The two faces of ‘Muslim’ Modernists

[SecularNationalist]

How can you expect a rational and logical discussion when you are backing your claims with some religious texts? When you talk everything according to religion you will simply see every other thing as wrong because they go against your mindset.The same ideology where constitution was abducted by religious theories and fatwas gave rise to extremism and imported saudi Wahhabi ideology.Secularism promotes equal rights to everyone even to the religious islamists.Secularism don,t forbid you to go to a mosque or not.It,s just guarantee the right of freedom of a human being in a civilized modern society .But if you impose religion all the rights of non religious people are gone and try to make them islamic by force.
Login to PDF to open this thread and using internet is also hypocritical.Using mobile phones daily is also like adopting westernization because nothing such was originated or invented by our so called superior eastern Islamic culture.Oh now you are going to say those things are necessities of everyday life and life can,t function without them these days.So yes similarly separating religion from the state is the necessity of our current time because that,s how things work .Everything is crystal clear where ever religion is imposed it encouraged religious zealots and their political version of islam i.e extremism.Look at most muslim countries these days.Those 6th century and khilafat ,sharia days are completely gone and a modern muslim should be modern according to the time.Does not matter how hard you try to be a true pious muslim who see others as hypocrites and less muslims ,you are part of this modern world and this world will change you that,s my challenge.And if you will try to go back to those good old islamic days ,you will only punish your life and others lives.
@Zibago @haviZsultan

 

[litman]

the real problem of today's muslims is that majority of us are liberal muslims and others are extremist muslims and there are very few true muslims.

 

[IndusisHindu]

socialism has existed for countless years in varied proportions, where ever equality of socio-economic rights were demanded, where ever true democracy was demanded, where ever intellectual advancement was advanced through a progressive political system.

islam though was the first organized socialist movement.

"Socialism" as defined by Marx and Engels? Or is this some other form of "Socialism"? How can you dub Islam as an "organized socialist movement" when there was no Marx or Engels present during those times who can define what "Socialism" is, nor was there an industrial society which were required to produce any Marx or Engels?

marx and engels were no doubt among the shining stars in human history but they were only building upon previous advancements.

Sure they were, but do remember they were a product of "Modernity".

do we not know of the ancient greek idea of 'demokratia' which spoke of direct-democracy but sadly failed to be democratic because it excluded a large chunk of the population from decision-making, yet was without doubt a advancement over the monarchic traditions of the world??

Do remember it was an "ancient Greek idea" which was only passed on to countries like ours through colonialism and Western Imperialism. Only gradually were we made to accept such ideas of "Democracy" to be the norm. 1857 Revolt against the British Raj was indigenous yet not at all "Democratic".

do we not know of gautama buddha who cried in despair about the socio-economic deprivations of the majority population of india??

do we not know of prophet jesus who 2000 years ago demanded end to the interest-taking money lender??

and the last two are prophets of islam too.

The Prophets were not aware of Marx or his modernist ideas so imposing hegemonic Marxian ideals to judge the actions of the Prophets who existed centuries earlier before the advent of modern industrial society(which was essential for the emergence of a Marx or Engels) will be a gross mistake on our part. It's selective reading and opportunistic hegemonic interpretation of history to further your own Marxist ideology.

the line of prophets end with prophet muhammad as there is no reason for

i have had a series of talks with a senior member of one of india's communist movements and he never mentioned to me

and i am not a subscriber to traditional marxian thought but a modernizer and mixer of it and other socialist/communist streams.

i mentioned jamahiriyan thought earlier and this political arrangement theory from libya, written in 'green book - part 1', is how a communist political arrangement can be formed.

the social structures in a "communist" system, some derived from marxian thought, some from modern advancements, is the way to go.

Hardcore Marxists consider Marx to be a Prophet of modern times (not a religious Prophet as Marxist do not believe in religion). There is even a joke to taunt Marxist that they consider Marx to be the only God!!

Again jamahiriyan thought originated and is particular to Libya and applying it anywhere other than Libya will result in problems because the whole world is not Libya.

for example, money system should be abolished as the simplest way to end most socio-economic injustices.

both islam and 'the communist manifesto' don't speak of this... however, there was a time when the ussr wanted to end the money system.

you see, socialism is a real-world ideology that has subtleties and not a college text book course where one has to follow exact to the definition so that one earns high exam marks.

Abolishing money or the concept of money is impossible given how we as humans have built up our economy and that is why no-one sensible enough, speaks of it. This idea of abolishing money should belong in fairy tales and myths as it is not fit to be a practical solution for anything!

marx also speaks of tribal societies existing long long before the european industrial revolution.

and such ideas of Marx are influenced by the environment in which he lived i.e. Industrialized imperial Europe. Thus he terms Indians to be incompetent to rule themselves, justifying the inevitability of colonialism and European imperialism.

islam itself is a ideology and not a physical unit.

where i would agree with you is modern-socialist muslim movements and countries ( muslim-majority ) have been in decline, but not automatically and inherently but through nato invasions and regime-changes and nato support to anti-socialist regimes ( like in indonesia and zia's pakistan ).

Hence Islam being used to justify political structures is in the decline. Separation of Church and State is happening in the "Orient". We are following or often are forced to follow the West and accept "modernity". Do you by default then accept the superiority of Western civilization as Marx had?

i agree that in old history almost all muslim leaders were monarchs/despots to one degree or another but they really were going against the spirit of true islam because islam doesn't support the idea of monarchy but is a democratic institution... monarchy is anti-democracy, whether of the ottoman sultans or of the mughals or the cairo caliph.

You are speaking like an Western imperialist set out to justify colonial rule over the "despotic" orient. You are defining yourself as the "White Man's Burden".

t

he only old-history muslim leader who can be excused was tipu sultan who really was a internationalist and in collaboration with the european-monarchy-demolishing napoleon bonaparte... these two were advancing a stream of socialism.

a article on tipu that i posted in november 2015 :

https://defence.pk/threads/tipu-sultan-a-secular-internationalist-not-a-bigot.409138/

Good, at least one Indian kingdom according to you should have been spared by the White Man and his imperialism.

 

[Tipu7]

I find it pretty interesting to see Indians taking part in active discussion regarding Islam vs Secularism.

Its Like Medical Student discussing Diffraction and Integration of quadratic equations

 

[Tiger Genie]

If western thought is so alien and difficult to stomach, then how do you explain almost every so called muslim nation clamoring to migrate to the west? It is not a small group.

Secondly you say modernists are trying to interpret - but you do the exact same thing. And the terrorist scum also do the exact same thing. My point is this : when something requires interpretations they are all going to do it. You cannot claim your interpretation is any better than theirs unless you can prove they are wrong and yours is better. So far what we have seen is that modernist muslims have far less crime and have progressed developmentally than other so called 'conservationist' muslims.

 

[haviZsultan]

How can you expect a rational and logical discussion when you are backing your claims with some religious texts? When you talk everything according to religion you will simply see every other thing as wrong because they go against your mindset.The same ideology where constitution was abducted by religious theories and fatwas gave rise to extremism and imported saudi Wahhabi ideology.Secularism promotes equal rights to everyone even to the religious islamists.Secularism don,t forbid you to go to a mosque or not.It,s just guarantee the right of freedom of a human being in a civilized modern society .But if you impose religion all the rights of non religious people are gone and try to make them islamic by force.
Login to PDF to open this thread and using internet is also hypocritical.Using mobile phones daily is also like adopting westernization because nothing such was originated or invented by our so called superior eastern Islamic culture.Oh now you are going to say those things are necessities of everyday life and life can,t function without them these days.So yes similarly separating religion from the state is the necessity of our current time because that,s how things work .Everything is crystal clear where ever religion is imposed it encouraged religious zealots and their political version of islam i.e extremism.Look at most muslim countries these days.Those 6th century and khilafat ,sharia days are completely gone and a modern muslim should be modern according to the time.Does not matter how hard you try to be a true pious muslim who see others as hypocrites and less muslims ,you are part of this modern world and this world will change you that,s my challenge.And if you will try to go back to those good old islamic days ,you will only punish your life and others lives.
@Zibago @haviZsultan

I strongly concur with secular nationalists views. Several of my blogged points on the topic:


Why do we fear Secularism?

By Havi Z Sultan

Many Pakistanis have a built in aversion towards the word secularism while taking an excessive pride in the Islamic Republic attached to Pakistan’s name. Despite the fact that many Pakistanis fail to follow the tenets of Islam and the word Islamic Republic makes a mockery of the meaning it remains a source of excessive pride. Scholars claim that today the country is very far from Islam because very few people in Pakistan really follow the tenets of Islam however very few of them can answer the question whether it's worthwhile to have an “Islamic Republic” only in name. However the real question is do we really have anything to fear from Secularism in the first place?

According to its dictionary meaning Secularism refers to the equal treatment of each and every religious group within the Nation and to the idea that religion should have a smaller role in politics and decision making because when it has too large a role people spend their time over their own separate interpretations of religion rather than Nation building and the tasks at hand.

Many Muslims in Pakistan fear secularism because they have a perverse idea of the concept fearing Islam will be diminished with Secularism. This is completely untrue. Pakistan’s Islamic identity will not be lost with a Secular system.

Will Secularism decrease Islam’s value in Pakistan?

Many Pakistanis continually fear that secularism will decrease Islam's value or worse will eliminate Islam from Pakistan.

The fact is no one is pushing Islam away and with 95% of the population of Pakistan being proud and extremely pious Muslims for the most part it is impossible to even try. Islam will still be practiced by the majority of people as it is being practiced today without any hindrance whatsoever. The only difference perhaps will be that religion will be a personal matter. A person who does not follow Islam devotedly or a follower of a different religion or a sect of Islam will not be persecuted for having his own separate beliefs.

If seen in such a light Secularism is nothing to be feared. We can be proud Muslims and defend Islam as much or even more with a secular constitution as we can by labelling a country ruled by very corrupt people with barely any link to Islam an “Islamic Republic”. An Islamic Republic where the rulers themselves have no link to Islam and others often use religion as a tool to fulfill their personal interests.

The fact is that a country that calls itself an Islamic Republic should have a constitution, laws (that are implemented instead of being cleared by people who can pay bribes), rules and regulations based on the tenets of Islam. A country lacking the Islamic economic and judicial system based on the teachings of the Prophet can't be an Islamic Republic. It's not that Pakistanis haven't tried. If proof is needed one needs to look at Zia's Islamicization. Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. It's more than time we revised our direction.

The tenets of Islam support Secularism & harmony

“To you be your Faith, and to me mine.”

Ayat 109:6

During the rule of Ali Ibn Abi Talib the fourth Caliph of Islam a Jew stole a shield that belonged to the Caliph and claimed that it was his. He was brought to the court of Ali to settle the dispute. However due to lack of proof and according to Islamic law the Jew was allowed to keep the shield as Hazrat Ali could not prove he owned the shield. This was a verdict going against a Muslim Caliph in his own court. However Hazrat Ali accepted the decision calmly. On the other hand the Jew was dumbfounded as he had indeed stolen the shield. He was quick to embrace Islam and declared that he had lied in front of the entire court.

This was one example of how Islam spread to become one of the largest religions in the World and won hearts and minds. It was due to the insight and tolerance our ancestors had that we got to where we are, that Cordova and Baghdad became centres of learning and Islam spread from the corners of Spain to the boundaries of the far east.

Unfortunately many people in Pakistan do not understand that human rights and the equal treatment of all individuals in the country is more important in Islam rather than a notion of Islamic pride and superiority where labelling a country an “Islamic Republic” is deemed necessary. This pride comes from a past that our ancestors built with policies that we fail to understand today.

The Quaid E Azams Principles

“In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Quaid E Azam, February 1948

The above quote is the greatest proof that Quaid E Azam did not want a state that was built solely on the basis of religion. Unfortunately since his death the constitution has been changed to suit every new leader that came and the title “Islamic Republic” untrue it may be has been added along with many laws that are completely out of line with Quaid E Azam's original ideas for Pakistan. If we look closely at many of his speeches we will notice Quaid E Azam was a staunch supporter of secularism with an added focus on Islamic thought and ideology. Therefore until he was alive the Islamic Republic was never attached to the countries name. That happened when Ayub Khan came into power.

Other speeches by Quaid E Azam that clearly supported the message of peace, harmony and equality between all groups whether they are ethnic or religious are stated below.

‘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

Clearly Quaid E Azam understood that a Nation could not be built until differences were eliminated and people saws themselves as equal members of a single society regardless of faith or ethnicity.

Perhaps if that spirit was alive today Pakistan would not be afflicted with minor issues and infighting over Shia-Sunni, Barelvi-Deobandi, Wahabi-Mainstream Muslim, and the principles of personal freedom would have given way to building a Nation that was the most glorious one in history. Unfortunately this destiny still awaits the Pakistani race which dreams for justice and equality. Many conservatives continuously deny Quaid E Azam wanted a secular country believing that such a concept is against Islam when it is not. Perhaps they fear for their own interests but Quaid E Azam did indeed want a Nation that was Secular or Socialist and gave equal opportunity to all inhabitants.

People try to deny this but the fact is, being Muslims this is not something for us to be ashamed of but something glorious. That a leader who did so much for Muslims, gave them a new homeland and independence, still understood the morals of our ancestors because of whom Islam to spread is truly remarkable.

Issues caused by the misinterpretation of Islamic Law & resources used to contain them

The fact that laws created to safeguard Islam are being used for the benefit and self interest of bad people does not do anything great for the image of Islam. A clear example is the blasphemy law, a law that makes an insult to Islam, the Prophet or the Quran illegal and punishable by death. This law has been used against minorities for a long time. However Muslims have fallen victims to this law as well.

An example of how this law is misused was the case of Mohammad Imran who was arrested in Faisalabad for blasphemy on the 28th of October 2007. He was falsely blamed because of a personal argument. After being arrested he was first tortured by the police, then the inmates and later he was placed in solitary confinement without anyone looking after his injuries. He was only released in April 2009 after being declared innocent.

Another example was the framing of Akhtar Hammed Khan, an 81 year old writer and sociologist by business interests and authorities unwilling to let his development work take place in Orangi, Karachi. He had launched a development project on the behalf of the people of Orangi. His project offering real estate loans on good terms and work to improve the condition of women through education, and access to employment and family planning was not well-liked by these authorities. Thus they decided to book him on false charges with the police under the blasphemy laws. He was later released due to inadequate evidence but the case proves how the law is being used to settle personal scores and disputes.

Minorities have many such stories to share as 60% of all victims who are framed under this law are Non Muslims. The law has become a tool for fanatics, murderers and people seeking to settle personal scores yet the law still hasn’t been repealed due to the fact that militants have some influence on governance. Land disputes or personal quarrels are by far the main reason for people to be booked under this law.

Another such law is the Hudood Ordinance where in a case of Rape four witnesses are required to confirm that a rape has taken place. This is practically impossible. However the woman who complains that a rape has taken place is often booked for being with another man while the culprits of the rape run free.

Therefore the Hudood Law became a tool in the hands of rapists and today any woman can be raped. But when she goes to the police to get justice the Hudood Law can be used to frame her because by claiming that she has been raped she also admits that she has been with another man and committed Zinah. Some figures claim that in the year 1979 there were only 70 women in Pakistani jails. A decade later, in 1988, this figure had risen to 6000 and over 80% of the women in prison were there because of these laws. It is said many more women do not even report rapes in fear of being persecuted due to this law.

Is Pakistan really Islamic?

Better to have a Secular constitution than Islam only in name

There is no doubt that our leaders found us a land that was a safe haven for Muslims and gave us freedom to make our own decisions without the fear of suffering biased treatment for the faith we followed. However the question today is how much Islam is being followed in the country?

For instance the Quran states “Keep yourselves away from bribes because it is kufr and one who receives them will never smell the scent of paradise”. The fact is in Pakistan taking and giving bribes is so common that even a noble person can hardly live without paying one. Some honourable folk still struggle on but their lives are much more difficult. If a person has money it is a possibility he has given or taken a bribe at least once. Unfortunately the entire bureaucracy is at the forefront of this rot. Justice is sold and witnesses can be bought.

On the other hand while drinking is not allowed and a license is required in order to drink in Pakistan, people who want to drink do so with impunity and with no fear of being punished. The law is not even being implemented while if a drunkard happens to get caught a simple bribe wins back the persons freedom. On the other hand while adultery is considered a punishable law under the constitution it is practiced by many people in the country without any fear of punishment. The same goes for many other laws.It is virtually impossible to implement these laws and it costs resources to do so.

The fact is many laws related to Islam exist in Pakistan but they are there only in name. They are either being misused by people for their own interests or they are not implemented and people who commit heinous crimes are allowed to go free because of them, without any fear of punishment while the innocent are framed.

The real question for Pakistan today is whether it is sensible to have a false, broken and corrupt “Islamic Republic” in name or is it better to have a secular constitution that guarantees freedom to everyone and ensures that there are no vaguely addressed laws that make a mockery of our religion and are misused for the benefit of a few criminals.

--------------------------------

Lets note that the purpose of Pakistan to be a secular state was highjacked from the very beggining. Jinnah had made statement after statement and his 11 august speech is proof that he envisioned a secular Pakistan. Throughout the beggining of Islamic thought there have been scholars who have promoted secularism and the Rashidun Caliphate since it was dealing with a huge population of conquered non muslims in the beginning maintained a secular system. Ibn Rushd, Pir Rokhan and Daral Shikoh later supported it as did the Muta'zilite movement. We need to open up to the idea of secularism in Pakistan. At least talk about it if not adopt it.

Lets note despite the superiority of the secular system no one can shove secularism down the mouth of our arrogant conceited people who are led by mullahs. This change has to come from within. Also being anti Islamic is non synonymous with being a secularist. We just want what original muslims wanted. Freedom of all.

Let us remember that we are from a religion where Ali's own gave back a shield to a jew he had stolen and Umar RA refused to pray at a church in fear it would be turned into a mosque by his supporters in the future. It also highlights our duty to protect minorities.

 

[waleed3601]

From this process, Modernists justify women wearing bikinis, same-sex marriage being halal, the hijab being optional – even dis-likable, women and men having identical inheritance and gender roles, a sharia government is called ‘unislamic’, but a secular one is called ‘Islamic’ by them. They claim the Hudud (penal) laws have ‘expired’, or even were ‘misunderstood’ for 1,400 years! Until of course, Liberalism came along to ‘guide’ us to a more ‘enlightened’ Liberal penal code.

what a great tragedy. im what might classify as a modernist, which is likely why ive been tagged in op, but i do not approve of women wearing bikinis, and its not because they uphold the honor of the family, but because it objectifies them into mere objects of sexual desire. i also dont approve of same sex marriage, but same sex couple should be allowed to live their own life as long as they dont disturb others. also hijab is an outdated practice, it should be discarded if a woman does not want to wear it, but if she chooses to she should be allowed to. hair is not something that arouses sexual desire, and men should learn to control if mere hair does the work for them. also as far as hudud is concerned, if shria is the only law applicable, im pretty sure anyone can easily get away with rape as long as there arent more than 3 male eye witnesses. how easy no?
also, conservatism is just a stepping stone onto extremism. im sure all these tech savvy modern ummatis who use jewish products to spread their backwardness secretly have soft spots for isis, taliban and alqaeda. go take your nonsense elsewhere internet jihadis.

 

[VCheng]

From this process, Modernists justify women wearing bikinis, same-sex marriage being halal, the hijab being optional – even dis-likable, women and men having identical inheritance and gender roles, a sharia government is called ‘unislamic’, but a secular one is called ‘Islamic’ by them. They claim the Hudud (penal) laws have ‘expired’, or even were ‘misunderstood’ for 1,400 years! Until of course, Liberalism came along to ‘guide’ us to a more ‘enlightened’ Liberal penal code.

Are there any references to prove such outlandish claims? Why are all the religious quotes so one-sided? There are many other ayah and ahadith that provide support other points of view.

 

[T-72M1]

what I find most interesting is that while liberals in the muslim world fight islamist thought, those in the non-muslim world bat for it.

 

[Zibago]

How can you expect a rational and logical discussion when you are backing your claims with some religious texts? When you talk everything according to religion you will simply see every other thing as wrong because they go against your mindset.The same ideology where constitution was abducted by religious theories and fatwas gave rise to extremism and imported saudi Wahhabi ideology.Secularism promotes equal rights to everyone even to the religious islamists.Secularism don,t forbid you to go to a mosque or not.It,s just guarantee the right of freedom of a human being in a civilized modern society .But if you impose religion all the rights of non religious people are gone and try to make them islamic by force.
Login to PDF to open this thread and using internet is also hypocritical.Using mobile phones daily is also like adopting westernization because nothing such was originated or invented by our so called superior eastern Islamic culture.Oh now you are going to say those things are necessities of everyday life and life can,t function without them these days.So yes similarly separating religion from the state is the necessity of our current time because that,s how things work .Everything is crystal clear where ever religion is imposed it encouraged religious zealots and their political version of islam i.e extremism.Look at most muslim countries these days.Those 6th century and khilafat ,sharia days are completely gone and a modern muslim should be modern according to the time.Does not matter how hard you try to be a true pious muslim who see others as hypocrites and less muslims ,you are part of this modern world and this world will change you that,s my challenge.And if you will try to go back to those good old islamic days ,you will only punish your life and others lives.
@Zibago @haviZsultan

I dont know why these same hypocrite s want Seculrism in west but go full mullah when some asks about it at home they see everything in black and white to them there is no middle ground.
They cant keep their ideals to themselves they want to impose their vision on everyone around them and use Islam to hush disent

To them a girl wanting equal inheritence is a bigger threat than terrorism,illiteracy and poverty

Tgey refuse to listen to differing views on qasas and diyat laws

 

[SecularNationalist]

what I find most interesting is that while liberals in the muslim world fight islamist thought, those in the non-muslim world bat for it.

yes that,s interesting .In the west people don,t like liberals and call them libtards. Just because they think not every muslim is a terrorist and promote tolerance.Conservatives definitely think different.

 

[Zibago]

what I find most interesting is that while liberals in the muslim world fight islamist thought, those in the non-muslim world bat for it.

To control regions they use these easy to handle baboons
Lemme tag @jamahir

 

[Zibago]

This thread reminds me of another closed thread
https://defence.pk/threads/main-bhi-kafir-tu-bhi-kafir.315806/
@jamahir @SecularNationalist

 

[jamahir]

To control regions they use these easy to handle baboons
Lemme tag @jamahir

you are right though @T-72M1 must correct himself and not call it "islamist thought" but "corrupted understanding of islam".

and towards the base question i will quote from my earlier post in page 1 :

also, if you search the author's site with "assad" and "gaddafi" you will come to the conclusion that the author is another agent of nato who has been set up for nato to take both sides of the argument... for example, about syria the author writes about usa ( government ) not doing anything when russia is bombing anti-assad "rebels" and that text really is another call by another propped-up nato agent to demand a formal military invasion of syria by nato.

our luffy must realize he is being used by nato

okay, it's tv time... i'll be back in 20 mins.

 

[SecularNationalist]

I strongly concur with secular nationalists views. Several of my blogged points on the topic:


Why do we fear Secularism?

By Havi Z Sultan

Many Pakistanis have a built in aversion towards the word secularism while taking an excessive pride in the Islamic Republic attached to Pakistan’s name. Despite the fact that many Pakistanis fail to follow the tenets of Islam and the word Islamic Republic makes a mockery of the meaning it remains a source of excessive pride. Scholars claim that today the country is very far from Islam because very few people in Pakistan really follow the tenets of Islam however very few of them can answer the question whether it's worthwhile to have an “Islamic Republic” only in name. However the real question is do we really have anything to fear from Secularism in the first place?

According to its dictionary meaning Secularism refers to the equal treatment of each and every religious group within the Nation and to the idea that religion should have a smaller role in politics and decision making because when it has too large a role people spend their time over their own separate interpretations of religion rather than Nation building and the tasks at hand.

Many Muslims in Pakistan fear secularism because they have a perverse idea of the concept fearing Islam will be diminished with Secularism. This is completely untrue. Pakistan’s Islamic identity will not be lost with a Secular system.

Will Secularism decrease Islam’s value in Pakistan?

Many Pakistanis continually fear that secularism will decrease Islam's value or worse will eliminate Islam from Pakistan.

The fact is no one is pushing Islam away and with 95% of the population of Pakistan being proud and extremely pious Muslims for the most part it is impossible to even try. Islam will still be practiced by the majority of people as it is being practiced today without any hindrance whatsoever. The only difference perhaps will be that religion will be a personal matter. A person who does not follow Islam devotedly or a follower of a different religion or a sect of Islam will not be persecuted for having his own separate beliefs.

If seen in such a light Secularism is nothing to be feared. We can be proud Muslims and defend Islam as much or even more with a secular constitution as we can by labelling a country ruled by very corrupt people with barely any link to Islam an “Islamic Republic”. An Islamic Republic where the rulers themselves have no link to Islam and others often use religion as a tool to fulfill their personal interests.

The fact is that a country that calls itself an Islamic Republic should have a constitution, laws (that are implemented instead of being cleared by people who can pay bribes), rules and regulations based on the tenets of Islam. A country lacking the Islamic economic and judicial system based on the teachings of the Prophet can't be an Islamic Republic. It's not that Pakistanis haven't tried. If proof is needed one needs to look at Zia's Islamicization. Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. It's more than time we revised our direction.

The tenets of Islam support Secularism & harmony

“To you be your Faith, and to me mine.”

Ayat 109:6

During the rule of Ali Ibn Abi Talib the fourth Caliph of Islam a Jew stole a shield that belonged to the Caliph and claimed that it was his. He was brought to the court of Ali to settle the dispute. However due to lack of proof and according to Islamic law the Jew was allowed to keep the shield as Hazrat Ali could not prove he owned the shield. This was a verdict going against a Muslim Caliph in his own court. However Hazrat Ali accepted the decision calmly. On the other hand the Jew was dumbfounded as he had indeed stolen the shield. He was quick to embrace Islam and declared that he had lied in front of the entire court.

This was one example of how Islam spread to become one of the largest religions in the World and won hearts and minds. It was due to the insight and tolerance our ancestors had that we got to where we are, that Cordova and Baghdad became centres of learning and Islam spread from the corners of Spain to the boundaries of the far east.

Unfortunately many people in Pakistan do not understand that human rights and the equal treatment of all individuals in the country is more important in Islam rather than a notion of Islamic pride and superiority where labelling a country an “Islamic Republic” is deemed necessary. This pride comes from a past that our ancestors built with policies that we fail to understand today.

The Quaid E Azams Principles

“In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Quaid E Azam, February 1948

The above quote is the greatest proof that Quaid E Azam did not want a state that was built solely on the basis of religion. Unfortunately since his death the constitution has been changed to suit every new leader that came and the title “Islamic Republic” untrue it may be has been added along with many laws that are completely out of line with Quaid E Azam's original ideas for Pakistan. If we look closely at many of his speeches we will notice Quaid E Azam was a staunch supporter of secularism with an added focus on Islamic thought and ideology. Therefore until he was alive the Islamic Republic was never attached to the countries name. That happened when Ayub Khan came into power.

Other speeches by Quaid E Azam that clearly supported the message of peace, harmony and equality between all groups whether they are ethnic or religious are stated below.

‘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

Clearly Quaid E Azam understood that a Nation could not be built until differences were eliminated and people saws themselves as equal members of a single society regardless of faith or ethnicity.

Perhaps if that spirit was alive today Pakistan would not be afflicted with minor issues and infighting over Shia-Sunni, Barelvi-Deobandi, Wahabi-Mainstream Muslim, and the principles of personal freedom would have given way to building a Nation that was the most glorious one in history. Unfortunately this destiny still awaits the Pakistani race which dreams for justice and equality. Many conservatives continuously deny Quaid E Azam wanted a secular country believing that such a concept is against Islam when it is not. Perhaps they fear for their own interests but Quaid E Azam did indeed want a Nation that was Secular or Socialist and gave equal opportunity to all inhabitants.

People try to deny this but the fact is, being Muslims this is not something for us to be ashamed of but something glorious. That a leader who did so much for Muslims, gave them a new homeland and independence, still understood the morals of our ancestors because of whom Islam to spread is truly remarkable.

Issues caused by the misinterpretation of Islamic Law & resources used to contain them

The fact that laws created to safeguard Islam are being used for the benefit and self interest of bad people does not do anything great for the image of Islam. A clear example is the blasphemy law, a law that makes an insult to Islam, the Prophet or the Quran illegal and punishable by death. This law has been used against minorities for a long time. However Muslims have fallen victims to this law as well.

An example of how this law is misused was the case of Mohammad Imran who was arrested in Faisalabad for blasphemy on the 28th of October 2007. He was falsely blamed because of a personal argument. After being arrested he was first tortured by the police, then the inmates and later he was placed in solitary confinement without anyone looking after his injuries. He was only released in April 2009 after being declared innocent.

Another example was the framing of Akhtar Hammed Khan, an 81 year old writer and sociologist by business interests and authorities unwilling to let his development work take place in Orangi, Karachi. He had launched a development project on the behalf of the people of Orangi. His project offering real estate loans on good terms and work to improve the condition of women through education, and access to employment and family planning was not well-liked by these authorities. Thus they decided to book him on false charges with the police under the blasphemy laws. He was later released due to inadequate evidence but the case proves how the law is being used to settle personal scores and disputes.

Minorities have many such stories to share as 60% of all victims who are framed under this law are Non Muslims. The law has become a tool for fanatics, murderers and people seeking to settle personal scores yet the law still hasn’t been repealed due to the fact that militants have some influence on governance. Land disputes or personal quarrels are by far the main reason for people to be booked under this law.

Another such law is the Hudood Ordinance where in a case of Rape four witnesses are required to confirm that a rape has taken place. This is practically impossible. However the woman who complains that a rape has taken place is often booked for being with another man while the culprits of the rape run free.

Therefore the Hudood Law became a tool in the hands of rapists and today any woman can be raped. But when she goes to the police to get justice the Hudood Law can be used to frame her because by claiming that she has been raped she also admits that she has been with another man and committed Zinah. Some figures claim that in the year 1979 there were only 70 women in Pakistani jails. A decade later, in 1988, this figure had risen to 6000 and over 80% of the women in prison were there because of these laws. It is said many more women do not even report rapes in fear of being persecuted due to this law.

Is Pakistan really Islamic?

Better to have a Secular constitution than Islam only in name

There is no doubt that our leaders found us a land that was a safe haven for Muslims and gave us freedom to make our own decisions without the fear of suffering biased treatment for the faith we followed. However the question today is how much Islam is being followed in the country?

For instance the Quran states “Keep yourselves away from bribes because it is kufr and one who receives them will never smell the scent of paradise”. The fact is in Pakistan taking and giving bribes is so common that even a noble person can hardly live without paying one. Some honourable folk still struggle on but their lives are much more difficult. If a person has money it is a possibility he has given or taken a bribe at least once. Unfortunately the entire bureaucracy is at the forefront of this rot. Justice is sold and witnesses can be bought.

On the other hand while drinking is not allowed and a license is required in order to drink in Pakistan, people who want to drink do so with impunity and with no fear of being punished. The law is not even being implemented while if a drunkard happens to get caught a simple bribe wins back the persons freedom. On the other hand while adultery is considered a punishable law under the constitution it is practiced by many people in the country without any fear of punishment. The same goes for many other laws.It is virtually impossible to implement these laws and it costs resources to do so.

The fact is many laws related to Islam exist in Pakistan but they are there only in name. They are either being misused by people for their own interests or they are not implemented and people who commit heinous crimes are allowed to go free because of them, without any fear of punishment while the innocent are framed.

The real question for Pakistan today is whether it is sensible to have a false, broken and corrupt “Islamic Republic” in name or is it better to have a secular constitution that guarantees freedom to everyone and ensures that there are no vaguely addressed laws that make a mockery of our religion and are misused for the benefit of a few criminals.

--------------------------------

Lets note that the purpose of Pakistan to be a secular state was highjacked from the very beggining. Jinnah had made statement after statement and his 11 august speech is proof that he envisioned a secular Pakistan. Throughout the beggining of Islamic thought there have been scholars who have promoted secularism and the Rashidun Caliphate since it was dealing with a huge population of conquered non muslims in the beginning maintained a secular system. Ibn Rushd, Pir Rokhan and Daral Shikoh later supported it as did the Muta'zilite movement. We need to open up to the idea of secularism in Pakistan. At least talk about it if not adopt it.

Lets note despite the superiority of the secular system no one can shove secularism down the mouth of our arrogant conceited people who are led by mullahs. This change has to come from within. Also being anti Islamic is non synonymous with being a secularist. We just want what original muslims wanted. Freedom of all.

Let us remember that we are from a religion where Ali's own gave back a shield to a jew he had stolen and Umar RA refused to pray at a church in fear it would be turned into a mosque by his supporters in the future. It also highlights our duty to protect minorities.

Perfect Sir! I really like your secular views not because they are compatible with my thoughts but because they are free from rhetoric and makes perfect sense and rationality and logic. I searched your name on google and found plenty of blogs by you.But can,t find any info on you.Can you please tell me about yourself? Like age,occupation etc ?