"Islamic ideology", as it exists in the minds of Pakistanis (hammered by the clergy and spineless government) is a medieval ideology that has no place in today's world. Pakistan came into being on the basis of Two-Nation theory which was a purely nationalistic idea, an idea which was considered heretical by prominent Ulemas of the time who branded Jinnah as "Kafir-e-Azam". Why people continue to believe in a delusion? Ignorance, coupled with the fear of hell.

Unless this medieval ideology is refined and redefined keeping in view the demands of natural evolution of human thinking, it won't work.

I'm guessing I'll take us just about another century and and a few hundred thousand deaths before we realize that. That is, if we are able to keep the whole thing from disintegrating by then.

What about the rest of the 2%? It means around 3.7 million people in Pakistan's case. And what Islamic Ideology? Ideology of Sunnis or Shias? Within Sunnis, the ideology of Deobandis, Barelvis or Ahle-Hadith? And by what logic we are bound by this 'reason of creation of Pakistan'? We are free people, to pursue whatever course we choose, not bound by any imagined or real idea of the creation of Pakistan.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

And just to further prick the balloon of national myths, Muslims were always 'scattered'. They started fighting right after the death of Prophet (PBUH). We are simply continuing the tradition by refusing to let go of religious politics.

I think that is because Islamic ideology and the concept of nation-state are incompatible with each other. Nation-states arose in communities who were settled in a fixed geographical area and were having shared common heritage and cultures, whereas Islamic ideology is more universal in nature and knows no boundary and shared culture. Nation-states set on a path of wordly progress, build up huge economies and expand via trade, while the goal of Islamic state has always been expansion of the message of Allah. Thus Islamic state remain very authoritarian and totalitarian in nature while nation-states thrive on the idea of free thinking.

Therefore my conclusion remains that Islamic ideology did produce mighty states once, however they gradually declined and today the Islamic community remains completely awed by the progress made by nation-state and Muslims remain confused over what to do

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

Pakistan was created to develop a progressive Islamic state but we could find no moderates during the span of our 66 years of existence, we've extremists at both the ends. At the one end are those who condemn the idea of a religious state while the others favours a theocratic state. We need another Sir Syed Ahmed Khan for the marriage of religion with reason. People often consider India as a secular state but the foundations of India are too based on Hinduism, let me tell you sth about Gandhi who's India's national hero. Gandhi says; "Politics has never dominated a single decision of mine, and if I take part in politics, it is because politics encircles us today like the coil of a snake from which one can't go out no matter how much one tries. So to wrestle with this snake, I've been experimenting with myself and my friends in politics by introducing religion in politics".

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

I find it hard to understand how people who support the idea of Pakistan where everyone is treated equally regardless of religion are same to the people who favor clear discrimination, beheading, stoning and chopping off the limbs et al. I am also yet to see people who want a secular Pakistan go into mosques and blow up people. Neither do they issue fatwas and declare other 'wajib-ul-qatal'.

Sure, there are a lot of stupid and even bigots claiming to be liberals and secular, but their extremism can certainly not be equated with the likes of Taliban and those who have soft corner for them.

This seems like a new trend that "well, there are extremists on both sides" which only tells that one doesn't really understand either side. If someone thinks that clearly pointing out the problem and opposing it also means extremism that God help us.

While we have high regard for the name of Syed Ahmed Khan, we certainly seem to be very uneasy for what he stood for, that is, purely rationalistic understanding of religion. Most of us celebrating his contribution don't even know what that means. People who dare to follow his footsteps face death threats and are driven into exile and the nation does not seem to have any problem with it. Ghamdi is the latest example among such people who had to leave the country just because his views were not in line with the tradition. Survival of Syed Ahmed Khan, had he been living in today's Pakistan, would be nothing short of a miracle.

Pakistan is a Muslim majority country and there should not be any doubt that Muslim traditions and culture would continue to dominate. However, if we think that Islam can be applied on this country as it was applied in 7th century Arabia, that is wrong. It can only happen if we drag ourselves back to those times. If we want to live in today's world, we have to evolve the Islamic jurisprudence on modern lines (Or on the lines of Syed Ahmed Khan, if you may).

Personally, I don't see much hope. The gap is colossal, and yawning, and we are still not willing to move forward from the rigid medieval interpretations (things might change at some point in future, when we are able fully to evolve a distinct nationality 'Pakistani' but certainly not in near future). And criticizing those rigid tendencies cannot be called extremism by any measure; that is actually our responsibility as humans.

Foundation of a state is its constitution. Regardless of Gandhi's quote, can you point out where the Indian Constitution favors Hindus over Muslims?

Justice Rana Bhagwandas on becoming the CJ took the oath that he would protect Islamic Ideology. Would you approve if a Muslim in India has to take an oath to protect Hindu ideology? Would you want India to be a secular or Hindu country? Under which type of constitution do you think Muslims will be more secure?

As regards as Islamic Ideology as universal in the early days of Islam, an Arab was given preference over a non-Arab. Non-Arab converts were referred to as Mawali or clients and they had to have an Arab patron. They were treated as second class citizens. Preference for ethnicity or nationality wasn't absent even in the early days of Islam.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Has this anything to do with Islamic ideology or is that how arabs implemented it???

Racial apartheid remained a reality in many secular states even till recently, would you rate secular ideology as descriminatory as Islamic one???

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

Well yeah! You wrote
Was that Islamic ideology universal or racially discriminatory? Apartheid states weren't claiming to be universal, they were discriminatory and were quite proud about it.

__________________
He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

So it means problems are everywhere, it is just the matter of preferences... your preference is secular ideology and mine will remain islamic, we won't be able to convince each other

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4

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