The role of militancy in the rise of atheism?

[muse]

And it always fulfill its potential . South Asia badly needs something like the French system of Laïcité . Extreme and Paranoid level of Separation between Church and State . They do not allow Education system to be even touched by Church . Exactly what we need around here !![/QUOTE)

We wanted Freedom of Religion and may end up with Freedom From Religion -- Bandar ka janeh Adrak ka bhau - honestly, I think we have behaved like the bandar, did not realize, well, we enjoyed not knowing, and squandered away Mercy

 

[Chak Bamu]

Sufi is a local brand of Islam which helped it spread far and wide in the sub-continent. Wahabis with their killing only caused hatred for themselves.

Not exactly Havi. Sufi SILASIL exist all over the world, in almost all countries. From Sub-Saharan Africa to Kazakistan, From Easter-most islands of Indonesia (even Japan) to West coast of USA. There is precious little local about Sufism. It is beyond time and space. Sufis may be local in their approach, but not in their outlook. Also, there are no brands to Sufism as such. Just locally adapted approach and some practices - merely local flavors.

But secularism is a concept not a political party.

Not saying that it is not a concept or that it is a political party. That would be wrong.

This is not what it is. Comeon-i thought you could see it. What about 50 Million muslims living in secular lands. Have they becom heterodoxical. That is a cannard. A practicing Muslim can practice better in a secular environment where he will be away from the clutches of mullahs and religious dogmatism.

I think you are missing a zero somewhere in your number. Yes I understand what you are saying. Look, I am not saying that this is what secularism is about. I am merely pointing to how it is perceived. Not stating a fact, just pointing at perception.

Still I am not talking of imposing it yet. That can only come when people accept it in the first place. First step is debate on it as a concept that is part of Ijtehad (Islamic advancement, reform, liberalism and scholarly debate)... if it had no place in Islam mu'tazili school of thought would not even have existed. Ibn Rushd would not have promoted it and be known as the father of secularism.

We basically invented secularism-the west stole it and now after giving the west something great we look down at that great thing. This is no logic. Be proud of our history.

Agreed. Though the West did not really steal it any more than Arabs (Muslims) stole Indian numbers.

I am not even talking about imposing it-especially without consent from the population of Pakistan. Only a hero of Pakistan can do it. Ataturk had a major list of military victories and medals when he did it. Lets start with a step by step process. Lets start with debate on it. Then move to something else. The average Joe in Pakistan gets angry when he hears the word secularism. It is a concept in its nascent state here. People are thinking about it as yet.

In any case this thread is about a separate concept, atheism and militancy's role in increasing it as a reaction. It is necessary to disengage secularism and atheism just as it

I was just pointing at the current difficulties. We need to find answers to questions such as 'how to have different schools of thought co-exist?', or 'how to define who is, or is not a Muslim?', or 'how to reform Madrassahs?', 'how to reform syllabus?', and most importantly 'how to have 100% literacy'. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list. But having avoided answering these questions has got us in the trouble that we are in as of now.

But if we decide to 'own' secularism as is, we would not find adequate answers to these questions. It is rather like opening up trade with India, without having done anything about the serious energy shortfall.

If we implement secularism in spirit, then we shall have to equate all the various claimants of prophethood that pop up from time to time. What shall we do then, when such people initiate ever newer sects and declare that every one who does not agree to their being a prophet is a kaffir? This happened early in the last century, when Qadiani jamaat elder declared all Muslims as kaffir. You think Shia-Sunni thing is bad, just wait when all the nut jobs get up and declare prophethood. Our history is dotted with such people from the first century til now. Ever so often some idiot cracks up and declares prophet hood. If we follow a clear separation of religion and state, then clearly there is no way of dealing with such cases and some people would readily advocate for such people in the name of secularism. I hope you know what Iqbal said about Punjabi Muslims "Taaweel ka Phunda jo koi Sayyad lagai, Shakh-e-Nashaiman sey uttarta hai bohat jald".

These are not trivial concerns. That is why I said that we may well turn secular. But we have to modify it for our own use. Perhaps it would be useful to study the Russian model. It is quite close to what Muslims had been doing for centuries. Recognizing various religions within Empires and letting select committees of elders do their own organizing and regulation.

 

[Indrajith]

Unless and until we are tolerant to all schools of thoughts within Islam & other religions , doesnt mean that we have to sacrifice Islam for other, but to accomodate and understand that as we have right , others do have their own right

 

[Redbull]

^^^^ This is my unpublished article. If you know someone who wants it in his paper let me know. Do comment and rate.

Interesting to see what @muse, @Redbull and @Chak Bamu thinks about this other than other secular members.

I had a change of heart due to completely theological reasons not because of terrorism or extremism. Though, for a Pakistani living in Pakistan, I can see why the bombs going off day in and day out will cause them to question their beliefs.

 

[Redbull]

I don't agree with the premise of the article. In my experience, education and living in a tolerant society leads to an increase in the number of atheists.
A less tolerant environment drives people to group themselves which usually happens along the lines of faith. This need drives people towards more religion. So Wahabism wouldn't drive people to atheism and infact would end up making the society more religious.

The people mentioned in the article are usually the well off who are more secure and have access to means such as the internet where they find literature which legitimises their thoughts on atheism.

I'm agreeing with you 100%.

@haviZsultan ^^^ I think this is how it is in Europe because we have a distorted view of what Islam really is and listen to Zakir naik, and his lame justifications of terrorism and wahabism.

 

[Bang Galore]

You really do not know what I am talking about. This has to do with religious experience and knowledge of God as a source of conviction against doubt.

This has nothing to do with your notions of how things happen. You would have no idea. You are ill-equipped to discuss in this matter, you have only crude ideas and an inadequate perspective when it comes to particulars of spirituality in Islam. Better hang up and try back later when you have atleast a rudimentary knowledge of what is being discussed here.

Relax...take a chill pill , let me worry about my knowledge & you stick to worrying about yours. You were the one giving out opinions about atheists, I haven't said a word about Islam or anything else. You made the statement that "the heart of the believer knows" and I pointed out that what it knows(as certain) is different for different people and it is that belief of certainty that has led to plenty of atrocities. For the rest, read my signature......

 

[Chak Bamu]

Relax...take a chill pill , let me worry about my knowledge & you stick to worrying about yours. You were the one giving out opinions about atheists, I haven't said a word about Islam or anything else. You made the statement that "the heart of the believer knows" and I pointed out that what it knows(as certain) is different for different people and it is that belief of certainty that has led to plenty of atrocities. For the rest, read my signature......

You still did not get it.

But thanks for not being stubborn about it.

I would just re-iterate that the certitude of a believer is not a necessary condition for murder and mayhem. There are plenty of nutcases out there. However, since you imagine doubt to be important and certainty as absurd, you would never get it. You really have not given my post due consideration. I did include an answer for you. But your knee-jerk reaction kept you from seeing what I said.

 

[Bang Galore]

However, since you imagine doubt to be important and certainty as absurd, you would never get it.

...and vice versa. Certainty has killed more people than doubt. Let us agree to disagree.

 

[Hashshāshīn]

I am being better than you, I know that it's not right to generalize but that's the only way you understand it, terrorism is wide spread over there while terrorists are outcasted in other countries. Pakistanis blamed everyone except themselves.

I've already spoke to you about this. The reason why there is more terrorism in Afg/Pak than KSA or other GCC countries is because of education and wealth. Arabs are wealthy with a reasonable education, while poverty doesn't allow everyone in Afghanistan to go to school.

Arabs are barbaric people, you even know that. If Arabia was still in the same state as before Petroleum was discovered, you would be 10x worse than any place. Thank Allah for this gift of oil...

 

[ashok321]

Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the
Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the
others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is
the best service that one can render him.
—E. Renan

 

[ashok321]

Thank Allah for this gift of oil...

Why?

Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Angola, Ecuador, China, US, Canada should also thank Allah too?

 

[haviZsultan]

Not exactly Havi. Sufi SILASIL exist all over the world, in almost all countries. From Sub-Saharan Africa to Kazakistan, From Easter-most islands of Indonesia (even Japan) to West coast of USA. There is precious little local about Sufism. It is beyond time and space. Sufis may be local in their approach, but not in their outlook. Also, there are no brands to Sufism as such. Just locally adapted approach and some practices - merely local flavors.

I do not agree with this. Sufism came to transoxania and Khorasan (Afghanistan) around the 9th century when what is now Pakistan was part of the Saffarid or Samanid rule (at times by Abbasids)... so it came to that geographic locality first then spread to other parts. It has spread but it is a local flavor of Islam.

Not saying that it is not a concept or that it is a political party. That would be wrong.

I do not get your point.

I think you are missing a zero somewhere in your number. Yes I understand what you are saying. Look, I am not saying that this is what secularism is about. I am merely pointing to how it is perceived. Not stating a fact, just pointing at perception.

I am not sure it is 15 or 50... will check sometime. But it is not 500- no quipping!

I agree this is indeed a perception but there is no reason it cannot be changed. The change can begin with the middle classes.

Agreed. Though the West did not really steal it any more than Arabs (Muslims) stole Indian numbers.

Agree, but it was our invention. Why are we avoiding this reality just because it is inconvenient to the mind of the average Islamist fanatic today?

I was just pointing at the current difficulties. We need to find answers to questions such as 'how to have different schools of thought co-exist?', or 'how to define who is, or is not a Muslim?', or 'how to reform Madrassahs?', 'how to reform syllabus?', and most importantly 'how to have 100% literacy'. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list. But having avoided answering these questions has got us in the trouble that we are in as of now.

These will become inconsequential when secularism is imposed. The issue disappears like water under a bridge. It should actually be inconsequential-these questions because it is not the duty of the state.

But if we decide to 'own' secularism as is, we would not find adequate answers to these questions. It is rather like opening up trade with India, without having done anything about the serious energy shortfall.

I do not agree with the last point so I don't agree with this.

If we implement secularism in spirit, then we shall have to equate all the various claimants of prophethood that pop up from time to time. What shall we do then, when such people initiate ever newer sects and declare that every one who does not agree to their being a prophet is a kaffir?

Seriously? Prophethood in the 21st century? Nation of Islam? lol. Far too much, Chak Bamu. Its never happened in last many years.

This happened early in the last century, when Qadiani jamaat elder declared all Muslims as kaffir. You think Shia-Sunni thing is bad, just wait when all the nut jobs get up and declare prophethood. Our history is dotted with such people from the first century til now. Ever so often some idiot cracks up and declares prophet hood. If we follow a clear separation of religion and state, then clearly there is no way of dealing with such cases and some people would readily advocate for such people in the name of secularism. I hope you know what Iqbal said about Punjabi Muslims "Taaweel ka Phunda jo koi Sayyad lagai, Shakh-e-Nashaiman sey uttarta hai bohat jald".

Hate for the Ahmedis has to come up somewhere. Lets just let everyone practice in peace. They are more of the victims than those who have magically oppressed others or hurt the sentiments of others. Mir Zafarullah Khan was an Ahmedi and was called Jinnah's son. If you are going to be racist then leave this.

These are not trivial concerns. That is why I said that we may well turn secular. But we have to modify it for our own use. Perhaps it would be useful to study the Russian model. It is quite close to what Muslims had been doing for centuries. Recognizing various religions within Empires and letting select committees of elders do their own organizing and regulation.

These are very trivial concerns but our minds have not learned to look beyond them yet. Concepts of ethnicity and sect are embedded in our minds like gobar in a jute gunny sack. But the gunny sack with the help of a good handler can release itself of its gobar eventually.

We must carry on with ijtehad. It is the process for reform. We must progress. We will never do it with the current system that fails us in every regard. We failed to implement Islam for 60 years. What makes us think we will magically be able to do so now. Time for a massive change for Pakistan.

Let us leave this for now, agree to disagree on secularism and leave it for another thread. Its off-topic anyway.

 

[muse]

HaviZ:

Al Hallaj and the "wool" wearers

 

[Chak Bamu]

I do not agree with this. Sufism came to transoxania and Khorasan (Afghanistan) around the 9th century when what is now Pakistan was part of the Saffarid or Samanid rule (at times by Abbasids)... so it came to that geographic locality first then spread to other parts. It has spread but it is a local flavor of Islam.

Fail to understand the relevance. What is the point? Origin of Sufism or its role in what is now Pakistan?

I agree this is indeed a perception but there is no reason it cannot be changed. The change can begin with the middle classes.

Perception can not be changed easily. Not difficult to figure why.

Agree, but it was our invention. Why are we avoiding this reality just because it is inconvenient to the mind of the average Islamist fanatic today?

Not terribly important. Jeeta hai Roomi, Hara hai Razi - Iqbal.

These will become inconsequential when secularism is imposed. The issue disappears like water under a bridge. It should actually be inconsequential-these questions because it is not the duty of the state.

Imposed? Loaded word.

Those questions are extremely important. Secularism is just a shortcut then if you think that imposing it would do the magic trick. Avoiding these questions has brought confusion and pain. Ignoring these questions is not an option.

I could write a book here. But suffice to say that Pakistan suffers from a crisis of identity. Imposing secularism would at best be a try to freeze the situation. This would not work.

I am including a piece of my post in some other thread:

"Yes, there is some geographical logic behind Pakistan, it largely being based on River Indus, but this geographical factor works in a round-about way (Muslim majority populating Indus and its tributaries). But this geographical factor is not strong enough to bind this country together. The Eastern borders are not defined by any geographical feature. The Western borders are also open to interpretation. Three ethnicities are shared with three neighbors (Punjabis with India, Pashtuns with Afghanistan, & Baluch with Iran & Afghanistan). The difference between different ethnic elements are enough to tear apart this country, once Islam is taken out of equation.

Perhaps now you can begin to understand how can a strategist set about to tear this country in a couple of decades. One simply has to discredit the role of religion in Pakistan's internal and external dynamics - this being accomplished to an uncomfortable extent. The other process is to fan the apathy into hatred in ethnic terms - a process well under way. "
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...disliked-everywhere-else-6.html#ixzz2K9VdVX5Z

You describe yourself as a nationalist, and an activist to boot. Now let me ask you a rather pointed question: Being that you are a Pakistani nationalist, can you please tell me what this nationalism is based upon? Has there ever been a country by this name? or having this border? or having this specific composition (ethnic, geography, politics)? It would be pretty dumb to define your identity in terms of something that was created artificially only a few decades ago. Why was this country even 'created'? It seems to have failed in its third decade of existence. Why place hopes and dreams in something which is pretty meaningless in itslef; has no history, no precedent, no existence even save but a few decades ago. Why be so committed to something which has no basis upon which to place its existence?

Havi, when you divorce Pakistan from Islam, the above questions become imminently relevant. I know the oft repeated bit that "Pakistan was made for Muslims, not Islam". I have no problem with that either. But when you impose your 21st century sensibilities upon our country, we run into problems.

So what is wrong then...? We just do not know who we are. Our crisis is that of our identity. The whole world is going in a certain general direction, but we are rooted to a spot. Our ego gets hurt when we hear others talking about us. Oh of course, we need all what everyone seems to have: modernity, freedom of expression every which way, the supposed sanctity of consensual sex between two adults, the GLBT rights, abolition of death penalty, & more similar stuff. Looking at Pakistan which does not give us what we think is our birthright is a source of irritation. What can make it all right for us? Is there some way? Some shortcut?

There are no short cuts. There is only a way of toil, sweat, and maybe tears. We must do what the two earlier generations did not do. Their concerns were different. We can not turn away. There is nowhere to turn to. It is not good enough that the generation that made Pakistan had a general idea of what they were doing. For them identity did not quite matter. They had achieved something phenomenal. But they did not tell us what it meant.

You know the economic growth that Pakistan has had, the technology we have acquired, the weapons we made, are all pointless. For we do not know what all this is about? What all this is for?

Havi, I would very much like to know how you define your identity. Why you think it is of any worth to be known as a Pakistani?

If we divorce Islam from Pakistan, we strike at our reason to exist as a separate country. We might as well rejoin India. If today's troubles make us look here and there to find a shortcut solution to our problems, then we are not worthy of this country.

Seriously? Prophethood in the 21st century? Nation of Islam? lol. Far too much, Chak Bamu. Its never happened in last many years.

Claims of prophethood after its been sealed has to do with psychological trouble. Find out about Rashad Kahlifah. He declared prophethood only about three decades ago. I remember some of his followers heckling any interfaith discussion that caught their attention. Every country and culture has such nutcases.

Hate for the Ahmedis has to come up somewhere. Lets just let everyone practice in peace. They are more of the victims than those who have magically oppressed others or hurt the sentiments of others. Mir Zafarullah Khan was an Ahmedi and was called Jinnah's son. If you are going to be racist then leave this.

How was I hateful? Please tell me. I just pointed to the fact that Qadianis call us Muslims as Kaffirs (and they have been doing so since the beginning of last century). It was mentioned as an illustrative example. How is that racist? Seeing that most Qadianis are Punjabis like myself, how can I be acting with racism? I just raised a valid concern and you just side-stepped the issue and took a parthian shot while doing so.

They can pray as they wish, they can live as they wish, but I would certainly object to hypocrisy if they themselves or someone on their behalf calls them Muslims. They are full citizens of Pakistan and they contribute as part of society. If they are targeted by terrorists, I would be just as upset as you. But please let us dispense with hypocrisy here. This issue is especially sensitive for me because an inviolable religious principle is involved.

You still have not answered my question though. What to do when someone just gets up and declares himself a prophet and gathers a following. The state being secular in your hypothetical case would do nothing. And of course people can not take law into their own hands. Are we going to have Qramatians, Druze, Yazidis and such like calling us kaffirs and be fine with it? (There, I did not say Qadianis, Happy?)

These are very trivial concerns but our minds have not learned to look beyond them yet. Concepts of ethnicity and sect are embedded in our minds like gobar in a jute gunny sack. But the gunny sack with the help of a good handler can release itself of its gobar eventually.

Not trivial sir. But then let us agree to disagree on this point.

Sect-bazi is for Mullahs. Let them have it. They would not know what else to do. Ethnicity is important to some people and as a subservient part of identity, there is no harm in it. But I am worried about 'handler'. Is it a-la-Musharraf? I hope not.

 

[haviZsultan]

Fail to understand the relevance. What is the point? Origin of Sufism or its role in what is now Pakistan?

I was using that to argue that it is our form of Islam and is mixed with secular influences.

Perception can not be changed easily. Not difficult to figure why.

I agree. But it is the duty of people who love their nation to try.

Imposed? Loaded word.

Mistake. Poor choice of words. My bad. Have stated that we cannot bring forth secularism without the consent of the awam. I think that is the only valid argument you have. Who will convince the people.

Those questions are extremely important. Secularism is just a shortcut then if you think that imposing it would do the magic trick. Avoiding these questions has brought confusion and pain. Ignoring these questions is not an option.

I could write a book here. But suffice to say that Pakistan suffers from a crisis of identity. Imposing secularism would at best be a try to freeze the situation. This would not work.

religion is already being imposed her. Blasphemy law, hudood, biased Wahabi laws prevail. We fear secularism for no reason.

I am including a piece of my post in some other thread:

"Yes, there is some geographical logic behind Pakistan, it largely being based on River Indus, but this geographical factor works in a round-about way (Muslim majority populating Indus and its tributaries). But this geographical factor is not strong enough to bind this country together. The Eastern borders are not defined by any geographical feature. The Western borders are also open to interpretation. Three ethnicities are shared with three neighbors (Punjabis with India, Pashtuns with Afghanistan, & Baluch with Iran & Afghanistan). The difference between different ethnic elements are enough to tear apart this country, once Islam is taken out of equation.

Perhaps now you can begin to understand how can a strategist set about to tear this country in a couple of decades. One simply has to discredit the role of religion in Pakistan's internal and external dynamics - this being accomplished to an uncomfortable extent. The other process is to fan the apathy into hatred in ethnic terms - a process well under way. "
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...disliked-everywhere-else-6.html#ixzz2K9VdVX5Z

Nice post. But you first have to understand secularism=Islam. A number of schools of thought are secular. @muse gave the example of Al Hallaj and the wool weavers... another tool for me. Thanks muse.

You describe yourself as a nationalist, and an activist to boot. Now let me ask you a rather pointed question: Being that you are a Pakistani nationalist, can you please tell me what this nationalism is based upon?

I can only say it is distinct from religion. Religion mixed with nationalism is not true Nationalism. We have for years mixed religion with nationalism. Question is why cannot a Hindu or Christian be a nationalist and love his country more than anything in the world today.

Has there ever been a country by this name? or having this border? or having this specific composition (ethnic, geography, politics)? It would be pretty dumb to define your identity in terms of something that was created artificially only a few decades ago. Why was this country even 'created'? It seems to have failed in its third decade of existence. Why place hopes and dreams in something which is pretty meaningless in itslef; has no history, no precedent, no existence even save but a few decades ago. Why be so committed to something which has no basis upon which to place its existence?

In either case it is our home and this is enough to commit to it and its better future. It is our job to fix our nation and by God I will do everything in my power to do so.

Havi, when you divorce Pakistan from Islam, the above questions become imminently relevant. I know the oft repeated bit that "Pakistan was made for Muslims, not Islam". I have no problem with that either. But when you impose your 21st century sensibilities upon our country, we run into problems.

This is what kills the debate. Islam being an anti-secular concept according to the average conservative person. and vice versa

The issue is convincing the populace. It is not something to be imposed. It can only be imposed by a leader of the stature of Ataturk who has many military victories behind him.

So what is wrong then...? We just do not know who we are. Our crisis is that of our identity. The whole world is going in a certain general direction, but we are rooted to a spot. Our ego gets hurt when we hear others talking about us. Oh of course, we need all what everyone seems to have: modernity, freedom of expression every which way, the supposed sanctity of consensual sex between two adults, the GLBT rights, abolition of death penalty, & more similar stuff. Looking at Pakistan which does not give us what we think is our birthright is a source of irritation. What can make it all right for us? Is there some way? Some shortcut?

The secular ways of our ancestors are.

There are no short cuts. There is only a way of toil, sweat, and maybe tears. We must do what the two earlier generations did not do. Their concerns were different. We can not turn away. There is nowhere to turn to. It is not good enough that the generation that made Pakistan had a general idea of what they were doing. For them identity did not quite matter. They had achieved something phenomenal. But they did not tell us what it meant.

I am suggesting no shortcut.

You know the economic growth that Pakistan has had, the technology we have acquired, the weapons we made, are all pointless. For we do not know what all this is about? What all this is for?

Havi, I would very much like to know how you define your identity. Why you think it is of any worth to be known as a Pakistani?

Because we were of this land, we lost much to the Indians. This land is the only safe-haven for us left anywhere. As our government proves we aren't even safe here. But in either case it is our land and we are to love it dearly. Such is our duty and responsibility. I don't know why I have to explain this. Nationalism is our birthright. It is a responsibility, a duty to motherland and soil.

If we divorce Islam from Pakistan, we strike at our reason to exist as a separate country. We might as well rejoin India. If today's troubles make us look here and there to find a shortcut solution to our problems, then we are not worthy of this country.

Saying we want an Islamic republic and a land for Muslims where they are safe are far different. Quaid E Azam was secular and never imposed religion on us. Islamic republic was not attached. You dislike Ahmedis but Mir Zafarullah Khan was one, he partly formed Pakistan and was called a son by Jinnah. Don't hate others for their faith. Be united, be strong and in the end we will be good Pakistanis.

Claims of prophethood after its been sealed has to do with psychological trouble. Find out about Rashad Kahlifah. He declared prophethood only about three decades ago. I remember some of his followers heckling any interfaith discussion that caught their attention. Every country and culture has such nutcases.

These things remain inconsequential to me largely.

How was I hateful? Please tell me. I just pointed to the fact that Qadianis call us Muslims as Kaffirs (and they have been doing so since the beginning of last century). It was mentioned as an illustrative example. How is that racist? Seeing that most Qadianis are Punjabis like myself, how can I be acting with racism? I just raised a valid concern and you just side-stepped the issue and took a parthian shot while doing so.

We call them Muslims do we? No I didn't take a parthian shot. I respect you but the idea you are promoting is divisive. You have to understand me. I cannot understand division in my country. Please understand this simple thing. Don't divide me from a person within the boundaries of Pakistan. I fight luffy for it, I fight Afghans, I fight muhajirs and condemn my family members and am called an idiot of the highest order for trying to change ethnicity. I do not take kindly to divisions and fault lines being promoted.

Also this is one reason secularism should work for Pakistan. At least we won't be hating each other on the basis of sect or religion and can enforce a better quality education program that doesn't refer to Hindus as Anti-Pakistani.

They can pray as they wish, they can live as they wish, but I would certainly object to hypocrisy if they themselves or someone on their behalf calls them Muslims. They are full citizens of Pakistan and they contribute as part of society. If they are targeted by terrorists, I would be just as upset as you. But please let us dispense with hypocrisy here. This issue is especially sensitive for me because an inviolable religious principle is involved.

This is the same broken logic of mullahs. I do not know what to say. Zafarullah Khan example will suffice. He was called a son by Jinnah. Google it and find out. Or here:

http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000215.html

You still have not answered my question though. What to do when someone just gets up and declares himself a prophet and gathers a following. The state being secular in your hypothetical case would do nothing. And of course people can not take law into their own hands. Are we going to have Qramatians, Druze, Yazidis and such like calling us kaffirs and be fine with it? (There, I did not say Qadianis, Happy?)

Treat him as a mental patient... that is what our state would do. They have never called us Kaffir. Its always the other way around actually. This debate is pointless when you yourself are stating things the mullah would. Stop hating others man. Its very wrong.

Not trivial sir. But then let us agree to disagree on this point.

Sect-bazi is for Mullahs. Let them have it. They would not know what else to do. Ethnicity is important to some people and as a subservient part of identity, there is no harm in it. But I am worried about 'handler'. Is it a-la-Musharraf? I hope not.

Ethnicity itself is not an issue. It being directed against Pakistani nationalism is an issue.