Nelson Mandela and his Relevance to Pakistan. - Page 3

ADIL KHESHGI · #21 Saturday, December 07, 2013

I already have answered you this question bro through my previous post that if you consider that Ahmadis are being mistreated so you must also accept the reality that they were the people who disfigured the already existing belief system of Muslims by not believing in in the finality of Prophet-hood. Tell me just one thing that if you don't believe in Trinity then can you become a Christian?

Rida Malik · #22 Saturday, December 07, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

I think I said it multiple times that a Muslim can continue to consider Ahmadia community out of the fold of Islam; there's no need to change religion. I was talking about the state laws which have been using Islam for discrimination. If this really is an Islamic country, pick up the interpretation of an Islamic state by any famous scholar and they will tell you that the first and foremost duty of an Islamic state is to fulfill the basic/fundamental needs of its people. This never happened in Pakistan. If you'll go and teach ethics and morality to a starving person, he won't understand you; he'll see chapatis in your face. So without fulfilling the fundamental needs of the people, implementation of religious morality is making mockery not only of people but also of religion (which is abundantly happening ever since the creation of Pakistan).

And not just Ahmadia community, the overall system is clearly discriminatory (and I appreciated you for being honest about it). Non-Muslims might be able to go to their places of worship but that's about it. They can't built new places, can't preach, can't seek converts, and the medieval list goes on.

Thank you very much but the way you equated the case of Islam and Christianity with Islam and Ahmadia is so very impressive, so very in line with historical and religious facts that I think I'll pass your offer. Someone else might be in dire need of it.

Once again, thanks for being honest and accepting that a state run on religious principles will remain discriminatory.

I do believe early and medieval Islam set forth some finest examples of good treatment with minorities, particularity considering the general standard of those times. Muslims, however, gave up the practice of Ijtihad about a thousand years ago and decided to ape laws in the form as they existed in the 7th century. This is bound to create strange contradictions and absurdities, as so frequently happens in today's world. (a piece of information: Ibn-e-Rush is considered among the fathers of secular and scientific thought in Europe. A Muslim philosopher and scientist. Look his name up. But of course, we are not very good in either of them and want to stick with narrow, medieval interpretations).

It's very interesting the way examples are chosen, facts nitpicked and presented without the full picture. Let me break it down for you.

In France, there are about five million Muslims (largest minority in Western Europe). According to the estimates, about 2,000 of the women use full face veils (you can look up the statistics). A decision that affects 2,000 out of five million (that amounts to only 0.04!) can hardly be called targeting a minority. France never targeted entire Muslim community like Pakistan targeted an entire community (and the record about others is not very refreshing either). And further, in France you are openly allowed to campaign against such a law (and many people, including French non-Muslims do so). And just a little more piece of information: surveys have revealed that most Muslims agree with the ban. Correct me if I'm wrong. (However, it is certainly against civil liberties and personal freedom and people have been protesting against it ever since).

Finally, there is also a ban on the religious symbols of every religion in state schools (in France), not just Islam.

But here's the remaining picture: You can preach Islam in France, you can build mosques, you can seek converts and you can enjoy all the rights that a non-Muslim native French citizen has. Oh and no one kills you because of apostasy if you decide to leave Christianity or any other religion and embrace Islam. Not a very appropriate example to compare with Pakistan, is it now?

Yes, India has a pretty bad record when it comes to minorities and it needs to work on it. The Indian law or constitution, however, does not discriminate between citizens. In fact, Muslims have laws made exclusively for them, in their favor.

If we are comparing Pakistan with other countries, believe me, Pakistan will look pretty bad so better leave it. If you insist, try comparing it with so many other secular (since this is one word everyone loves to demonize) countries who do not use religion as a political tool. We are Pakistanis and our first concern is the ills inflicting our own country; charity begins at home.

I also find it very amusing that you have given a clean chit to Pakistan on the basis of a couple of examples. This tells how bad the bigger picture might be.

P.S. Burma is not a secular state.

P.P.S. Thanks, all, for re-asserting the view that a state recklessly dragging religion into politics will, indeed, remain discriminatory. And that our support/love for Nelson Mandela is only hypocritical.

Thankyou for your detailed responses, i could never quite put these thoughts in this way when arguing about the said issues.
Not many people in here are willing to admit that their country does not function on the moral principles they seem to propagate so passionately, and the same ones they insult by their own personal behaviour.
Majority of this nation is not only hypocritical, but in denial of their own moral dysfunctions as well.

Everyone is responsible and everyone wants to blame foreign politics as the cause to everything that does not work out for them.

The only way a true democracy with equal rights works well is separation of state and religion, no one will ever hear anything of this sort though. not even in arguments.

mhmmdkashif · #23 Saturday, December 07, 2013

Well instead of trying to prove your argument all the times you might try standing up for your moral principles if you have so much faith in them, its a nonsense argument to put that if you are a fan of mandela you should accept ahmadis are Muslims else you are hypocrite

ADIL KHESHGI · #24 Saturday, December 07, 2013

@Rida Malik
Madam!
We have been an independent country since 66 years and got our independence in the name of Islam and Islamic Ideology, so if our constitution and political system is based on Islamic Ideology there's nothing wrong in it. I strongly condemn prejudices towards religious minorities, each and every citizen must respect her/his countrymen. Moreover, if your woes are against the system, I think its okay the fault lies with the people not the system. So if you wish to change the attitude of people in one stroke, that's not gonna happen. Be patient and wait for the evolution don't work for revolution!

Bilal Hassan · #25 Saturday, December 07, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

In France, there are about five million Muslims (largest minority in Western Europe). According to the estimates, about 2,000 of the women use full face veils (you can look up the statistics). A decision that affects 2,000 out of five million (that amounts to only 0.04!) can hardly be called targeting a minority.

Well all of the community member who are being stopped from fulfilling their religious duty (All of the women who do veil), if it is not religious discrImination then what is? By the same token, If we assume that there are 2 Million Christians in Pakistan and not all of them are churchgoers but only 2000 are, and Govt of Pakistan does such a legislation that stops Christians from going to church then not the whole christian community would suffer but only 2000 Churchgoer Christians will, won't it be a religious discrimination and against liberties? Very absurd logic you gave.....Simple is that Hajab is banned and it is against civil liberties as well as is religious discrimination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

France never targeted entire Muslim community like Pakistan targeted an entire community (and the record about others is not very refreshing either). And further, in France you are openly allowed to campaign against such a law (and many people, including French non-Muslims do so). And just a little more piece of information: surveys have revealed that most Muslims agree with the ban. Correct me if I'm wrong. (However, it is certainly against civil liberties and personal freedom and people have been protesting against it ever since).

Manifestation is just mentioned above whether France targeted or not, and you give me one single example when in Pakistan such a thing happened? And would you like to enlighten me with one of such survey results that Majority of muslims agrees with ban on Hijab? I wait the reference. And I have corrected you

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

Finally, there is also a ban on the religious symbols of every religion in state schools (in France), not just Islam.

And here you yourself agree that they do persecute minorities. And I didn't mentioned Islam only, you yourself proved me right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

Oh and no one kills you because of apostasy if you decide to leave Christianity or any other religion and embrace Islam.

Oh! And what about Marwa El-Sherbini who was stabbed in German court because of wearing Hijab? I give you the reference buddy, here you go

Never in Pakistan has happened such a thing that someone was killed just because he/she was following his/her religion. Minorities enjoy full freedom to follow their religion until they commit the blasphemy which is against the spirit of freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

If we are comparing Pakistan with other countries, believe me, Pakistan will look pretty bad so better leave it. If you insist, try comparing it with so many other secular (since this is one word everyone loves to demonize) countries who do not use religion as a political tool. We are Pakistanis and our first concern is the ills inflicting our own country; charity begins at home.

Your calling it bad won't make it so buddy, I have given you examples as corroborations, your calling it bad won't make it so. And My friend I have proved how your so called secular states treat the minorities. And for your information, Pakistan is not a secular country Alhamdulillah. We will give every freedom to minorities that Islam grants and they already enjoy such a freedom already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

I also find it very amusing that you have given a clean chit to Pakistan on the basis of a couple of examples. This tells how bad the bigger picture might be.

So, finally you agreed that what other states do with minorities, I didn't give any clean chit to Pakistan because i don't need that, minorities enjoy here full liberty. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rida Malik

Thankyou for your detailed responses, i could never quite put these thoughts in this way when arguing about the said issues.
Not many people in here are willing to admit that their country does not function on the moral principles they seem to propagate so passionately, and the same ones they insult by their own personal behaviour.
Majority of this nation is not only hypocritical, but in denial of their own moral dysfunctions as well.

Everyone is responsible and everyone wants to blame foreign politics as the cause to everything that does not work out for them.

The only way a true democracy with equal rights works well is separation of state and religion, no one will ever hear anything of this sort though. not even in arguments.

If people want to make this country a secular state and blaming it for no good reason so that they can provide an excuse, then I must disappoint them that our country was made by our ancestors in the name of Islam, it will remain as a Muslim country Insha Allah, it won't be turned in to a liberal one.

ADIL KHESHGI · #26 Saturday, December 07, 2013

@Bilala Hasan

I want to put an icing on you arguments' cake by quoting Jinnah:

"There are some people who want to create a mischief and make the propaganda that we'll scrap Shariah laws, Islamic principles has no parallel"

Rida Malik · #27 Sunday, December 08, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilal Hassan

Well all of the community member who are being stopped from fulfilling their religious duty (All of the women who do veil), if it is not religious discrImination then what is? By the same token, If we assume that there are 2 Million Christians in Pakistan and not all of them are churchgoers but only 2000 are, and Govt of Pakistan does such a legislation that stops Christians from going to church then not the whole christian community would suffer but only 2000 Churchgoer Christians will, won't it be a religious discrimination and against liberties? Very absurd logic you gave.....Simple is that Hajab is banned and it is against civil liberties as well as is religious discrimination.

Manifestation is just mentioned above whether France targeted or not, and you give me one single example when in Pakistan such a thing happened? And would you like to enlighten me with one of such survey results that Majority of muslims agrees with ban on Hijab? I wait the reference. And I have corrected you

And here you yourself agree that they do persecute minorities. And I didn't mentioned Islam only, you yourself proved me right.

Oh! And what about Marwa El-Sherbini who was stabbed in German court because of wearing Hijab? I give you the reference buddy, here you go

Never in Pakistan has happened such a thing that someone was killed just because he/she was following his/her religion. Minorities enjoy full freedom to follow their religion until they commit the blasphemy which is against the spirit of freedom.

Your calling it bad won't make it so buddy, I have given you examples as corroborations, your calling it bad won't make it so. And My friend I have proved how your so called secular states treat the minorities. And for your information, Pakistan is not a secular country Alhamdulillah. We will give every freedom to minorities that Islam grants and they already enjoy such a freedom already.

So, finally you agreed that what other states do with minorities, I didn't give any clean chit to Pakistan because i don't need that, minorities enjoy here full liberty. Thank you.

If people want to make this country a secular state and blaming it for no good reason so that they can provide an excuse, then I must disappoint them that our country was made by our ancestors in the name of Islam, it will remain as a Muslim country Insha Allah, it won't be turned in to a liberal one.

You want examples from pakistan, fine.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/607912/a...down-minarets/
This is only one example out of many, in some instances even Ahmedi graves were desecrated. Were the graves claiming to be muslim corpses too?

Was burning down of Joseph Colony out of alleged blasphemy issue a myth too?

Was Salman Taseers murder on right premises? For saying that the woman deserved a trial to represent herself? Is that not minority persecution where the other section of the pakistani society not even given a chance to defend themselves against allegations and abuse?

And Pakistan will never be a liberal country? But it already IS a liberal country. It does corruption, hypocrisy and all anti-religion activities quite liberally, just doesn't want to be labelled as one. What you are essentially saying is, We will never allow freedom of a common human experience in our country. That can be your last resort or your only resort, because self-righteous people of this country have failed to protect Pakistan from monetary AND moral corruption. Where people no longer follow the principles of excellence but only of elevation of authority which grants them the right to abuse it as they like.

The whole world is an example of failed religion based economies. you can call it what you please but religion is a personal matter and whenever it is involved in government, people abuse it.

Saudia: Lashes for women over driving cars, to their brothers for giving them car keys, for speaking against the government, for protesting, for secular behaviour. If you call that justified than there is no one who can call you wrong because your rights are protected by religion, but anyone not in the same circle is un defendable.

Vatican: The alleged abuse of children

Iran: Laws not based on international legal premises abused constantly

(Hijab Ban, if that seems like abuse of power to you then why don't you quote Saudias abuse of religious power by trying to make women cover their eyes too? and the religious police having the authority to use brute force against anyone who doesnt comply?

Contradictions do not exist, it is either a dictatorship OR a democracy and pakistan IS essentially a dictatorship of sorts.

Gypsified · #28 Sunday, December 08, 2013

Quote:

Well all of the community member who are being stopped from fulfilling their religious duty (All of the women who do veil), if it is not religious discrImination then what is? By the same token, If we assume that there are 2 Million Christians in Pakistan and not all of them are churchgoers but only 2000 are, and Govt of Pakistan does such a legislation that stops Christians from going to church then not the whole christian community would suffer but only 2000 Churchgoer Christians will, won't it be a religious discrimination and against liberties? Very absurd logic you gave.....Simple is that Hajab is banned and it is against civil liberties as well as is religious discrimination.

Thank you, sir, for graciously pointing out the 'absurdity' of my comment but you very conveniently ignored the other point: Majority of Muslims support this ban. Here's your reference:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095

"Most of the population - including most Muslims - agree with the government when it describes the face-covering veil as an affront to society's values. Critics - chiefly outside of France - say it is a violation of individual liberties."

Of course you can dismiss it as made up by BBC (a way we Pakistanis prefer) but then you will have to support your stance with counter-evidence. Go ahead please.

You also ignored my third point: ALL religious symbols, are banned in French public schools, including Christianity (majority of French are Christians). How do you explain that?

Quote:

And would you like to enlighten me with one of such survey results that Majority of muslims agrees with ban on Hijab? I wait the reference. And I have corrected you

So far, you haven't. I've given you the reference. Now you do have a chance to correct me with facts. I'll be waiting.

Quote:

you give me one single example when in Pakistan such a thing happened?

Quote:

Never in Pakistan has happened such a thing that someone was killed just because he/she was following his/her religion

Rida has given ample examples. If still not satisfied, let me know. I'll accumulate the detailed data. Plus, you also ignored to comment on the very law of the state that discriminates to a shameful extent. (again: no building of places of worship, no preaching, no seeking of converts et al. No such law exists in 'secular' states).

Quote:

And My friend I have proved how your so called secular states treat the minorities.

Quote:

So, finally you agreed that what other states do with minorities

I wonder when did that happen. Please point me to the direction of that 'proof' and that 'agreement'.

Almost all the discussion paints the picture clear. The image of Islam, as it is in the minds of the people of Pakistan at large, is medieval, skewed and extremely parochial. It needs to change. If you want to taunt it with liberalism and secularism you can do it. For me it's just the Islamic concept of Ijtihad which is the very essence of progress derived from the very teachings of religion. (hint: A Muslim was among the founding fathers of secular Europe. One of the many things you conveniently ignored). There wasn't much matter for me to respond. My previous arguments remain almost entirely unanswered.

Quote:

if you consider that Ahmadis are being mistreated so you must also accept the reality that they were the people who disfigured the already existing belief system of Muslims by not believing in in the finality of Prophet-hood.

I have absolutely no problem with that. You can call them non-Muslims, that's your right. But not the right of the state.

mhmmdkashif · #29 Sunday, December 08, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

I have absolutely no problem with that. You can call them non-Muslims, that's your right. But not the right of the state.

Only if the state is secular and its constitution contains clause like “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” (US Constitution 1st amendment)... Now if you want to change the objective resolution and the constitution that was framed upon it in Pakistan you can't do it here my dear brother, you either engage in a democratic struggle or take up arms for your cause

. I don't think any further explanation is necessary because there is no struggle going on such lines. An anti constitutional struggle that is going on in Pakistan doesn't believe in constitution at all

.

P.S. I think this discussion is going to a direction whether we can have pluralism under a nation-state forged upon religious beliefs of a community alone.

As far as state laws go, polygamy is outlawed in the United States but Mormon religion which originated in the United States allows polygamy. Now ain't their religious right offended

. America was both fascinated and horrified by practice of polygamy, why think too much and give a community their religious right

Gypsified · #30 Sunday, December 08, 2013

Quote:

As far as state laws go, polygamy is outlawed in the United States but Mormon religion which originated in the United States allows polygamy. Now ain't their religious right offended

Polygamy is outlawed in all states of the US. And this law exists for all citizens, regardless of religion or race. The law does not allow any Mormon to do that and any known offender faces the prosecution. Actually, Utah was taken into the US union on the very reason that polygamy was outlawed.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bilal Hassan For This Useful Post:
ADIL KHESHGI (Saturday, December 07, 2013), respectful (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to ADIL KHESHGI For This Useful Post:
Bilal Hassan (Sunday, December 08, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to Rida Malik For This Useful Post:
Gypsified (Sunday, December 08, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to Gypsified For This Useful Post:
Rida Malik (Sunday, December 08, 2013)