Secularism or Islam?
-
peace yusha,
I would just like to clarify a grave misconception that the founder of Pakistan (Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah) was a secularist and believed in separation of religion and state.
In another speech, the inauguration of State Bank of Pakistan, and in his Eid message 1948, he is on record saying "We want to enact ISLAMIC LAW in the country".
State bank of Pakistan is not the legislative body, Constituent assembly is the legislative body and addressing this assembly on August 11, 1947 the Quaid said
YOU MAY BELONG TO ANY RELIGION, CASTE OR CREED THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE.
Before the martial law regime of ZIA-UL-HAQ, the Constitution of Pakistan was by and large secular, which included the Islamic family laws.
Secularism does not demand a state to be essentially atheistic or opposed to any religion. A state should be uniformly fair and tolerant to all religions/sects.
As a matter of fact, throughout the struggle to create Pakistan as an independent Muslim state, Qaid-e-Azam was devoted to the cause of Islam and Islamic governance.
And yet JAMIAT ULMA-A-HIND along with the founding member of the ?JAMAAT ISLAMI? whose link you have posted called him KAFIR-A-AZAM and OPPOSED his struggle for independence confused
The Quaid wanted the principles of ISLAMIC SOCIAL JUSTICE to play a vital role, but in no way did he wanted Pakistan to be a theocratic state with rigid sharia law.
The Holy Quran is against secularism. We find many instances where the Holy Quran speaks on matters of governance. If the Holy Quran was secular, it would be absolutely silent on all governmental issues, because the definition of secularism is that the state is completely free of religious influence. Yet the Holy Quran says
Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things (45
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance (423
In what ways do these verses negate secularism? Is secularism again justice or conducting affairs without mutual consultation?
If the Holy Quran was only concerned with personal religious teachings, and gave commandments, but did not prescribe any WORLDLY punishments or remedies for breaking such commandments, perhaps it could be considered as endorsing secularism.
I am not sure what kind of commandments are you referring to?
If you are referring to commandment concerning ?praying, fasting, belief etc? there is no worldly punishment for not complying with them, such matters will be dealt with on the judgment day.
If you are referring to commandment like ?don?t kill, don?t steal, don?t make mischief in the land etc? of course there is a punishment for violating such commandments in every society ?sharia or secular? as sis samia has pointed out.
In order to run any society in a systematic/peaceful manner certain rules/principles/commandments have to be obeyed and those who go against these rules/principles /commandments have to be punished according to the gravity of their crime, and that is the BOTTOM LINE of the commandments of QURAN, THEY MUST BE PUNISHED...how they are punished is a matter of ?what kind of society you live in?.
In a tribal society you may have the license to kill the killer of your family member, but no nation in the world would allow an individual to take law in his own hands, its for the state to punish the culprit.
peace
-
And yet JAMIAT ULMA-A-HIND along with the founding member of the ?JAMAAT ISLAMI? whose link you have posted called him KAFIR-A-AZAM and OPPOSED his struggle for independence
This is entirely false. As for Jamaat-e-Islami, they never opposed the creation of Pakistan, and they never ever, including Maulana Maudoodi, referred to Qaid-e-Azam in such deragatory language. Jamaat-e-Islami was only initially worried that what kind of nature would Pakistan take, i.e. would it be an Islamic state or secular state?
As for Jamiat Ulama e Hind, they were split into two groups, one supported Pakistan led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (rahmatullah alaih), and the other was pro-Congress, and opposed Pakistan. The Majlis-e-Ahrar was the most virulent in opposition to Pakistan, but even they later changed their stance.
-
Any time a country decides to rule by the devine law (Kuran) it ends up in the worst form of Tirany. Becouse they cant really find the details to all the disputes in the Kuran. And then they start to use hadiths and before you know you have people stoned to death.
Lets be reasonable, You can not use Kuran and only the Kuran to rule a country.
We agree that Kuran is very detailed to a certain degree. But there are a lot of things left to us to decide about.
Kuran should be used as a basis for state constitutions, but you can not try to resolve everyday matters by opening the Kuran whenever we have a dispute.
Few days ago ;D, there was a soccer match in brazil. On the time a goal was scored there where to balls on the pitch. Interestingly Kuran does not say anything about this.
So what do you do?- Are you going to add a verse in the Kuran about the rules of two balls in the pitch or,
2.You're going to take a paper and write down 2 ball rule?
If you do the second one, does this mean you are secular? If you do the first one will that make you islamic?
hypno - Are you going to add a verse in the Kuran about the rules of two balls in the pitch or,
-
peace yusha,
This is entirely false. As for Jamaat-e-Islami, they never opposed the creation of Pakistan, and they never ever, including Maulana Maudoodi, referred to Qaid-e-Azam in such deragatory language. Jamaat-e-Islami was only initially worried that what kind of nature would Pakistan take, i.e. would it be an Islamic state or secular state?
In the session in Lahore in 1940, the Pakistan resolution was adopted as the main goal of the party. The resolution was rejected outright by the Congress, and criticised by many Muslim leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Syed Ab'ul Ala Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami.
refwikipediaThe Majlis-e-Ahrar was the most virulent in opposition to Pakistan, but even they later changed their stance.
except for few most of the opponents changed their stance.......after independence ;D
peace
-
Peace,
Can you please elaborate, with examples, on this faith-based punishment, quoting verses of quraan as evidence?
I only need one quote- There is no compulsion in deen.
This suggests to me that you cannot force anyone to follow Islam. People choose it on their will.
The only faith based judgement I refer to is if a muslim is to steal/be stolen from by a non-muslim, or a non-muslim killing or being killed by a muslim.
Al-Islam is a way of life while Secularism is another way of life.
I completely agree, but assure me 100% that the current Turkish Government will bring in pure Al-Islam.
Oh that's great!! someone expresses a contrary opinion and you wish them to leave and go to Saudi. The thing about democracy is that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, opinions, live with it, you're supposed to be a free country. Well maybe Turkey is evidently not. In my opinion if your Army does have a coup AGAIN, you're no worse than Saudi Arabia!! I have a right to my opinion, I know you won't be happy with what I've said!
It's very simple logic. The majority of people in my country want secularism, they don't want Sharia. Those that do, I'm showing them that they can migrate (as per the Quran) to Saudi Arabia where their Sharia is already implemeneted.
Your comparison between USA and T?rkiye is hilarious. Every counrty has its special conditions. 95% of population in T?rkiye is sunni muslim
95%?????????????????????
Incorrect. Turkey's population is around the 70 million mark. There are 20-30 million Alevi Turks, Alevi's are Shiite.
Turkey's laws, regarding some religous bans are probably out of date. The banning of such things as the headscarf, was implemented to move Turkey completey away from the caliphate (in the 1920s). Maybe freedom (for the headscarf) should be granted (from an outsiders perspective), but I don't want it, nor would I agree with it.
not because I'm against someone else's own opinion, but rather because the fundamentalists (in Turkey), who once they get their way, try to IMPOSE it onto others through VIOLENT AND PHYSICAL means.
As I said, for an outsider it's fine, but for someone who knows the ins and outs of the country then it's not fine.
Is wearing a hijab at university as an example such a great threat to your republic?
Oh most definitely!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See what I said above, you are an outsider and do not know the ins and outs of the country. These fundamentalists IMPOSE their beliefs onto others. they form their own 'ghetto's' and are violent to women who are not covered, violent to people who choose to drink alcohol.
Understanding has been shown by the Turkish republic many times to these people, but yet these people have always showed violence to other people.
-
Can you please elaborate, with examples, on this faith-based punishment, quoting verses of quraan as evidence?
Peace,
I only need one quote- There is no compulsion in deen.
This suggests to me that you cannot force anyone to follow Islam. People choose it on their will.
The only faith based judgement I refer to is if a muslim is to steal/be stolen from by a non-muslim, or a non-muslim killing or being killed by a muslim.
The one verse you qouted is irrelevant.
As for the stealing, where did you get this notion? This might be shari3a law (I am not sure), but definitely not in the qur'aan (That's why I asked for evidence from the qur'aan). Look at verse 538 and see if there is any mention of faith.
Punishment for murder is treaty-based, not faith-based, 492
-
We need to understand what the prophetic mission was. What was the porphet's job desrciption before answering the question of Islam and Secularism. Just doing everything the Quran says is not Islam or a real reading of the Quran. I will deal with this issue based on the prophetic mission in my next post about that since we are moving too fast. First lets define what is Islam, and the best way to know that is to look at what the Quran tells us about the porphetic misson and the purpose of the Quran.
-
95%?????????????????????
Incorrect. Turkey's population is around the 70 million mark. There are 20-30 million Alevi Turks, Alevi's are Shiite.Selam
You are also incorrect, 99% of pupulation in T?rkiye are muslims, and when you look at sects that you can see 82% of them are sunni muslims, and %5.73 of them are Alevi-Shiite. When you estimate from these percentages, you can find a population of maximum 5 million Alevi-Shiite in T?rkiye not 20 million. -
Selam
You are also incorrect, 99% of pupulation in T?rkiye are muslims, and when you look at sects that you can see 82% of them are sunni muslims, and %5.73 of them are Alevi-Shiite. When you estimate from these percentages, you can find a population of maximum 5 million Alevi-Shiite in T?rkiye not 20 million.PEace,
yeah yeah yeah
Alevi's are shiite, not sunni. I wouldn't really classify them as shiite either. Alevi, religion and culture stems from shamanism.
Those 'official' stats released by the Turkish Government are a complete joke.
Many Alevi's don't reveal that they are alevi because of fear for the life. In the past and EVEN TO THIS DAY, Alevi's are freely murdered for the 'crime' of being Alevi.
-
Although I would love to live in a just society that follows Islam in every facet of our lives, but as history shows humans are weak and are incapable of implementing Islam into society, so as a result I side with seperation of religion and state. Islam should be a path individuals strive to walk. A collective just cant manage it.
-
To me; Quran teaches us to be more secular than secular..
If Secularism eq Separation of Religion Authority and State
And Islam eq NO AUTHORITY IN RELIGION (No Rahbaniyah System, No Priestly/Clerical System)
Then ISLAM = More Secular than Secularism
Due to NON EXISTENCE OF RELIGION AUTHORITY
(No Sanhedrin, Catholic Church, Majlis Ulema and other self-proclaimed religion authority)It is that simple...
So Secularism or Islam?
Answer Islam
Which is More Secular than SecularismSalam
-
peace jafar,
To me; Quran teaches us to be more secular than secular..
If Secularism eq Separation of Religion Authority and State
And Islam eq NO AUTHORITY IN RELIGION (No Rahbaniyah System, No Priestly/Clerical System)
Then ISLAM = More Secular than Secularism
Due to NON EXISTENCE OF RELIGION AUTHORITY
(No Sanhedrin, Catholic Church, Majlis Ulema and other self-proclaimed religion authority)It is that simple...
So Secularism or Islam?
Answer Islam
Which is More Secular than Secularismi agree bro.
peace
-
Easy agentxxx,bmbmm and all.
Secularism to me means not allowing supernatural/religious and/or unprovable laws/theories/policies to be implemented in human affairs against the consent of the people or the rightful representatives/upholders of justice...
No clear human rights may be overturned or overlooked because of 'supposed divine law' or so called religious rights...
Many of the imams/mullahs and islamic/religious academics are incapable of running a large populace of people peacefully or sucessfully... -
Peace to you as well agent...Nice to see you posting again... bravo sun peace How is life?
-
Peace,
I think some of the people here have differences in their definitions of Secularism. Some see it as Anti-religion rule, others as rule allowing freedom of religion on the basis of allowing everyone civil rights. I think Rumi best described it by talking about different froms of secularism, American(allowing freedom of religion with limits to civil rights abuses), Turkish (trying to bann or do away with religion to create a secular image and culture(sounds more like how communism did things to me) etc.
We should be more specific and state that the Quran promotes freedom of religion, and democracy in the sense of consulting the people (you need the people's consent) i.e. Ashooraa.
Lastly, everyone here is speaking about Islamic states based on the Quran. However, I think here is a problem with this concept of an Islamic state. The Quran only calls for the believers to judge between themselves by the Quran and it outlines how we should deal with those who don't believe in the Quran. So, the Quran calls for an organization of believers, who work for each others betterment and establish themselves and a way to defend themselves for their success, material and spiritual. The Quran never tells its believers to rule over others. And that is what a state does. A state is like a little empire that rules over all. Some of you guys are vouching for an Islamic State when at best what the Quran calls for is an Islamic Organization or Brotherhood (rather a Quranic Organization or Brotherhood in which members are free to choose if they want to belong or not), providing for itself, bettering itself and being capable of defending itself. Not a state. We have no right to rule over others with the Quran or any other law. We can only give them asylum if they ask for it, and charity if they need it. When they attack us or try to hurt us we are to treat them as the Quran tells us to treat our enemies.
(which is not just to go slaughter them. The Quran tells us what to do if they fight us, if they repent and show no aggression, truces etc. etc.)Godbless,
Anwar -
Some of you guys are vouching for an Islamic State when at best what the Quran calls for is an Islamic Organization or Brotherhood (rather a Quranic Organization or Brotherhood in which members are free to choose if they want to belong or not), providing for itself, bettering itself and being capable of defending itself. Not a state. We have no right to rule over others with the Quran or any other law. We can only give them asylum if they ask for it, and charity if they need it. When they attack us or try to hurt us we are to treat them as the Quran tells us to treat our enemies.
(which is not just to go slaughter them. The Quran tells us what to do if they fight us, if they repent and show no aggression, truces etc. etc.)Good answers brother... bravo
I cannot agree with you more...Salam
-
Maybe 1736 advocates secularism....I mean secularism involves not following or making as law/legislating that of which you have no solid knowledge of.....?