Oh and BTW, Mormon Church also does not allow polygamy.

So that means 'minority' religion had to bow down before social pressure (because the founder Joseph Smith Jr. had initially instituted polygamy in their religion) . If this happened in the United States means such discriminations which you are nagging about and not limited to Pakistan, they are probably universal

Similarly the definition of Muslim as in 'notorious' article is for all the world

Correction, the religion bowed down before 'state sanctioned' social pressure

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

The law was outlawed BEFORE Utah joined the US.

Polygamy is a practice, not faith, not an abstract idea. If it had been, it would not have been banned. (This, I believe, was exactly what the judge who made this decision stated, if you cared to read). Elementary, my dear reader. Muslims did abolish the practice of trading slaves, no?

Similarly Ahmadia is a faith and is not banned, some of its practices 'mocking' the mainstream faith are checked . Please come out of your wishful thinking dear, you don't have any point, admit and I will make some admitings

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Well in that example you have seeds of your own refutation, Ahmadis are a minority and hence non Muslims, they can't call their worship places mosques and can't erect any edifice that is similar to mosques, so the minarets are the symbols of Muslims' worship place aka mosques, even Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes Minarets as "a tall thin tower, usually forming part of a mosque, from which Muslims are called to prayer". See the link too:http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ionary/minaret So either Ahmadis must become Muslims if they want to build Minarets because it can only be built on a mosque and mosque is the worship place of MUSLIMS only , or they must not do such an act that is against the law of state.
Well that is the irony of the situation mam, people do blasphemy and then some liberals come to save their souls by calling it "Alleged" blasphemy issue, I reiterate that minorities are free to worship and follow their religion as long as they don't mess with Majority and commit an act of blasphemy.

That was an act of an individual, was that act state sponsored? Because here you are arguing that minorities are persecuted by state, if it is about the acts of individuals then shoot the whole American nation because Terry Jones was an individual from the same nation who burnt the Holy Quran. That is very absurd to say that a whole minority is suffering on the basis of an act of individual.
Having no other argument you have coined new definition of Liberalism! Mam the flaws you stated can be better termed as turpitude and depravity but not necessarily liberalism. If it IS a liberal country then why are you raising hue and cry? Liberal country secures the freedom of Minorities, right? Matter is resolved.

Oh! Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W) ruled the state of Madina in the light of Religion and religion was at the heart of state administration, government, economy and society, everything was measured on the touchstone of religion and it was perhaps the first Welfare state in the annals of History, after Prophet (PBUH) rightly guided caliphs ran the government accordind to Shariah and minorities enjoyed full freedom and it was also a golden age of Islam, now would you still say that Religiously run state is a failure? Mam, I'm sorry to say, for Muslims religion is not separate from government and economy, rather it is at the heart of everything, this is just stinky liberal notion and we are to follow the orders of Allah and he directs us to lead our individual and collective lives according to Islam. Further Iqbal says:

جلال بادشاھی ھو یا جمھوری تماشا ھو
جدا ھو دین سیاست سے تو رہ جاتی ھے چنگیزی

Now is it an argument? If it is, what does it prove?
I need not explain it, because it is self explanatory, I did not say that Secular countries are persecuting Muslims only, I said they are curbing the religious rights of the minorities, now you yourself agreed that France banned religious practices for minorities, now it is curbing of civil as well as religious liberties.


Hope you would agree now.

None of your friends's example was pertinent, I hope you would come up with strong corroborations. My dear friend I have partially answered that why Ahmadis are not allowed to call their worship places Mosques, see first para. And regarding no preaching or things like that, you yourself said that Secular countries don't make such laws that hinder seeking converts, Pakistan isn't a secular country. Simple.


I just wish that our masses imbibe that image of Islam which is medieval because that is essence of our religion. Our religion is complete as Allah almighty has said on the eve of last sermon, you are no one to change or to decide that it has to changed. Ijtihad is the job of Ulema karam and there are very strict standards for the Mujtahid, not every Tom, Dick and Harry can go for Ijtihad for the reason that he wants his liberal interpretation of Islam. If Ulema deem any change necessary in any Shariah law then they will do it.

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

For everyone, including the majority. If you think I agreed that France is only curbing the rights of 'minorities', I'd suggest that you read my comments again. Restriction of religious symbols has been imposed on everyone, regardless of religion.

If a state says so without the consent of the Ahmadia community, it becomes discrimination. You might want to consult Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary for the meaning of 'discrimination'.

So you do admit Pakistan does not act like those 'secular' countries and discriminates? Very well.

Other than that, there wasn't any sort of evidence presented that I could deal with. The main contention not only remains valid, it is further strengthened by the posts in this whole thread: Pakistani masses, including the educated lot, admit that discrimination exists, and yet wholeheartedly supports it.

Can't believe this dear , does any of the Secular European states ask Black people "Our dear blacks, your skin is black and you represent a minority ethnic group, but we don't want to do discrimination so we need your consent, should we consider you minority,, ohh please please for God sake say yes please" (jk)

States just determine who is minority, in case of Pakistan Ahmadis are a religious minority.

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Brother, you yourself got confused. Restriction of religious symbols is not a thing, the real thing is the liberty of following one's religion, if France curbs that freedom then it is not religious tolerance. The rights of all minorities are curbed collectively, it is against the freedom of religion brother.

How frivolous! This is same as if US asks the Muslims that we admit that you believe that Allah is one and Muhammad (PBUH) is the last prophet of Allah, and we also realize that most of the US citizens don't believe the same and they are in majority, so may we label you as minority? How childish brother!

Even Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary does not define minority as the one that is declared as Minority with mutual consent. See here:



Yes I admit that Pakistan is not like those secular countries where minorities are not given freedom of religion.
It is your tunnel vision brother which is deceiving you, you wanna see only what you think. I would conclude with that Pakistan is relatively a better place for minorities where they can follow their religion with complete freedom unless they do something against majority religion. Individual acts do take place but on the basis of these you can't generalize the things.

That is done, however you can stretch it as far as you want to.

Best of Luck brother.

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

Conclusion: Pakistan is not a secular country. Secular countries allow freedom of preaching religion, building new places of worship and conversions. Pakistan does not. Pakistan can't follow secular countries so it won't allow any such freedoms.

Thanks for agreeing on this much. A reader can deduce from this who is discriminating and who not.

Well this must be admitted that religious freedom in Islamic Republic of Pakistan can never be at par with Secular nations. So you should focus upon religious tolerance and cohesion here .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.