Nelson Mandela and his Relevance to Pakistan. - Page 8

Gypsified · #71 Tuesday, December 10, 2013

I do agree with you to quite an extent. A lot, perhaps even most, of the bigotry derives from simple plain human corruption which doesn't have anything to do with religion. Bad economic conditions and lack of education makes it worse.

Quote:

I guess we don't yet know how to implement Islamic teachings on an Industrial society living in scientific age. We have many groups (sectarian and political) who still hold medieval era interpretations high and they don't let any enlightenment come through to the society so that it could grow up

It appears that we have a lot more common ground here. Again, I agree that the problem is with the medieval interpretations of religion and their inconsistency with today's world, not with religion itself. I haven't criticized religion itself in any of my posts, only the way it is used by the powers that be for their own ends.

Quote:

Whatsoever, the solution still lies in Islam, not Liberalism, as per my belief.

Well, let me clarify that I don't mean to say that we should ape the West and implement everything that exists in those countries. We have different religion, different culture and different history. So naturally, any improvement and progress has to be made along the lines of our own heritage, not West. It has to come from within and that would be a rather slow process. Islam is not rigid, and in my opinion, not in clash with a secular society.

We don't seem to disagree on a lot of issues. But the point where the discord begins, perhaps, is the extent of freedom that should be allowed to citizens, regardless of religion. Perhaps that would eventually come at some point in future.

mhmmdkashif · #72 Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

But the point where the discord begins, perhaps, is the extent of freedom that should be allowed to citizens, regardless of religion. Perhaps that would eventually come at some point in future.

I guess that is because at this point aping the West starts

. This is kind of natural as West seem to hold a monopoly on the ideas of freedom, but most ideas of Western freedom are in stark contradiction to Islam no matter how open mindedly you look at them. There are even elements in Western political thought who are opposed to divine dictatorship of God

. Islam tells to submit, and West tells to rise

.

Gypsified · #73 Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Those are philosophical issues and it would be lengthy, if not downright futile, to get into that discussion.

mhmmdkashif · #74 Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

Those are philosophical issues and it would be lengthy, if not downright futile, to get into that discussion.

Well obviously it will be lengthy and futile to go into that

But deep down its these philosophical issues which set Islamic and Western civilizations apart. Perhaps In a nutshell it could be explained as Western thought is heavily dominated by science and experimental scientific method where things keep changing and free floating very often, while in contrast Islamic teachings hold a permanent stance on matters. For example the concept of Equality, as I have already explained in a post

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by primo

I came here for Nelson Mandela and his Relevance to Pakistan

Disappointed after going through the whole thread

Take it like this and you won't be disappointed dear, apartheid has ended, now we are reconciling with the minorities

.

Ammyabbas · #75 Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsified

The notorious article 260 - (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan excludes Ahmadis from the fold of Islam. Like I said, it is perfectly all right if I as a Muslim consider them non-Muslims. The state, however, has no right of such discrimination among its citizens. That is not about religion but the laws of the state.

Amendments in Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) were further brought about during the dictatorship of Zia-ul Haq. Article 298-B of Pakistan Penal Code takes away the right of Ahmadis of erecting their places of worship, calling them mosques, or using any epithets, descriptions and titles etc. used by "Muslims". The punishment is 3 years and fine. (that is, if you are not already lynched by the mob).

298-C of PPF further restricts Ahmadis from even calling themselves Muslims or pretending to be Muslims. The punishment, again, is 3 years and fine. What's more, the article takes away the liberty of calling "azan" from Ahmadies in their places of worship. Punishment, again the same.

Ordinance XX of Zia-ul-Haq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_XX

I hope you get the picture. If this is not state-sanction and state-sponsor (with the wide support of the good people of Pakistan), I don't know what is.

It is obvious that a believer of any religion will oppose the idea of change in his religion or what we call freedom of speech. For instance, let us take the example of Christianity, would a Christian tolerate a group of people calling them christians but having the belief that the process of prophethood is still going on and proclaim someone as the descendent of Jesus?
No, he certainly won't allow that group to call themselves christians, same is the case with islam, as Almighty Allah has himself stated that a Muslim is one who believes in Allah, HIS last Prophet Muhammad(may peace be upon him), HIS angels, HIS books and on the last day of judgement and if any of the above mentioned factor is missing, he must be excluded from the sphere of Islam. Its not what the govt did, this is what our Allah has taught us.
Hope you get it.
__________________
Faith can move mountains. Have faith in Allah..!

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.

You are continuously blaming Pakistan that it shouldn't have declared discrimination or the title of non-muslims for Ahmadis, do you think it is possible for a state which was demanded on the name of Islam to let people practice and call their religion Islam when it is not? I think you should ponder on this, we are not living in a secular state, its an Islamic state and it must keenly watch people practicing the true beliefs so that religions shouldn't be wrongly utilised by masses. In case you are defending Ahmadis which clearly you are, no one can allow a mob to alter their religious beliefs individually or on states level.

ADIL KHESHGI · #76 Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Respected Member! I think you haven't gone through the whole thread because you're repeating the same arguments which has been posted by the other respected members, though logical and strong, but were and might be unable to convince a person or I should say some persons who don't want to be convinced. So please don't waste your time in this thread. Regards

imranleghari · #77 Wednesday, December 18, 2013

I read the whole thread so that I can get knowledge about the relevance of Nelson Mandela with Pakistan but I could not find this. Anyhow, I appreciate your effort to proves your statement and this was also a source of knowledge for me. But be relevant to the topic please.

The Following User Says Thank You to Gypsified For This Useful Post:
mhmmdkashif (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to imranleghari For This Useful Post:
smile khan (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)