And I am getting the feeling that you don't have any arguments left and are just insisting for yourself to be accepted right instead of learning, typical junior level arrogance. I am more arrogant than you if that is the case . Try learning the gentle man's way by just saying 'we have our differences'

and which pragmatic approach is given by you???

How poor mental approach you have? you have entirely misinterpreted my post. Nowhere in my post i have said that Islam is a bad religion. please read the last sentence of my post and use some reason. the gist of my post was that it is better to be secular rather than spoiling and destroying the true spirit of Islam. Islam has nothing to do with rigidity and still we have not adopted the true spirit of Islam. and there is no need to explain to you that where i live and where should I go because no one can understand my relation with Allah, His Book, His Prophet (P.B.U.H) and Pakistan.

Regards

1. The Quran claims to be the word of god.
2. if the Quran is true then Allah exists and everything in the Quran is beneficial.
3. ironically, our problems begin from the fact that the Quran is a true book, because that is when we begin arguing over interpretations. if the Quran had not been a true book, then there would have had been no disputes because then there would have had been no "should and shoulds".
4. the most influential word in modern era is "cool". the western media tells us that there is conservatism and liberalism, and they also impress upon us that it is "cool" to be liberal. with liberalism comes rationalism and pragmatism. and it is also impressed upon us that it is 'cool' to be rational and pragmatic, but it is accompanied by the 'fact' that liberalism is 'rational' , 'pragmatic' and 'highly cool'.
5. with this line of thought conservatism is uncool, and because the Quran is 1400 years old, the Quran is conservative and it is no more cool to be following the Quran.
6. for me it all comes down to this if the Quran is the word of Allah and if the Quran is asking us to be conservative then what's the problem? let's be conservative. let's stop trying to be cool.
7. after the fall of Baghdad, Muslims were left with the theology of Imam Ghazali and the west based their secular society based on the thoughts by none other than Ibn Rushd, whom they hailed as 'the commentator'.
8. the west went on to one extreme with secularism and the east to another with traditionalism. the right way is somewhere in between these two.
9. the modern media did something wonderful. it took the traditionalism of Muslims to the west where the spiritually starved west is embracing it whole heartedly. and it brought our 'own' secularism back to us which we are now trying adjust in our redundant lifestyle.
10. what Imam Ghazali had said was that don't forget the basics and Ibn Rushd has said not to restrict our thoughts.
11. the synthesis that this thesis and antithesis is going to form is going to be fulfillment of Iqbal's verse:
khol aankh zameen dekh falak dekh fiza dekh
mashriq se ubhertay huay sooraj ko zara dekh
12. let's wait and watch, as the future of this country is definitely full of fireworks.

Consult our state's constitution.
Regards

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts" (Winston Churchill)

All of you made comprehensive discussions helped by good references but I think the only solution to all the problems in pakistan is an Islamic but not an idealist state . The economey social problems and many others are not far beyond from Islamic approach . The developed nations giving you ideas of secularism are what by their selves ? Are you talking about the same America whose president erase Hussain from his name as he got presidency or that UK whose prince or queen can not marry with male/female of Catholic sect !!!!!!

@ Gypsified @ Informer

what was the moral reasoning by virtue of which US bombed Afghanistan and Iraq, and supported Israel for 50 years?

Well ! Naturally the motive behind the creation of Pakistan was to win a state where Muslims could live their life with some rest. History states that Pakistan is the apex of the thoughts of Al-Beruni ,almost 1000 years ago..The concept which the agitators of Pakistan movement revived after finding not any sound quality of life in the sub-continent. Contending for the belief that Pakistan was aimed to be Secular State is a reality to its own extent but has very limited significance in having a separate state for Muslims...And for that reason can not be wholesome motive behind having a separate homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent, of mainly four province we have had after 1947.

Pakistan Movement was not aimed at saving the political identity of Muslims merely..as many writers maintain this view but it was just a causative factor in the political arena at that time and onwards which booted the Pakistan Movement. Muslims have had need not to be only politically identified if we we tried to perceive it from other perspectives of life. Muslims who were suppressed needed a state where their other aspects of life like social , economical , religious, legal, administrative etc etc, could save as well. Can anyone think that political identity has any overlapping over these other spheres of life..though its a reality that political causes boasted the safety of these other aspect of life for Muslims..and reason for that was Muslims were like sandwiched between Hindus and British..where both were secular to their concerned possible extents . So to get non-sandwitched Muslims needed to put forward the demand for political identity, which took real shape in 1909 though problematic , but it was not what the writers use to call that Pakistan was created based on secularism .That,s a totally limited minded approach to the concept of creation of Pakistan Or otherwise such writers are secular who restricts the concept of creation of Pakistan..

Pakistan is not a state where only politicians and agitators of political parties live and even those politician and agitator are not totally political entities they are naturally created human being and not political robots i would say, and if they behave like political robots they have lost the meaning of their life.They need to have a broad concept and most claim that as well but the scenarios around are telling different stories...

Besides Political robots / Political Icons /agitators there are also other people being iconic concerning other different spheres of life ..who you may call having no concern with politics at all. ..but most of their rights are safe because of politics in this country. Every sphere of life has its own significance and we the Pakistanis are not totally political since 1947. We have variety of icons.

Though its a fact that opinion is divided about the purpose of creation of this country....some claim secularism while others Islamisation...but if we concentrate a little more on what threshold created the difference between Muslims and Hindus...we can easily figure out that it was always the same concept which never let the Hindus and Muslims live together and that's religious concept. but it is always prejudicial from the perspective of Hindus.

Here I cite three factual scenarios to support the view that Pakistan was not created secularist but Islamist in nature.

1. If we cite the example of Our Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) and Abu_Jahal its obvious that Abu_Jahal was against Islam . Our Holy Prohphet was never against the other religions of that time... and Its obvious from Islamic teachings as it is stated by the Holy Qur'an that "There is no compulsion in religion( to force someone to become Muslim is not allowed in Islam ). All I mean is that its the secular view/worldly view was an integral factor that intensified the difference between Muslims and Hindus. In Islam its clear cut mentioned that different races have been made among human beings just to make them know each other well. it shows the place of humanity in Islam.

2. Though the idea that Pakistan Movement was moved by the force of political view is a reality but its often not taken in notice that why the Muslims only fought politically to save their identity. The point in here is that on the other side Gandhi and his followers ware political, who needed a political beat in order to save the real identity of Muslims and not only political which is termed as secular Pakistan by secularist..which in other words mean that we are secular ..Are we??? the answer is not at all!!!..Plus it must also be taken into account that when the rule of congress ministries emerged in 1936-37 their real religious color also appeared in politics. Which was called even a nightmare for Muslims by British writers.

3. Similar is the case with constitution of Pakistan though it is has secular elements i mean has some color of the British Constitution but it would be wrong to say that the Constitution of Pakistan is secular..because it has the Islamic elements more than its believed been based on British Constitution. There is no other conceptually better text than that of the Holy Qur'an.. And its Holy Qur'an which guarantees all the rights of all humanity ..And on the other secularism can not guarantee the safety of rights of all humanity..not even for the secularists the universal rights they deserve as human beings..and since the start of past decade human rights violation has been witnessed and how much severe was its extent it was also witnessed. Taking new shapes and new forms day by day.

4. Secularism can be under the shadow of Islamization to shap the secularists views in consonance with nature but Islamization can not be shaped by secularists.Because its only the religion of Islam which is right and perfect for all humanity. And all that happened against Muslims during the last decade and onwards , were bordered by the secularists to combat Islam which is naturally a right religion but it can never be beaten and the truth of Islam can never be seized by the falsehood of secularism..Which is the cause of tension in the secular world. Real believer of Islam are at rest and they are praying to God for the betterment of the situation of the rest of the world.


So trying to re-shape the ideology of Pakistan as being secular is vague is desire. It was Natural Islam which facilitated us this country we are living in..though life is not up to the mark because of variety of factors..but we despite of those problems are living a life we want to.



Regards All...

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" Winston Churchill

Actually, pakistan came into existence on basis of two nations theory. Vision of Jinnah was quite clear and transparent. That Muslims and Hindus are two different religions they cannot live together in same Country. And finally, he succeed to get pakistan only for muslims but he also keep the door open for minorities if they want to live in pakistan they can live. Overall, we can say that this is totally wrong perception regarding that pakistan in came into existence for prospering secularism.

There multiple views of historians and writers who have different views on M.A Jinnah religious beliefs, some are on the opinion that Jinnah was a secular and a moderate type Muslim leader while the other group reveal that he aimed at getting a separate homeland where muslim are free to live, i myself listened to few Jinnah`s speech at the time of independence he said that " We are free now we can profess our culture and our scare religion Islam"

Jinnah khan was not the only personality, who ppl make to bag the whole credit for the creation of Pakistan...he was a leader though and professed what people in favor of Pakistan wanted. But it has always been our problem since Jinnah saib is on the tip of Pakistani tongues since 1947,that we ignore what made him a real contributor to add his share to Pakistan movement ( more than multiple teamsssss work), Was it not the pro-Pakistan public who had different leaders from different fields and aspects of life, what about religious movements, what SSA Khan..i would say Jinnah forwarded the message of Sir.Syed.Ahmad KHAN. Jinnah saib was enough hardworking but i ask a question, if public were not favor of creation of Pakistan , as well as other leaders who were intellectual assets for Pakistan, had Jinnah siab any value or was able alone to push the ideology of Sir Syd Ahmad Khan.. our problem has always been that were monocular mostly, viewing a single aspect of most concerns , at-least political, as you only spotting Jinnah out of 4 crore population at that time , and that's the reason why the Pakistanis are lagging behind. At least Pakistan should have been a super for its military skills and tactics. but Alas ! the shit of context never favor and allow Pakistan to let out what Pakistan has on the bright side of state and show its real color.....

regard dude

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" Winston Churchill