and when i googled value of human life, it gave me 129,000 dollars.
and moral reasoning isn't constant either. for some it is not logical at all.

You mean both Muslims and non-Muslims will pay for protection?

Then surely you don't expect us to take it seriously?

India is not a Muslim majority country.

You googled the wrong term.

and moral reasoning isn't constant either. for some it is not logical. googled it.

You're evading my question, aren't you? Should I repeat it for your convenience?

Because personal opinions have no bearing on facts.

No. Not all affairs. Only one 'affair', and once a year. And only in certain states.

Read the previous posts.

Congratulations.

All those my dear ones ardently advocating the Theocratic Pakistan, don't for God's sake, dodge the reality.
The current bleak state of affairs into which the minorities have been squeezed to live is ostensibly indicative of the fiasco of the major articles of constitution esp. 20 to 36, posing a grave question mark on the writ of the government which has miserably failed to ensure security to the life and assets of minority classes on an equal and rightful footing.
Since the get-go of the year, there have been heaps of reported incidents, say 28, of minorities targeted and crucified sometimes on the ground of alleged blasphemy and in most cases for penny, while the law enforcement agencies seem impotent and numb, throwing them to wolves to be plundered, brutalized, persecuted and forced into exodus. The above figure dearly manifolds if such cases of barbarism in Sindh in general and in Jacobabad in particular are taken into account.
The abductions for ransom, forced conversions, forced marriages, and cold-blooded murders for unidentified motives are a few of many heinous atrocities committed against the non Muslims and the thing worth lamenting is the savage manslayers left at large are brazenly aided and abetted and then fully sheltered by the ‘Sardar Sain”, the de facto D.C and S.P of districts of most interior Sindh, on whose tune the district authorities dance.
Mr. Jinnah vehemently reiterated that holy places of non-Muslims would be given as equal a protection as they have in India. But contrarily and remorsefully neither do they feel the sense of security to live of their own accord nor are their places of worship protected. A number of instances where temples and churches, etc have abominably desecrated and set ablaze, are a slur upon the charter of fundamental rights of the constitution.
Religious-cum-racial intolerance coupled with extremism has been the last straw that breaks the camel’s back, thus compelling me to say today we are where Nazis stood 70 years back.

agreed that our state has failed to protect the minorities. do you think secularism will solve these problems? secondly the present state of Pakistan; Is it secular or theocratic or none? and i don't know about article 20 or 36. are they about protection of minorities?

and the way you state it, don't you think the problem is with the people and not with the ideals?

regards

Ahan, you’re not talking about ‘jizya’, right? That’s just another ‘proposal’, isn’t it?

So that was your own proposal, not a fact about Islamic state. I accept it, by all means.

No, it does not ‘increase its importance’. What’s more important are the basic tenants of faith, some of which have to be performed everyday, and there is no hiding and fear about them.

Thank you. Very valuable information. No one’s advocating materialism, though.

Are you saying that Muslims, as individual Muslims, have no sense of right and wrong?

Yes, there would be no legal channels for mob violence in the name of religion, to name one.

No I don't. But you do, don't you? A special tax exclusively for non-Muslims, right?

I can conjure up hundred mythical things that Secularism does not 'accept'. See the flaw of this kind of reasoning?

I won't talk about India any more.

How is that related to distinction between spirituality and materialism?

You mean they won't make mistakes in an 'Islamic' state?

Instead of making laws to appease the violence in the name of religion, it would/should be dealt with like any other violence. Violence in the name of race, to name one. Use Google to see how they dealt with it in the US, for instance (instead of making laws to appease the racial prejudices of the people).

Okay let me tell you something after which you yourself decide whether its a chivalry or discrimination.

There is a law that if someone says anything against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), he will be punished but there isn't any for slaughtering cows (Hindus God). Don't you think there should also be a law for it.

If you think so, there occurs contradiction specially Eid-ul-Azha as you mentioned above.

Secularism avoids these kinds of contradictions as you do not have to make any law for both groups and blasphemy law has to be eliminated from the laws of this country.

You are getting me wrong. 'Your brothers' refer to the people having same opinion as yours.

Why does one even want to establish an Islamic state? Does the Quran tells us that? Is there any verse for it? Or Hadith?

If none, then the country better be secular in place of a theological. Equality is best, one would rather be equal than protected and patronized. Ask yourself if you'd prefer to live in a Christian/Hindu/Sikh country or a secular country who doesn't discriminate one on the basis of religion? Muslims in India would prefer a Secular India and Muslims in Canada would prefer a secular Canada. If Muslim minorities everywhere would prefer to live in secular countries why would minorities in Muslim majority countries prefer otherwise? Patronage is bullcrap. It only helps in segregation and apartheid. It only makes 'others'. Equality helps in integration. You can say in the eyes of law everyone is equal.

Justice Bhagwandas taking oath as the chief justice had to say he will protect Islamic Ideology. Imagine a Muslim saying he will protect Christian or Hindu ideology! Such discrepancies only exist in states which refuse to give up theological anchors and move on.

Are fundamental rights of preaching and propagating their religion guaranteed in a theological state? Can anyone other than Muslim preach their religion? Muslims can proselytize others but other can't, which is often a source of violence and threat. A Muslim can marry a Hindu girl after converting her but not vice versa. This is a source of what? Communal trouble? And law doesn't help you either.

It's hard to imagine minorities happy in a theological state. Moreover, the dominant sect is favored over others. Iran is a shia state where sunnis are marginalized and in Saudi Arabia Shias and Sufis are.

Religion is a private matter and it should remain one. Dragging it to politics create problems like the ones I mentioned. Therefore, the best way of polity is to separate religion and the affairs of the state.

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