What's new

Secularism vs Islamism (in Pakistan)

Some people obviously can't get the message.

Secularism need not mean "removing God from all things", but equality of all religions
No that's the mis conception always stated in India.

Secularism is the seclusion of religion from governance. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with equality, peace and harmony of all faiths.

Yes you may continue to be religious in your private lives as long as it does not impact upon the lives of others in your country.

Pakistan needs secularism and it needs the tolerance to do the right thing.
 
Shira laws are crule tell me if some perosn steals like 10£ acording to shira you will cut his hands off tell me how that is not babric

No, you are a liar. You know nothing about Sharia, so keep your nonsense to yourself. The cutting of the hands is for certain instances! As determined by the hadith with the Caliph Hazrat Omar (rad)!

Sharia is the best form of government! Get a life, and don't post such lies here!
 
No that's the mis conception always stated in India.

Secularism is the seclusion of religion from governance. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with equality, peace and harmony of all faiths.

Yes you may continue to be religious in your private lives as long as it does not impact upon the lives of others in your country.

Pakistan needs secularism and it needs the tolerance to do the right thing.

Never!

As determined by Quran and Sunnah, Religion (Islam) and the state go hand in hand! That is the way which God has ordained to us! Secularists like yourself are just as must of a threat to Pakistan as the Wahabi extremists are!

Pakistan will always be an Islamic Republic! Insha Allah!

The Objective Resolution of 1949 states:

1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.

the 98% Muslim population of Pakistan will always stand for Islam, and against the tyranny of secularism!
 
@Asim

Secularism has become an ambiguous term and I agree that the way I mentioned is how it is used in the Indian constitutional setup i.e. no discrimination on the basis of religion or equality of all religions in the eyes of the state. In fact, when Nehru was asked by a student what does it mean, he responded something along the lines of 'equal protection of all religions by the State'

However, even in the US/UK, religion is not negated completely and you have govt. officials including the President regularly holding religious rituals and prayer sessions and invoking God and religion (albeit in a private capacity) in various situations.

Some insists that secular means separation of state and religion. But this is not possible because it is the people who make up the state and what they think and feel will have some bearing on how the state functions.

Compare this to the French equivalent laïcité. This word is not ambiguous at all and actually implies clearly NO religion period. It would be impossible for the French govt. officials to mention God or religion in official ceremonies. Most European countries, including Turkey have followed such a model and referred to this as Secularism, hence the ambiguity and confusion.
 
@Asim

Secularism has become an ambiguous term and I agree that the way I mentioned is how it is used in the Indian constitutional setup i.e. no discrimination on the basis of religion or equality of all religions in the eyes of the state. In fact, when Nehru was asked by a student what does it mean, he responded something along the lines of 'equal protection of all religions by the State'

However, even in the US/UK, religion is not negated completely and you have govt. officials including the President regularly holding religious rituals and prayer sessions and invoking God and religion (albeit in a private capacity) in various situations.

Some insists that secular means separation of state and religion. But this is not possible because it is the people who make up the state and what they think and feel will have some bearing on how the state functions.

Compare this to the French equivalent laïcité. This word is not ambiguous at all and actually implies clearly NO religion period. It would be impossible for the French govt. officials to mention God or religion in official ceremonies. Most European countries, including Turkey have followed such a model and referred to this as Secularism, hence the ambiguity and confusion.

You are obviously having some trouble in determining what secularism is, there is no need to twist the facts here...

As described by the dictionary secularism is:

1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religiouselement.

A secular society does not use religion to make political and economic decisions. This is the blatant truth, no denying this concept or twisting it some way to suit your own thinking...
 
Do you even know what secularism is?

No i was born 48 hours ago , so you can put your "V-ast" Knowledge to the test and take out my ignorance !

Islam has nothing to do with secularism, because secularism removes religion from all political and economic aspects of a society.

:blah::blah: Secularism removes religion yada yada is just BS !

What if your Religion is the most Secular one ? (Liberal):coffee::pakistan:
 
I'm not twisting facts, but stating them. Here is some reading for you guys. Its from the NCERT/CBSE Class 11 Political Science Textbook
Chapter8: Secularism

Alternatively you can check out chapter 8 on their official website here
NCERT Textbooks

Maybe you will learn something new
 
Real Islam is infact secular :whistle: - the taliabnised version is really not a true representation
 
So, let’s settle the matter of whether Sharia calls for these “brutal, harsh, and inhumane” punishments. There are four major schools of Sunni Sharia law. They agree about 75% of the time. Sharia has been basically unchanged for about the past 1000 years. There is a difference between Sharia and the laws of various Muslim states. Muslim states can vary in their implementation of Sharia, but this implementation does not change the basic nature of Sharia. There are authoritative legal texts of Islamic law which spell out what Sharia law entails. Here are some quotes from Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Shafi’i School):

pg. 613 “THE PENALTY FOR THEFT…. A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam….”

pg. 616 “THE PENALTY FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY…. If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold…, both his right hand and left foot are amputated…. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days.”

pg. 610 “THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION OR SODOMY…. If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death….”

pg. 595 “APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

pg. 617 “THE PENALTY FOR DRINKING…. The penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes, with hands, sandals, and ends of clothes. It may be administered with a whip, but if the offender dies, an indemnity… is due… for his death.” [This penalty applies only to Muslims.]

In each case, there is also a list of qualifiers for who should be punished. Of course, these punishments are not carried out much of the time today, but they certainly are a part of Sharia. They have never been removed from the books, and they can be enforced at any time and place that Sharia is considered to be a valid source of law.

In addition, there is evidence these barbaric practices are still very much alive. Aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, have found it necessary to have a policy for whether to assist with amputations meted out as punishment in Muslim countries. Stonings are being carried out by the legal system in Nigeria, Iran, and elsewhere.

So tell me, why exactly would we believe those who say they could implement Sharia family law only, without opening the door to the criminal law with its cruel medieval punishments? If we legitimize Sharia as a source of law, what exactly would stop orthodox Muslims from wanting–and indeed, expecting–the whole thing?
 
So, let’s settle the matter of whether Sharia calls for these “brutal, harsh, and inhumane” punishments. There are four major schools of Sunni Sharia law. They agree about 75% of the time. Sharia has been basically unchanged for about the past 1000 years. There is a difference between Sharia and the laws of various Muslim states. Muslim states can vary in their implementation of Sharia, but this implementation does not change the basic nature of Sharia. There are authoritative legal texts of Islamic law which spell out what Sharia law entails. Here are some quotes from Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Shafi’i School):

pg. 613 “THE PENALTY FOR THEFT…. A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam….”

pg. 616 “THE PENALTY FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY…. If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold…, both his right hand and left foot are amputated…. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days.”

pg. 610 “THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION OR SODOMY…. If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death….”

pg. 595 “APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

pg. 617 “THE PENALTY FOR DRINKING…. The penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes, with hands, sandals, and ends of clothes. It may be administered with a whip, but if the offender dies, an indemnity… is due… for his death.” [This penalty applies only to Muslims.]

In each case, there is also a list of qualifiers for who should be punished. Of course, these punishments are not carried out much of the time today, but they certainly are a part of Sharia. They have never been removed from the books, and they can be enforced at any time and place that Sharia is considered to be a valid source of law.

In addition, there is evidence these barbaric practices are still very much alive. Aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, have found it necessary to have a policy for whether to assist with amputations meted out as punishment in Muslim countries. Stonings are being carried out by the legal system in Nigeria, Iran, and elsewhere.

So tell me, why exactly would we believe those who say they could implement Sharia family law only, without opening the door to the criminal law with its cruel medieval punishments? If we legitimize Sharia as a source of law, what exactly would stop orthodox Muslims from wanting–and indeed, expecting–the whole thing?
The merits of Shariah's leniency or orthodoxy is not the same debate as Secularism vs Theocracy.

Why Secularism is important is to establish ONE law for all citizens of a nation. Not for equality between Hindus, Muslims, Christians. Between Muslims, each Muslim will have a different interpretation of what the law is. Each Alim will have his own interpretation. Shariah cannot even be applied upon Muslims let alone be applied upon minority religions.

Religions are ambiguous.

Pakistan needs EQUAL citizens, not equal religions. Religion for the state should be irrelevant. To say that you would apply Quranic values and the Sunnah upon state governance is to say you'll implement YOUR interpretation of it. It's nothing more than a dictatorship since its all interpretation.

That's why we need to implement Secular laws. Any secular and humane law would not be in violation of the Shariah and hence the Muslims can live in peace that they are not following anything evil.

Yes Secular laws will grant more freedoms. Freedom to sin as well. Sins that affect no one but the individual themselves. Alongside secularism would even grant you the freedom to CONVINCE people not to sin and preach your religion.

This is where you need to remember the words of the Quran:

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ​

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error

This is where Black Blood's argument gains strength. You can't say that Islam is secular since that doesn't fit the dictionary definition. But yes you can claim that there is a secular nature involved in its basic tenets and we see this again and again. Very explicitly stated in the Surah Kafiroon, even though at that time it was addressed to the disbelievers who were doing the same trying to impose their religion upon us and now some of us are trying to impose our religion upon others:

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

The themes of secular nature that Black Blood mentioned reappear again and again within the Quran.

Never!

As determined by Quran and Sunnah, Religion (Islam) and the state go hand in hand! That is the way which God has ordained to us! Secularists like yourself are just as must of a threat to Pakistan as the Wahabi extremists are!

Pakistan will always be an Islamic Republic! Insha Allah!
Dude most of us are religious practitioners as well. Just because we remain in control of our faculties and have a higher degree of tolerance for the opposing point of views, you think this is some sort of anti-Islamism at play. It's not. Everything is motivated by a service to Pakistan and Pakistan alone. Try to know a little bit about a person before you term him as "the biggest threat to Pakistan".
 
Shira laws are crule tell me if some perosn steals like 10£ acording to shira you will cut his hands off tell me how that is not babric
Shariah law has been in practice in Saudia, Iran, and Afghanistan amongst the few countries in modern times.

Can you name 10 people whose hands have been amputated??

If you can't then you must admit your information is absolutely wrong and it is pure islamophobic propaganda.

Certain punishments in Shariah law are strict because they are meant to create fear in people and scare them people away from committing those criminal acts that are not only bad for themselves but the public at large has more to lose. so the punishments are pretty much never carried out only in extenuating circumstances when the offensive is so serious and public demands such punishment.

Amongst them are punishments for rape and stealing.

Ironically the greatest sin in Islam is neither rape nor stealing, but it is disbelieve in God, however there's no punishment for it as Allah himself says that there's no compulsion in religion, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. are free to practice according to their faith.

But According to Christianity and Judiasm, disbelief carries a capital punishment.


There's no such thing as "lenient" punishment. All forms of punishments are "cruel" by any human standards you can possible set. Because they're designed to inculcate sense into the criminal through dehumanizing acts.

If whipping a person is cruel then so is imprisoning a person for one year like an animal in a 6X6 cage w/ no sunlight to see. They're meant to shake the human spirit that resides in the criminal and to set a great example and fear for others not to indulge in such an act.


on a side note, I don't blame you but Muslims for not explaining Shariah law to you here or elsewhere.

Brilliant...

How is life in Canada?

Maybe you should ask this question to the Indian occupied Kashmiri Muslims and victims of Gujrat massacre, majority of whom don't believe in India's secularism....Apparently secularism has not worked for them..
 
Yes Secular laws will grant more freedoms. Freedom to sin as well. Sins that affect no one but the individual themselves. Alongside secularism would even grant you the freedom to CONVINCE people not to sin and preach your religion


Most of the muslims are good religious practitioners and they live a good life ( except for a few extremists who are hell bend on destroying their own brothers in name of implementing sharia law). Religious practices wont get sacrificed if no sharia law is implemented. It is the FEAR that arises from the implementation that can cause much damage. If you check the history now and yesterday it is the people who wants the sharia law in the country who has been indulged in committing more sins like rape , mass murders and all. If they are in the main stream along with a civilized society leading a normal life like millions of Pakistanis , the country of Pakistan would have been a much better nation. Pakistan has the potential to be a great nation if the focus is taken away from religion and hatred towards India and look upon the welfare of its society and development activities and modernization. Competition with India and much importance to the role religion playing in nation has already taken away so many precious years from a nation which is just 63 years old. The debate over sharia and the concept of jihad and all will further take them backwards. So youth in Pakistan has to realize its not competing with India by buying aircrafts and ships that can make their country better but by more focusing on development. India is never going to attack pakistan and is a fact. India dont want an inch of land of Pakistan and what it does is just defending its own land.

The cry for liberating Kashmir has taken away a lot of attention from internal development. If you look at the "azad kashmir" itself we can find four million people who inhabit the region, nine of 10 live in extremely impoverished conditions in rural areas. Population growth is excessive, at 2.4 per cent per year, and the average house holds no fewer than seven people.

Its not azad too.The separation of the Northern Areas( Gilgit and Baltistan from Azad Kashmir )Pakistan eliminated all doubts about the sovereignty of Azad Kashmir.

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Azad Kashmir today

Its by Dawn which is much better than most of the Indian media.
 
Maybe you should ask this question to the Indian occupied Kashmiri Muslims and victims of Gujrat massacre, majority of whom don't believe in India's secularism....Apparently secularism has not worked for them..

do you have the statistics of how many are massacred daily in pakistan by US and pakistani forces today??? check the daily newspapers for more info regarding drone attacks and all.. and oh YES its not massacre.. just plain accidents...for your information gujarat massacre was a communal riot which started when a train was burned killing 63 hindus and the hindus retaliated. It was very much publised and a government falled because it was not common in INDIA. this would have happened in pakistan too.. think of hwat will happen if a train with muslim pilgrims are burned by a few hindu activists. all hindus in the country would have massacred. so please dont highlight gujrat massacre . its a sad incident and we make sure it wont happen again , because we have a mechanism in place instead of blame games.
 
Ok lets assume your comment as right, then tell me Why Secularism doesnt work in INDIA?????????

what made you think that secularism doesn't work in India?

If you have 1,000s of examples to prove your point, I've CRORES of example to prove that Secularism is successful in INDIA and it is the source of all our strength!
 
Back
Top Bottom