Secularism provides freedom to all. It takes no rights from anyone.

Places where secularism has failed and turned into something else include France and Switzerland which banned minarets. That cannot be counted as secularism. In Pakistan with a muslim majority no one will push Islam away as the article states. It will still continue to lead the lives of people. Plus I have taken pains to explain Islam and secularism are not separate.

Turkeys ban on headscarves in universities (which was repealed eventually-mind you) is also against secularism.

You are ignoring the fact that the social governance structure plays a major role in determining social behaviors and norms. If we are allowing a terrorist to attack Christian churches and not filing reports against him in our police stations either its the governance structure that has played a part in it. We are creating terrorists. Our system is flawed. It favours the mullah who doesn't know a word about Islam.

No one said secularism is flawed , i argue that it is "irrelevant" , "unpractical" & "unimplementable" for "Muslim" countries.
I advice you to educate yourself on secularism , its history , when and why and under what circumstances it was implemented & not take it on its face value.

I argue that the Wahabi version of Islam is impractical and impossible to implement in our society. If you want proof check out how many of the Islamic laws are used properly and how many misused. I have gone through that in my article. Read it again if u need to hear about how the Wahabi laws (intolerant in nature anyway) have failed to put a single criminal, blasphemer or prostitute to justice but instead been used against innocents who have been raped, innocents who have been accused of blasphemy to take over their land.

The very laws we have invented are failing. Our system has failed. Yet we stick for it because it has "Islam" in its name... I say its a dead system. Its time to walk with the modern world.

This is our paradigm. Anyone can claim they are doing what they are for Islam and take us backward. Look at the Taliban. Calling ourselves an Islamic Republic will not make us one. We are not an Islamic state. Other Muslims laugh at us as sellers of Muslim blood.

Id start a program to issue licenses to people who wish to speak in public in a religious sphere. And you issue licenses to those who have graduated as a scholar not as a half baked mullah/zakir who make their bread out of preaching hatred not through secularism.

I agree , they need to learn about secularism to understand that it is completely un pragmatic for our society.

It will take time for our society to understand the concept as something that will benefit them. It will take time but as tycoon says its becoming imminent people are thinking about new solutions. We won't let Pakistan slide into chaos. There has to be a solution. If you want mine take it.

Oh you mean if Pakistan were to become a secular state , the bloodshed will stop? - get a life dude , Ireland , Egypt , Syria , USA , Germany , France , UK etc has had decades or centuries of secularism & have seen the worst bloodshed in human history. In fact regimes which killed most people in the 20th century were secular , marxist , atheist regimes ie Nazis , Stalin , Mao , Serbs etc. So is secularism going to stop bloodshed in Pakistan ? well you know the answer now.

In my opinion , stopping bloodshed is about good governance , economy , economy , economy , jobs , jobs , jobs , food , food , food , education , education , education ! got my drift?

Again not the root of the problem, only the branches.

These people were dictators who couldn't think of a real secular system. Stalin killed jews and did. Hitler killed jews like flies. Mao crushed all sorts of religions in China including Islam in Xinjiang. We all know how the Serbs killed muslims. Why are you still believing this is secularism.

Again bad examples. Also Communism, fascism and secularism are separate concepts. Do not confuse the two. Mao and Stalin were communists. Hitler was a fascist who did not tolerate different religions.

Who is asking to implement Islam ? - I am sure you do not know the difference between Shariah & the concept of a Democratic , Islamic welfare state. What you have to implement is NOT sharia as it is a code of conduct of one's social and personal life. You need to implement , Democratic , Islamic , welfare state model which takes everything into its fold . Sufism , Wahabism , Shiaism and all other "isms" yada yada. This was the real concept of a state in the mind of Jinnah (R.A)

No such thing as an automatic advance exists. You get what you work for , implementation of a system doesn't guarantee socioeconomic growth its the execution and reviewal through a process of evolution which makes the difference.

A correct system sets a state on the right path. We need to be set on the right path for advancement and development. Our system is wrong-that system that doesn't give justice to a raped woman and calls her a *****-that system that calls a Christian who's land is stolen a blasphemer and jails him for years.

Islam needs no safeguards its mullahs who do.

Agreed here. But there is a rift... a huge difference in thinking between the liberal and conservative Muslim. The conservatives like you number more and are unwilling to think of the liberals as Muslims at all.

Some sort of dialogue or unity has to be established between them too despite their differences in opinion. Thats a different topic too... but if the wide majority is taught tolerance instead of what it is taught now... if the same form of mullah-religion wasn't imposed on them... perhaps we could have made a real difference.

"Islam expect every Muslim to do this duty, and if we realise our responsibility time will come soon when we shall justify ourselves worthy of a glorious past."

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

"Democracy is like a tram which gets you to your destination , then you get off: R.T Erdogan 1990"


I leave the rest to your imagination.

Regards:

You might hate me for the ideology I am presenting but I do not. Allah knows that I only have the benefit of my people in mind. A secular state does not deviate from Islam as we have been taught. A secular state can do much more for Islam than an Islamic state.

If you want to qoute Jinnah read the article again to find out he wanted a secular, socialist Pakistan. You want proof. The fact that Islamic Republic wasn't attached to Pakistan's name until Ayub Khan came trotting about should be enough but more on his tolerance here:

‘We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. No matter what is his colour, caste or creed is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations….”

“In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims – not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state.”

“[If you] work together in a spirit that everyone of you no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.”
11 August 1947


“The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.”
30th October 1947

Do check out- An insight on what Jinnah wanted.

 

[Burger Boy]

what is universally acceptable by the majority of muslims. P

good luck figuring out what that is.

 

[muse]

Once again - Islam and culture, Islam and humanity, Islam and humane behavior - like oil and water -- instead tribalism, Islam and arbis, like America and Arabia

Tribal (in)justice: Six face death for attending mixed gathering
By Muhammad Sadaqat
Published: May 28, 2012

The women allegedly sang Mahiyas (folk songs) at a wedding ceremony and danced in the presence of Na-mehram (those who one can marry in Islam). DESIGN: S. JAMAL

KOHISTAN: In a shocking instance of tribal (in)justice, a jirga in a remote village of Hazara division has condemned four women and two men to death for ‘staining the honour’ of their families.

They were allegedly caught on videotape singing and dancing together at a wedding ceremony in violation of the “tribal custom of gender segregation”.

The women, all of them married, have been called back from their in-laws and locked in a room in Seertaiy village, in Peech Bela union council of Kohistan district.

“A tribal jirga has declared them Ghul (fornicators). And they might be killed any time,” said Muhammad Afzal, elder brother of the two men condemned to death. The men have, however, managed to flee.

Afzal added that the women allegedly sang Mahiyas (folk songs) at a wedding ceremony and danced in the presence of Na-mehram (those who one can marry in Islam).

The wedding ceremony took place two months ago in Bando Baidar village, which is also in UC Peech Bela. Some unscrupulous guest shot the women and men singing and dancing with a mobile phone video camera, sources told The Express Tribune. The amateur video was later sent to the women’s kin.

The tribe to which the women belong was incensed by the video. They convened a jirga of tribal elders a month ago. The elders found the women and men guilty of violating tribal and Islamic norms by singing and dancing together.

“The jirga did not bother to hear the ‘accused’ and condemned them to death,” Afzal told The Express Tribune. The jirga has tasked 40 young men to kill the ‘fornicators’. The tribe has also raised a fund of Rs400,000 for litigation that may ensue.

According to the jirga’s verdict, the men have to be shot dead first.

The ‘accused’ women, two of them having children, are locked in a room in their parental village. “They are tied with ropes. They are being starved,” claimed Afzal.

The local police chief confirmed that the jirga has condemned the six people to death. “I’ve spoken to the tribal elders and I’ll utilise all resources available to stop these executions,” Abdul Majeed Afridi, the district police officer (DPO), told The Express Tribune. He has already sent a police party to Seertaiy village to recover the women.

Afzal voiced doubts about the authenticity of the video and accused his foes for forging it to humiliate his family. “Since our family is affluent and owns vast acres of forestland, orchards and agriculture farms in Bando Baidar village. They (our rivals) hatched a plot to deprive us of our property,” he claimed.

Afzal claimed that the forged video did not show his brothers and the women dancing together.

DPO Afridi, who claims to have seen the video, agreed with Afzal. He said that the women were seen singing Mahiyas and clapping their hands in a room. On the other hand, the clip showing the men has a different background.

Afzal works as a clerk at the office of Abdul Saboor Usmani Advocate, the lawyer who practices criminal law at the Abbottabad Registry of Peshawar High Court (PHC). Usmani called the jirga’s decision a blatant violation of human rights.

He added that the women were being tormented – both mentally and physically – without any crime. Afzal added that the jirga had no right to condemn somebody to death. “Still, if they believe my brothers have broken some law, let a court of law decide the matter,” he said.

Afzal, however, said that he had appealed to Chief Minister Ameer Haider Hoti during his recent visit to Battagram to provide him and his family security against his foes. He warned that otherwise local police and the provincial authorities would be responsible for any harm to him or his family.

 

[muse]

Who is to blame for these injustices - obviously it is the Pakistani state, it is the Pakistani that has abdicated it sole, exclusive role and right and responsibility to adjudicate

 

[muse]

Pakistan, one step forward, two steps back and three steps side-ways


Jirga decision: Authorities move to save ‘condemned’ Kohistani women
By Muhammad Sadaqat
Published: May 29, 2012

Local police chief said that a police party, headed by a deputy superintendent police, has been sent to Seertaiy village to recover the girls who, The Express Tribune reported, were locked in a room and were being starved.

KOHISTAN: In a bid to preempt the execution of six people condemned to death for “disrespecting gender segregation customs” in a remote village of Kohistan district, administration officials ordered the detention of eight tribesmen on Monday.

A jirga had declared four women and two men Ghul (fornicators) and condemned them to death after they were allegedly caught on videotape singing and dancing together at a wedding party in Bando Baidar village of Peech Bela union council.

“We have detained eight people (from the women’s tribe). And they have given us a written guarantee that the women would not be harmed,” Hazara Division Commissioner Khalid Khan Umerzai told The Express Tribune.

Umerzai added that he had seen the video showing the women and the men dancing and singing together.

“Judging by the local tribal culture, it is objectionable,” he said but added that he would not condone if a tribal jirga has condemned them to death as was reported by The Express Tribune on Sunday.

“The women have violated their tribal norms by dancing and singing with Na-mehrams (those who one can marry in Islam). But the law does not allow nobody to condemn them to death,” he added.

The commissioner claimed that the women were safe at the homes of their parents in Seertaiy village. He also confirmed that the condemned men have fled their village.

The local police chief said that a police party, headed by a deputy superintendent police, has been sent to Seertaiy village to recover the girls who, The Express Tribune reported, were locked in a room and were being starved.

Abdul Majeed Afridi, the district police officer, also endorsed Umerzai’s claimed that “the women are safe in their parents’ homes”.

Interestingly, DPO Afridi went back on his earlier statement and said that it was a local cleric, not a jirga, who condemned the six to death. On Sunday, he confirmed to The Express Tribune that a jirga had condemned them to death.

Afridi appears to have good knowledge of local tribal customs. “If a woman is found talking to a Na-mehram, she is ‘punished’ while the man is ‘wounded’ for his crime,” he said. However, he would not say how the woman is ‘punished’ and the man ‘wounded’.

Rights campaigners have condemned the jirga’s decision. In their statements, Sahara Development Foundation, Human Development Organisation, Rural Development Project, Integrated Human Rights Network, Aurat Foundation and Aurat Association called upon the government to ensure that the six people are not harmed.

They also demanded that the administration shift the women to Darul Aman for their security. They called for a ban on the jirga system which, they believe, is the root cause of discrimination against women in society.

 

[muse]

Mixed gathering: Cleric arrested over dancing death decree
By AFP
Published: May 29, 2012


ISLAMABAD: Police on Tuesday arrested a cleric accused of sentencing six people to death for singing and dancing at a wedding in Kohistan.

“Police have arrested a cleric and his companion for issuing the death decree, but they totally denied it,” local administration official Aqal Badshah Khattak told AFP.

“The cleric has said he had no role in the decree and his name was misused,” Khattak said.

Police told AFP on Monday that clerics sentenced four women and two men to death after mobile phone footage emerged of them enjoying themselves at a village wedding in the mountains of Kohistan district, 175 kilometres north of the capital Islamabad.

The men and women had allegedly danced and sung together in Gada village, in defiance of strict tribal customs that separate men and women at weddings.

But on Tuesday, district police chief Abdul Majeed Afridi said it appeared to be a case of tribal rivalry and an attempt to defame a family.

He said the video was recorded three years ago and then edited in an attempt to implicate the party goers.

“I am satisfied that there is no danger to the life of the girls,” he said.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, at least 943 women and girls were murdered last year after being accused of defaming their family’s honour.

 

[Thor]

The situation at the moment is not the implemenattion of Shariah in Pakistan, and you want to go down the secularism route..... oh lets see what that brings.......

When people came out to protest against British Raj, the naara at the time was "PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KYA, LA ILLAHA ILLALA", my grandfather himself said this as well as many many others. What does that now give bafoons out there who wish to enforce their idelogy of secularism. I have a solution, those who wish to remain an Islamic nation, that actually follows the Shariah split the country along lines like that of partition and they go there way and you go yours........

 

[muse]

I have a solution, those who wish to remain an Islamic nation, that actually follows the Shariah split the country along lines like that of partition and they go there way and you go yours........

Split Pakistan?? Yeah, sure I'm persuaded that there is no other way around this, but be sure that Islamists will lose that fight and the sooner ther Pakistani state understands that it is the plan of the Islamists to split Pakistan or Wahabize it, the sooner we can get on with rebuilding Pakistan along the lines it was created for.

 

[Thor]

Split Pakistan?? Yeah, sure I'm persuaded that there is no other way around this, but be sure that Islamists will lose that fight and the sooner ther Pakistani state understands that it is the plan of the Islamists to split Pakistan or Wahabize it, the sooner we can get on with rebuilding Pakistan along the lines it was created for.

I wouldn't agree with that Islamists want to break Pakistan......... when since 1947 there is no implementation of the Shariah, despite the Constitution of Pakistan making it clear that the Sovereign is Allah, the Almighty and his laws are then not implemented but instead there are direct clauses and clashes within the constitution of Pakistan against that of Shariah, then voices raised 60 years ago are getting louder.

I am a Muslim, thats it....plain and simple. The Prophet was was a wahabi, Sunni, Shia or whatever else there is, he did not put a divide down the line of Muslims and Islam, it is the people, religious figures who do not allow Muslims to integrate.......

Muslims used to be people who were very well educated. Each household would hold thousands of books of knowledge. We were a thinking and tolerant people. Nonetheless, the difference between Sunnis and Shias is nothing more then political, not religious. Yet there is that divide. This is one such example.

I mentioned split Pakistan, as a thought for those who think that they are now going to force secularism down the throats of those who wish to have the implementation of Shariah. Not the brutal ideology of some self acclaimed religious scholar but Shariah as taught and followed by the Prophet himself. Our forefathers too protested and relatives lost their lives for the creation of Pakistan. It is not the monopoly of some who wish to implement Secularism, it belongs to all Pakistanis, and if those in power cannot, or do not wish to implement it, then split it. as loyalty to Islam and the Sovereign is far far far more then that to Pakistan...

 

[muse]

Pakistan was not created for the implementation of Shariah or any kind of theocracy -- and Islamists calling themselves Muslims is a bit too rich for my blood, what they are is confused and tragic, in the sense that their great tragedy is that they are not arabs - go to arabia, be your shariah loving, Muslim hating selves - and good luck and good riddance .

 

[Thor]

Pakistan was not created for the implementation of Shariah or any kind of theocracy -- and Islamists calling themselves Muslims is a bit too rich for my blood, what they are is confused and tragic, in the sense that their great tragedy is that they are not arabs - go to arabia, be your shariah loving, Muslim hating selves - and good luck and good riddance .

Thats a bit rich coming from you, someone living in the UK...........

 

[muse]

Thats a bit rich coming from you, someone living in the UK...........

This response suggests the quality of your thinking, you have now run out of argument, after all if you can conclude from flags that I live in the UK, am I to conclude from your nick that you are Scandinavian??

Please post reasoned arguments

 

[Thor]

This response suggests the quality of your thinking, you have now run out of argument, after all if you can conclude from flags that I live in the UK, am I to conclude from your nick that you are Scandinavian??

Please post reasoned arguments

My reasoned argument was already given, it is you who decided with his peanut brain to go into a rant over Islamists and what not, which is nor here nor there, it is a viewpoint, a pathetic and lame one at that, but nonetheless, nothing more then your viewpoint, that all.

I made the following point

I wouldn't agree with that Islamists want to break Pakistan......... when since 1947 there is no implementation of the Shariah, despite the Constitution of Pakistan making it clear that the Sovereign is Allah, the Almighty and his laws are then not implemented but instead there are direct clauses and clashes within the constitution of Pakistan against that of Shariah, then voices raised 60 years ago are getting louder.

I am a Muslim, thats it....plain and simple. The Prophet was was a wahabi, Sunni, Shia or whatever else there is, he did not put a divide down the line of Muslims and Islam, it is the people, religious figures who do not allow Muslims to integrate.......

Muslims used to be people who were very well educated. Each household would hold thousands of books of knowledge. We were a thinking and tolerant people. Nonetheless, the difference between Sunnis and Shias is nothing more then political, not religious. Yet there is that divide. This is one such example.

I mentioned split Pakistan, as a thought for those who think that they are now going to force secularism down the throats of those who wish to have the implementation of Shariah. Not the brutal ideology of some self acclaimed religious scholar but Shariah as taught and followed by the Prophet himself. Our forefathers too protested and relatives lost their lives for the creation of Pakistan. It is not the monopoly of some who wish to implement Secularism, it belongs to all Pakistanis, and if those in power cannot, or do not wish to implement it, then split it. as loyalty to Islam and the Sovereign is far far far more then that to Pakistan...

to which you simply came out with

Pakistan was not created for the implementation of Shariah or any kind of theocracy -- and Islamists calling themselves Muslims is a bit too rich for my blood, what they are is confused and tragic, in the sense that their great tragedy is that they are not arabs - go to arabia, be your shariah loving, Muslim hating selves - and good luck and good riddance .

who is the one running out of arguments?.........

And yes, from your location, your flag is that of the Union Jack, so please dont try and raise points here about what Pakistan should be like when you yourself live in the UK, nothing to do with Pakistan itself