Secularism is the only solution!

[Mian H Amin.]

no Pakistan was made , and will be an ISLAMIC state. we need to filter our anti islamic laws and try to make them as per islam.

 

[Ayush]

both are not appropriate examples for us India and Turkey have their dynamics we have our own.....we will face this situation till we don't bring some local solutions to problems......

BTW both are not successful examples.....

well,hope you come up with a solution soon.

 

[SHAMK9]

What do you think that

"secularism is the only solution for Pakistan's current situation or something else"..?

Like I have said before, (As much as i would love to see Pakistan being secular) it won't work, simply changing Pakistan's name from Islamic republic to republic won't change anything, people really have to be committed to it which we don't see in Pakistan.

 

[Sugarcane]

no Pakistan was made , and will be an ISLAMIC state. we need to filter our anti islamic laws and try to make them as per islam.

Which Anti-Islamic law we have?

 

[Android]

Which Anti-Islamic law we have?

blasphemy

 

[livingdead]

no Pakistan was made , and will be an ISLAMIC state. we need to filter our anti islamic laws and try to make them as per islam.

I hope you are not a UK citizen...

 

[pkuser2k12]

it is not the solution it is like petrol on fire kind of thing.no thanks

 

[Huda]

blasphemy

He was asking about anti-Islam rather pro-Islam

 

[Sugarcane]

Islamic state is not possible, with current state of Muslims it have to be bralevi, deobandi, ahle-hadith or shia. So, it's better to put this dream in cold storage, let mullah's decide which version is correct until than run state affairs without interference of religion and based on justice. Once, mullah agree on one thing than (maybe in couple of centuries) ask them to prove their version is as per Quran and if it fulfill all Islamic requirement than make Pakistan Islamic Republic.

 

[Sugarcane]

blasphemy

You can't say that it's anti-Islam because it's pro-Islam, However it violate the basic principle of Islam which is Justice - so any law which is against teaching of Islam can be anything but Islamic.

 

[Kompromat]

Mother of ALL solutions, ALL secular countries eat gold and drink divine whine.

What we need is a good governance structure, a truly democratic local governance structure, widen the tax blanket, invest in industrialization, reduce infant mortality rate, raise literacy rate to 80-90%, clamp down on corruption and upskill the masses. Without a functional society and strong transparent institutions with robust accountability, any system of governance is doomed to fail.

 

[rubyjackass]

even jinnah wanted a scular pakistan.but was influenced by the hard liners,thus had to soften his stand.

That is only partly true. The problem lied in the fact that whatever Jinnah's intentions may be(historians still fight over this), the support he gathered for Pakistan was only obtained after showing the mullahs a dream that Pakistan will be a citadel of Islam. Though it would seem now that Jinnah was thinking of a 'modern' state(apparently Jinnah himself said so to Iskander Mirza, meaning that he does not support imposition of Sharia), he still might have been thinking of a modern but Islamic state.

Also contrary to what many Pakistani journalists claim in their opinion pieces, all the mullahs were not opposed to Pakistan. Only the Deoband faction(a large faction, but their roots are in current India, not in current Pakistan) opposed Pakistan. The mullahs of NWFP, FATA and Balochistan(Balochistan was not part of Pakistan.But some mullahs were imported from there also for publicizing the idea of Pakistan) played an important role in turning the tide for Muslim League in Punjab. Otherwise till 1946, Muslim League had no thikana in the very provinces which it claimed to represent. After a sustained campaign with religious men urging people to do their religious duty by supporting Pakistan, the election turn against the Unionists.

So after making such promises to Pakistan, how can Jinnah backtrack? May be he thought that after he achieves Pakistan, he can sideline the mullahs. But he probably overestimated his time, his political skill and the ability of Pakistan to stay fair to its minorities. He was a very good spokesman and lawyer for Pakistan, but he was a disaster as a politician.

 

[Sugarcane]

That is only partly true. The problem lied in the fact that whatever Jinnah's intentions may be(historians still fight over this), the support he gathered for Pakistan was only obtained after showing the mullahs a dream that Pakistan will be a citadel of Islam. Though it would seem now that Jinnah was thinking of a 'modern' state(apparently Jinnah himself said so to Iskander Mirza, meaning that he does not support imposition of Sharia), he still might have been thinking of a modern but Islamic state.

Also contrary to what many Pakistani journalists claim in their opinion pieces, all the mullahs were not opposed to Pakistan. Only the Deoband faction(a large faction, but their roots are in current India, not in current Pakistan) opposed Pakistan. The mullahs of NWFP, FATA and Balochistan(Balochistan was not part of Pakistan.But some mullahs were imported from there also for publicizing the idea of Pakistan) played an important role in turning the tide for Muslim League in Punjab. Otherwise till 1946, Muslim League had no thikana in the very provinces which it claimed to represent. After a sustained campaign with religious men urging people to do their religious duty by supporting Pakistan, the election turn against the Unionists.

So after making such promises to Pakistan, how can Jinnah backtrack? May be he thought that after he achieves Pakistan, he can sideline the mullahs. But he probably overestimated his time, his political skill and the ability of Pakistan to stay fair to its minorities. He was a very good spokesman and lawyer for Pakistan, but he was a disaster as a politician.

Islamisation of Pakistan started in 80s ..... so your whole argument is flawed.

 

[rubyjackass]

Islamisation of Pakistan started in 80s ..... so your whole argument is flawed.

Another myth. You can trace the dots. Islamisation has been a more or less continuous process.

Connect the dots:

Partition -> Hindus get booted out -> Objectives Resolution(precedent for Islam specific laws) -> Lahore Anti-Ahmedi riots - (Ayub's time - hiatus and religion get sidelined in favor of language and regional rights) - Hindus in East Pakistan get persecuted for being Indian agents -> ZAB declares Ahmedis as non-muslims -> more anti-ahmedi riots ->
only then Zia comes in(although the radicalisation in his era is of a whole new level. He made it an industry with foreign money)

 

[Sugarcane]

Another myth. You can trace the dots. Islamisation has been a more or less continuous process.

Connect the dots:

Partition -> Hindus get booted out -> Objectives Resolution(precedent for Islam specific laws) -> Lahore Anti-Ahmedi riots - (Ayub's time - hiatus and religion get sidelined in favor of language and regional rights) - Hindus in East Pakistan get persecuted for being Indian agents -> ZAB declares Ahmedis as non-muslims -> more anti-ahmedi riots ->
only then Zia comes in(although the radicalisation in his era is of a whole new level. He made it an industry with foreign money)

Jinnah demanded representation of Muslims who were systematically sidelined --> Your leadership rejected it
Jinnah's demand was Punjab --> Your leadership divided it, Bloodshed in Punjab which sowed enmity about other religions, who started it is still mystery. Muslims were also booted out.
Jinnah;s demand was Bengal + Asam --> Your leadership divided Bengal and taken Asam.
East Pakistan --> Indian active involvement was there
ZAB --> First one who used religion in Pakistani politics
ZIA --> turned it towards radicalization

Fact --> No, religious party ever formed government and nor in position to do so in foreseeable future.