Secularism and Pashtuns....the panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns. [Archive] - Pashtun Community | Pashtuns

PDA

View Full Version : Secularism and Pashtuns....the panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns.

Badlun

02-23-2011, 12:15 PM

graveyardofempires

02-23-2011, 12:30 PM

http://mahafreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/FailDogfood.jpg

BarakzaiAbdali

02-23-2011, 04:17 PM

Secularism is the separation of state and the church(religion).Secularism, like democracy, involves treating people as individuals, not as members of a group.
Democracy counts the votes of individuals. It doesn't let their unelected faith leaders speak for the whole group.
Democracy allows individuals to express their opinions in the privacy of the voting booth where they are protected from group pressure.
Democracy doesn’t have them ‘represented’ by powerful faith leaders whom they may not dare to challenge, for fear of being punished in this world or the next.
Secularism: A definition | National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html)

I think that secularism is the cure-all for all the problems of Pashtuns as what we see today , one of the main reason for all the problems is the mixing of religion with the state and giving the political and other powers to religious people instead of professional persons.

Lets be precise, succinct and constructive in our approach and we must reach a unanimous decision after the discussion of few weeks or months and having about 20 pages of discussion here.Then we should conclude the topic that this forum is of the opinion that secularism is bad for Pashtuns or good.

Lets have a meaningful discussion on secularism in the context of Pashtuns with all possible evidences, proofs, logic and valid arguments. We can take our time if we have to search for proofs but may not fill the pages with personal remarks or writing with out real substance.

Osho, you're missing the point. It very well may be that secularism furnishes an economic system that catalyzes development and technological prowess. The idea of decoupling religion from facets of life is not a new idea. Its something that has been around for millenia. Whether it was King Solomon of the Biblical text abandoning the way of his forefathers (we do not believe this in Islam) and marrying an idolator for certain gains or whether it was the Durrani Kings marrying 4 wives and then taking concubines (not permitted in Islam)... this decoupling has been around for a while now.

For instance, interest banking, alcohol, pornography, gambling, etc are viable economic industries and modalities without a doubt. A multi faith military may have certain advantagous elements to it. I am no expert in economics or military matters so I will defer to common sense and say that there is an industry that can be reaped from these aforementioned industries and matters. A society that permits the building of mosques, churches, synogogues, buddhist temples, satanist cathedrals, wiccan gardens is probably a pluralist society that encourages a variety of contributions from all the aforementioned parties.

Then there is democracy Osho. Its a system that can also be decoupled to secularism, coupled with it, etc etc. The secularist mentality found an accelerated adherence in the enlightment period that Baygham lala wishes to occur for our Pashtunistan. Democracy on the other hand was around in Athens and was not decoupled from the mores and religious ideologies of the people (i.e. you could not throw feces at at a statue of Zeuss and expect to simply get away with it). So the two, democracy, and secularism do not go hand in hand. The fact that a military junta was able to sustain secularism in Turkey is enough practical real world proof for that I think.

But the issue I have with your ideologies, and perhaps that Toramana was trying to warn you about in your posts is that these sorts of sweeping statements do no justice to your cause. The idea that secularism is the panacea to all the Pashtun world's ills is an opinion laced and absurd statement. It requires evidence that fits the bill. The Pashtun world is a complex world if tribal allegiances, a strong religious fiber (as misinformed it may be about the actual constitution of its religion), maliks and warlords, localized economy, land locked state, etc.

In my opinion, its about foolish as the idea that "All you need is Love" or "All you need is faith" or "shariah saves." I cannot, in good faith, make a sweeping comment that Islam shall elevate and save the Pashtuns from all their ills.

My contention with you has been the following: So you believe that stable secular democracies are the light, the way, and pride of the world; why impose it?

Let us say your view is 100% correct (that it would benefit the Pashtuns to a wonderful affect) and avoid the angst of reinventing the wheel. However, imposing an ideology of any sort, whether it is Islam or whether it is secular democracy is bound to reap bad results. Human nature is averse to imposition. The general trend is to preserve memes that represent our genetic heritage and repel those that appear to threaten survival of the race. So As Toramana pointed out regarding Barelvi, Syed Ahmad's attempts to impose shariah backfired and alienated the Pashtun Yusufzai Maliks. In a time of war they utilized him, but once some modicum of peace was obtained and once he began to threaten their traditions, ideologies etc, he was quickly eliminated. It is the same with the Taliban phenomena as it stood with KP Pashtuns. KP Pashtuns were generally living in stability compared to their colleagues in Afghanistan. When Fazlullah and others attempted to hoist something upon them they accepted it at first per their view of the failed court system, but quickly viewed it as an imposition. However, what Omar Hotak bought to the Afghan side of the border was order and stability. There are multiple references from Afghans in Qandahar I have provided on this site to that affect and you can search them out.

So the point you need to prove to me is that imposition of secular or democratic regimes on a people, by an outside, nonMuslim, nonPashtun power will be the panacea for all Pashtun ills.

I think, if you, Baygham Lala, and others quit seeing the IslamoFascist Monster hiding under every bed and in every corner, that you would see we are reasonable people and are requesting a reasonable answer to the bolded question above. The answer ought to fit the situation (i.e. Pashtunistan is not the ruins of the grand Ottomon Caliphate with a receptive urban elite... Pashtunistan is the place of legends... where still fight from places on high... a place that one US soldier once told his mother was like a place straight out of the Old Testament.)

I for one, cannot sit still when I hear what is nonsensical and goes against what all of us have witnessed first hand. Baygham Lala in his own exposes rants about how the overwhelming majority of this people are religious minded to the point of absurdity in his view. You yourself recognized this issue and brushed it aside with the view of: Oh well, we will have to beat it out of them!

I find that repulsive. I refuse to tell a man like Omar Hotak, who lost an eye against the Russians to simply sit by and let some urban, elite, effeminate individual that did nothing for their country when it suffered under the yolk of the Russians (Karzai, Ghani, Prince Ali Seraj, Muhammadzai family, etc) to just sit down, shut up, and be still.

Don't you see that the fault lies with us (or our fathers?). They ran away to the mud baths of Italy, to the comforts of the US, to the guest houses and bungalows of Islamabad, Quetta, and Peshawar while men named Khalis, Hekmetyaar, Mossoud, Omar, etc., men without tribal malikship, men without much land to their name, and men who were the barefoot and the poor made the religion the basis of the moral imperitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_imperative)

They fought, bled, lost family members, were massacred, lost limbs etc. They led from the front.

Contrast the behavior of Mr. Karzai and his brother Qayyum, who were busy attending jirgas, drinking shnaay chai, and eating sugared almonds with that of Washington at Vally Forge. Contrast the behavior of the Muhammadzai ruler Zahir Shah in Italy's mudbath with that of Jefferson and Franklin gathering arms. Contrast the immense time Thomas Paine put personally into the Revolutionary propaganda machine against Ameen Arsala's adventures in Virginia. Contrast the sacrifices of Revere and Patrick Henry with Yama Karzai, sitting pretty in Quetta and now throwing the yolk of torture on his fellow Qandaharis. Contrast the fact that none of these men were seen as outsiders by the American insurgents and none of them were imposing something on their brethren.

Do you use rotten meat to make a meal? Do you use molded and parasite laden flour to make bread for that meal? How then do you expect failure laced men, with no accomplishment other than astounding laziness to lead their people to build a prosperous, secular democracy?

So you validate this fairy tale like or magical thinking with the rebuttal of "lets use America's resources" and "lets capitalize on their presence." How Sir? Even your brother in arms Toramana told you that superpowers are rarely benign.

So you come to me to the table to say:

Here is my recipe:
1 secular democracy that produces a G8 level country please.

I say:
What are the ingredients Osho?

You say:
Oh, I dunno... a superpower, some like minded folks, some brute force.

I say:
No Osho it takes:
1) 1/3 cup of Native incentive and acceptance to avoid blowback and tyranny
2) 1/3 cup of Capable leaders that are worthy to lead
3) 1/3 cup of investment/economy

do you have these?

You say: No, but its OK, because I will shut my eyes to reality and squeeze them tight and make a wish on a wishing star.

I say: Good luck, but I think you are going to get food poisoning tonight.

Badlun

02-24-2011, 12:17 PM

graveyardofempires

02-24-2011, 12:23 PM

^
^
do you support mass genocide?

Badlun

02-24-2011, 12:52 PM

Lets do research that who are the secular and who are the non secular or religious states in the world. According to the following link majority of the states in the world are secular.
Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state)

Following is the list of fully secular countries
Africa
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Mali[28]
Namibia
Senegal
Somalia
South Africa
Americas
Brazil
Canada
Cuba
Honduras
Mexico
United States
Puerto Rico
[edit]Asia
Azerbaijan
People's Republic of China
East Timor
India
Japan
Kazakhstan
South Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Nepal
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Syria
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Europe
Austria
Albania
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Macedonia
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Sweden
Turkey
Oceania
Australia
Federated States of Micronesia
New Zealand

UK and Indonesia ate ambiguous as there appears symbolic religious statements in their constitutions but in reality religion is not a part of their politics or economics.There is a complete religious freedom in these countries.

All the G8 countries are secular.Only UK and Italy mentions religion symbolically.

Some countries only mention religion as their state religion but religion has no important role in these countries.Only 5 not very important countries recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:
Costa Rica
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican City (Holy See)

If one visit these countries or read about them even here religion is used as a symbol and never has a deep influence on politics, society, culture or economy.

A number of countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Italy,Indonesia, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland give a special recognition to Catholicism in their constitution despite not making it the state religion.

Gerogia , Greece and Finland consider Orthodox Church as official but again one can see how practically these countries are secular.Other countries may mention religion in their constitution but we dont see no where a religious country in the sense that religion controls the polity, society and other aspects of the life.

Religion as a state religion is common only among the Muslim countries. But here too we have Turkey which is complete secular.Algeria , Tunisia and Indonesia(except Aceh) are de-facto secular countries.There are only 4 Islamic republics(Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Mauritania)

We can see that almost all Muslim countries are not democracies and are developing economies. Except Turkey(secular) and Saudi arabia(Monarchy) there is no one who is even member of the G20 forget about of G8.

Some countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka have Budhist influence but Buddhism is not state religion.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion)

Conclusion is that secular countries are the most developed ones and almost all the countries except few Muslim countries are secular countries in the world.

Pashtuns should learn from this international trend. Religion of islam must remain in the private lives of people but not in political, economic, cultural, social or other aspects of life if Pashtuns really want to become a great nations like the nations of G8.

graveyardofempires

02-24-2011, 12:56 PM

Badlun

02-24-2011, 01:08 PM

khoga wrora bakhana ghwarham. dalta ba pa secularism ghageegu aw hagha hum da serhaney sara che yaw bal na tsah zda krhu, Qarega ma. zrha ghat sata.da bal khabara lag awra . dagha da neocons khabarey ba pa dagha inwan ke sara kawoo.
I wish here we dedicate only to serious intellectual discussion with possible proofs, valid arguments and not personal remarks or emotional statements. I really undertake these discussions to learn and share without any preconceived agenda or biases. I am learning and changing my ideas where I see some thing really impressive , useful which may be contrary to my approach and ideology.

BarakzaiAbdali

02-24-2011, 05:37 PM

Thanks for such a detailed analysis of the issue. If we agree that secularism is a good idea but may not be imposed then I agree with this. Nothing should be imposed but the people may choose it with their own sweet will and this is democracy. We oppose Taliban for the very reason that they impose their doctrines and practices on others without the consent of the receiving party.
Dictators, monarchs, terrorists impose but democracy let others to choose. Even Islam does not recommend to force things on others thats why we have preaching and convincing others.

The basic purpose of education is to bring proper behavioral modification and we have formal, informal or non formal educational systems. We educate others so they accept the new ideas. I have elsewhere written an essay that the USA lacks public diplomacy. they dont educate others and dont have public awareness programs. They spend billions of dollars on bullets but dont spend hundreds on books. This is a pitfall and there is a dire need that this paucity may be addressed. Yes those who understand only the language of bullet may be dealt in the same way.

Secularism should never be imposed but people may be educated that what is secularism and what are its benefits and how Pashtun society can be secularized.The change should be from the inside not imposed artificially from outside. Minds and hearts should be won not to enforce new ideas at the point of the gun.What we are doing here is education not imposition.We learn and share and I am happy we have great participants here who always have original ideas.

I am not advocating or endorsing anything, secularism or islamism when it comes to economic viability because I do not have data at hand or the expertise. I do not have the qualifications to make sweeping generalizations about which is better. My qualm rests with assertions either way to validate military or interventional actions to suit our whims. For example, if you have two people and you give one nutrients and make him body build versus another person you keep in a dark room and deprive of the right to move... so his muscles atrophy and then you give both a hard labor task to do, of course the former individual will have an advantage. For that reason, I cannot say that an noninterest based system is doomed to relegate a country to third world status if the playing field is not equal. I cannot say that banning alcohol will negate a billion dollar influx into the economy that cannot be replaced by another viable industry.

As a physician I also cannot advocate a sextravaganza when the linkages between promiscuity and diseases like cervical cancer, HIV, etc are clear as day. So I have to assume that these moral controls that are either present because of religion or because of whatever brand of humanistic values one derives are there as a response to these environmental and pathogenic realities.

My problem with comparing a super power like the US, where the moral standard underlying secular humanism has changed with time, and where the gold standard was replaced vs with a third world country that attempts to implement islamic economics is that the confounders that are there are tremendous.

Like I said, the issue that is pressing is that Afghanistan is at war. And the validations being presented for the war originally derived from moral stances. The attempt at deriving some absurd moral basis to fuel a nation building exercise that also enforces something that both you and Baygham have admitted is not being accepted by the populace is what makes no sense to me and the evidence appears to speak against.

Badlun

02-25-2011, 12:22 PM

Lets have some data on economy that who is the largest Economy and then onwards and see where are secular countries and where are countries who are more religious.Basically except Afghanistan of Taliban, Pakistan to some extent, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi and Iran can be counted the only really existing Religious countries otherwise the whole world is now either secular or tendencies towards secularism.

In the following list we dont see a single religious country or Muslim country

Countries by GDP (PPP)

List by the International Monetary Fund (2010)
Rank Country GDP (PPP) $Million
— World 74,004,249
— European Union 15,150,667
1 United States 14,624,184
2 People's Republic of China 10,084,369
3 Japan 4,308,627
4 India 4,001,103
5 Germany 2,932,036
6 Russia 2,218,764
7 Brazil 2,181,677
8 United Kingdom 2,181,069
9 France 2,146,283
10 Italy 1,771,140
Ranking of the Muslim countries even is not impressive if we go down the list.

Afghanistan is at No 105,Somalia at No 152, Sudan at No 68 and so on.the position of Pakistan at No 26 surprised me but Pakistan being a British colony in the past has a different political and economic system which is just in the name Islamic republic. Taliban are present and active only in Pashtun areas.But in the list according to GDP(nominal) even Pakistan is at No47.Saudi and Iran have good positions mainly because of the God bestowed natural resources.

Badlun

02-25-2011, 12:39 PM

Another way that we can compare Secular countries with religious countries is the Human Development Index (HDI) which is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.

It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.

Very high human development (developed countries)
Rank Country HDI
New 2010 estimates for 2010

1 Norway 0.938 0.001
2 Australia 0.937 0.002
3 (17) New Zealand 0.907 0.003
4 (9) United States 0.902 0.003
5 Ireland 0.895 0.001
6 (13) Liechtenstein 0.891 0.002
7 (1) Netherlands 0.890 0.002
8 (4) Canada 0.888 0.002
9 (2) Sweden 0.885 0.001
10 (12) Germany 0.885 0.002
11 (1) Japan 0.884 0.003
12 (14) South Korea 0.877 0.005
13 (4) Switzerland 0.874 0.002
14 (6) France 0.872 0.003
15 (12) Israel 0.872 0.001
16 (4) Finland 0.871 0.002
17 (14) Iceland 0.869
18 (1) Belgium 0.867 0.002
19 (3) Denmark 0.866 0.002
20 (5) Spain 0.863 0.002
21 (3) Hong Kong, China 0.862 0.005
22 (3) Greece 0.855 0.002
23 (5) Italy 0.854 0.003
24 (13) Luxembourg 0.852 0.002
25 (11) Austria 0.851 0.002
26 (5) United Kingdom 0.849 0.002
27 (5) Singapore 0.846 0.005
28 (8) Czech Republic 0.841
29 Slovenia 0.828 0.002
30 (2) Andorra 0.824 0.002
31 (11) Slovakia 0.818 0.003
32 (3) United Arab Emirates 0.815 0.003
33 (5) Malta 0.815 0.002
34 (6) Estonia 0.812 0.003
35 (3) Cyprus 0.810 0.001
36 (7) Hungary 0.805 0.002
37 (7) Brunei 0.805 0.001
38 (5) Qatar 0.803 0.005
39 Bahrain 0.801 0.003
40 (6) Portugal 0.795 0.004
41 Poland 0.795 0.004
42 (5) Barbados 0.788 0.001

We have only 3 Muslim countries here namely Brunei, Qatar and Bahrain at the tail of the list. In the first 36 countries we dont have a single Muslim country. These 3 are comparatively very modern countries and religion is losing its importance in political and economic aspects of the lives of people.

Afghanistan is at No 155.Pakistan is at 125, saudi at 55,Iran at 70 and son.
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)

unknownprince

02-25-2011, 12:41 PM

size of economy means nothing. Don't you know that? You can have a large failing economy like we currently have in the US. However, when you are over $14 trillion in debt to China, who is better?

unknownprince

02-25-2011, 12:42 PM

Also, Israel is not really a secular country. Pretty hardcore Zionist-Jewish if you ask me.

Badlun

02-25-2011, 12:48 PM

Badlun

02-25-2011, 12:56 PM

unknownprince

02-25-2011, 01:01 PM

Israel is now becoming an argument . I am happy as I am really impressed how this tiny state got developed inspite of so much opposition and wars. israel is really a model for the Arab world the only true democracy in the Middle East.

However the position of Israel if we see in the GDP based data is not very impressive. But Israel will improve.Also Israel is not a religious state. See the following

Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina yehudit ve-demokratit). However, the term "Jewish" is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion (see: Who is a Jew?). The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals.
At present, there is no specific law or official statement establishing the Jewish religion as the state's religion. However, the State of Israel supports religious institutions.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion)

Wikipedia is not a good source of information. Is that where you do research?

lets see how Israel got developed. Let me think osho, this is really tough. Oh wait, umm, they killed a bunch of Palestinians, and depend on unlimited financial aid from the US. Their "own" economy is non-existent. As US becomes insignificant, so does Israel and the other despotic regimes the US supports. If you really think about it in simple terms, they made an unwise decision linking themselves to the US.

unknownprince

02-25-2011, 01:07 PM

If size of economy means nothing then let us see the HDI.Where is Muslim world and Afghanistan there!Also both USA and China are secular countries.

Still we cant compare the life standard and economy of Somalia and USA, Somalia being a very religious Muslim fundamentalist country and USA being the indebted country.And taking loans for investment is a better economic policy. If USA fails but till 1917 it will be still No 1 economy of the world. And then may be No2.
Top 10 largest economies in 2020 - Analyst Insight from Euromonitor International (http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/07/special-report-top-10-largest-economies-in-2020.html)

What does economy mean, really?All it means in simple terms is the exchange of goods between several parties (individuals). Basically, then in the US, there are many people that exchange goods for money. Having the largest economy does not mean having the best economy.

It is about better economies which have higher growth rates (Turkey, China), not large economies which have poor growth rates (negative slopes). The US economy has continuously been slipping since 2000. The small spurts of growth are only reversed, as are most other EU/NATO states.

Badlun

02-27-2011, 03:26 AM

Economy is the system of production and distribution and consumption and the the efficient use of resources.

An economy consists of the economic system of a country or other area, the labor, capital and land resources, and the economic agents that socially participate in the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area.

A given economy is the end result of a process that involves its technological evolution, history and social organization, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy)

Its not only the exchange of goods between individuals. It shows your economic system, technological evolution, factors of production and many other aspects of the economic life of a nation, country or may be a group or individual.

This is clear from the above lists of countries that secualr countries have better economies than religious countries.Yes if we keep religion limited to individual life and does not make it part of economics, politics, society, culture etc then religion does not have any negative effect. All the countries with better economies have religion but in private lives of people.

I am not against the existence of religion but making it part of politics , economics, culture etc. Once we do sp, religion becomes a negative factor.

Badlun

02-27-2011, 03:32 AM

Along with size of economy we also have other measures to compare the life standard, quality of life and development of nations. One was mentioned above HDI where secualr countries do better.

One is the following List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita where too secular countries are far better than religious countries. In the first 20 we have only Qatar and UAE whom we know how religious they are!Afghanistan is at 163,Pakistan 143.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 104,390
2 Norway 84,543
3 Qatar[4] 74,422
4 Switzerland 67,074
5 Denmark 55,113
6 Australia 54,869
7 Sweden 47,667
8 United Arab Emirates 47,406
9 United States 47,132
10 Netherlands 46,418
11 Canada 45,888
12 Ireland 45,642
13 Austria 43,723
14 Finland 43,134
15 Singapore 42,653
16 Belgium 42,596
17 Japan 42,325
18 France 40,591
19 Germany 40,512
20 Iceland 39,563
21 United Kingdom 36,298
22 Italy 33,828
23 Kuwait[4] 32,530
— European Union 32,283
— Hong Kong 31,799
24 New Zealand 31,588
25 Spain 29,875
26 Brunei 28,340
27 Cyprus 27,722
28 Greece 27,264
29 Israel 27,085
30 Slovenia 23,008
31 Portugal 21,030
32 Bahamas, The 20,878
33 Korea, South 20,165
34 Bahrain[4] 19,641
35 Czech Republic 18,721
36 Malta 18,586
37 Taiwan (Republic of China) 18,303
38 Oman 18,040
39 Saudi Arabia 16,641
40 Trinidad and Tobago[5] 16,167
41 Slovakia 15,906
42 Estonia 14,416
43 Barbados 14,307
44 Croatia 13,527
45 Hungary 13,210
46 Antigua and Barbuda 12,785
47 Uruguay 12,129
48 Libya 12,062
49 Chile 11,587
50 Poland 11,521
51 Equatorial Guinea[6] 11,081
52 Lithuania 10,765
53 Seychelles 10,714
54 Russia 10,521
55 Brazil 10,471
56 Latvia 10,377
57 Turkey 10,206
58 Saint Kitts and Nevis 10,205
59 Lebanon 10,019
60 Venezuela 9,773
61 Mexico 9,243
— World[7] 8,985
62 Argentina 8,663
63 Gabon 8,395
64 Kazakhstan 8,326
65 Malaysia 7,775
66 Panama 7,712
67 Romania 7,390
68 Costa Rica 7,350
69 Mauritius 7,303
70 South Africa 7,101
71 Botswana 6,796
72 Grenada 6,264
73 Suriname 6,245
74 Colombia 6,220
75 Montenegro[8] 6,204
76 Bulgaria 5,955
77 Saint Lucia 5,778
78 Azerbaijan 5,764
79 Belarus 5,607
80 Namibia 5,454
81 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 5,434
82 Serbia 5,262
83 Peru 5,196
84 Dominican Republic 5,152
85 Dominica 5,148
86 Jamaica 5,055
87 Angola 4,812
88 Macedonia, Republic of 4,634
89 Thailand 4,620
90 Iran 4,484
91 Maldives 4,478
92 Algeria 4,477
93 Jordan 4,435
94 Ecuador 4,295
95 China, People's Republic of 4,283
96 Belize 4,262
97 Tunisia 4,160
98 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4,157
99 El Salvador 3,717
100 Turkmenistan 3,663
101 Albania 3,661
102 Fiji 3,544
103 Kosovo[9] 3,164
104 Congo, Republic of the 3,075
105 Swaziland 3,072
106 Samoa 3,023
107 Cape Verde 3,007
108 Ukraine 3,002
109 Indonesia 2,963
110 Vanuatu 2,917
111 Tonga 2,907
112 Syria 2,892
113 Morocco 2,868
114 Guyana 2,844
115 Guatemala 2,839
116 Egypt 2,771
117 Paraguay 2,681
118 Armenia 2,676
119 Iraq 2,625
120 Georgia 2,559
121 Sri Lanka 2,364
122 Mongolia 2,111
123 Bhutan 2,042
124 Honduras 2,014
125 Philippines 2,011
126 Bolivia 1,839
127 Sudan 1,642
128 Kiribati 1,522
129 Moldova 1,503
130 Djibouti 1,382
131 Papua New Guinea 1,358
132 Uzbekistan 1,335
133 Nigeria 1,324
134 Zambia 1,286
135 Solomon Islands 1,269
136 Yemen 1,230
137 India 1,176
138 Vietnam 1,155
139 São Tomé and Príncipe 1,132
140 Mauritania 1,096
141 Nicaragua 1,096
142 Cameroon 1,071
143 Pakistan 1,049
144 Côte d'Ivoire 1,016
145 Laos 984
146 Senegal 964
147 Kenya 888
148 Comoros 819
149 Kyrgyzstan 816
150 Cambodia 795
151 Ghana 762
152 Chad 742
153 Tajikistan 732
154 Lesotho 708
155 Benin 673
156 Haiti 659
157 Mali 649
158 Bangladesh 640
159 Gambia, The 605
160 Burkina Faso 590
161 Burma 582
162 Rwanda 569
163 Afghanistan 560
164 Tanzania 542
165 Nepal 536
166 Timor-Leste 535
167 Uganda 503
168 Guinea-Bissau 497
169 Zimbabwe 475
170 Mozambique 473
171 Central African Republic 468
172 Togo 441
173 Eritrea 423
174 Guinea 420
175 Madagascar 391
176 Niger 383
177 Ethiopia 364
178 Malawi 354
179 Sierra Leone 325
180 Liberia 226
181 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 188
182 Burundi 177

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)

randolph85

02-27-2011, 03:42 AM

all u have done is provided numbers, and have done nothing to explain why secularism is behind this gap of societies or why secularism promotes high standards of living and economies.

if u are looking at all this from a numbers standpoint, i could just as easily argue that dictatorships are superior to democracies as seen in chinas rapid economic rise, and their becoming the number 1 economy in the world in 2020.

faye

02-27-2011, 03:48 AM

osho, israel recieves at least 3 billion dollars per year from america. it also recieves compensation from germany, not sure how much. so, it hasn't progressed just by it's own capacity. it has just started banning the renting of homes to muslims by jews and introduced colour divisions, between jews, into some schools. it is digressing.

randolph85

02-27-2011, 03:53 AM

lets not forget that the founding of israel was supported by filthy rich euro jews. its not like they started from scratch.

Badlun

03-01-2011, 12:26 PM

Badlun

03-01-2011, 12:43 PM

Israel, china and USA are three interesting countries for further research and study.

Israel no doubt receives aid from USA, Germany and other countries but they dont take it as charity but as investment and build their economy with this aid or cooperation. Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc also receive aid but this goes to corrupt leaders and people take it as charity not as capital for further investment and development.

Also it is interesting that why these countries help Israel this much. Because they see in Israel the potential to be a great country and a model for the Arabs and Muslims.

China is politically a communist country but economically it is a capitalist country. Also it is a secular country and although it is not a complete democracy, the mere absence of religion or extreme religion is a clear factor in its being a great economy. Other wise the people would take care of the here after, the graves and not of this real life.

USA also considered a religious country and an exception when we study the relationship between religion and economy but USA is officially a secular country and religion is limited only to the private lives of people and not part of economy, politics etc.

The case of Muslim world is different where religion has strong on influence of politics, economics, culture etc and thats why majority of Muslim countries are poor nations.

unknownprince

03-01-2011, 01:17 PM

Israel, germany, jordan, former Egypt, and Japan are all slave states.

These nations are going to soon be left by themselves since US is struggling to keep its economy afloat.

You think the US is going to keep giving them aid LOL?

graveyardofempires

03-01-2011, 02:20 PM

passing through .

Alchemist

03-01-2011, 02:55 PM

Some data how religion is more common in poor countries

Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations
Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below $5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country's socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world's poorest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 -- is 47%.

Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx)

Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy

Christian leaders frequently assert that their message is not one of this world and that Christians cannot serve both their god and "Mammon." In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.
Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/03/religion-wealth-less-religious-countries-are-more-wealthy.htm)

Secularization Hypothesis
Going back to the first type of model, in which religion is seen as being dependent on social and economic factors, there are two important sociological theories about how religion responds to these factors. One approach is called the "Secularization Hypothesis." It's a part of what is often called "Modernization Theory," which looks at how the economies of developing countries develop institutional capabilities to alleviate poverty and rationalize markets.
The Modernization theory posits that as an economy develops and gets richer, certain societal institutions and features change in a regular way. The Secularization hypothesis applies this theory to religiosity: As economies develop and get richer, people supposedly become less religious. "Less religious" is measured either by participation in organized religion (e.g., church attendance) or by certain indicators of religious belief.

Religious Faith and Economic Growth: What Matters Most-Belief or Belonging? | The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/religious-faith-and-economic-growth-what-matters-most-belief-or-belonging)

Fallacy Name:
Correlation vs. Causation
Alternative Names:
Non Causa Pro Causa
Category:
Faulty Causation

Explanation:
Determining the nature of causation is very difficult. Sometimes a cause and effect are closely related - spatially, temporally or both - but sometimes they are not. However, humans seem to be inclined to assume that events which are closely connected either spatially or temporally are also connected causally.
This problem is commonly known as the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two events correlate (are close in time or space) does not mean that one has caused the other. The Latin term for such an error is called "non causa pro causa," which means "non-cause for the cause." It is important to try and break ourselves of this habit and become more critical of our natural inclinations in such cases.
There are a number of different ways in which correlation and causation can become confused. One is called the "Neglect of Common Cause." Also sometimes called "Joint Effect," this occurs when someone assumes that one event caused another when, in fact, they are both really effects of some third event. This third event is the "common cause" of the other two. For example:
1. Every time I eat chocolate, it gives me acne.
The speaker above observes a strong correlation between eating chocolate and suffering from acne, drawing the conclusion that the former causes the latter. What is ignored, however, is the possibility that both are caused by something else - perhaps this person suffers from anxiety and stress. The stress causes him to eat chocolate, but at the same time causes acne to break out. This will lead to the two occurring very close in time, even though one isn't actually causing the other.
Many times a fallacy like the one in the statement above occurs in assertions based upon statistical evidence, for example:
2. Recent studies have proven that watching too much violence on television leads to people being violent in real life.
Although it may indeed be true that viewing acts of violence can make a person more susceptible to committing violence, the above statement ignores crucial factors which might have a causal influence on both. For example, both increasing violence on television and increasing violence in society might be caused by changing economic circumstances or something else entirely. Thus, the above cannot be regarded as a sound position until other such possible common causes have been ruled out first (which, incidentally, may have indeed been done as part of the study, but this would have to be made explicit for the statement to be valid).
Here is another, more amusing instance where such an error can be made:
3. Researchers at the Aabo Akademi found that Finns who speak the language of their Nordic neighbors were up to 25 percent less likely to fall ill than those who do not.
Should we conclude from this that learning how to speak Swedish will help improve our health? Or perhaps that it is only Finns who can receive health benefits from speaking Norwegian? Nonsense - there is nothing about the Swedish language which can make a person healthier. What we need to look for are common causes of both being multilingual and of having better health - at least in Finland.
The neglect of Common Cause can be found in many political debates as well:
4. Most drug use occurs among the poor - this is because poverty causes people to engage in risky behavior, like abusing narcotics.
Now, perhaps the above position is true or at least has a grain of truth in it, but it fails to address the possibility that a third factor is responsible for both of those listed. One might be able to effectively argue that racial discrimination makes a person feel hopeless - this, in turn, may not only increase the chances of that person being poor, but might also incline them to seek escape in drugs.
This fallacy has also found a home in quite a few religious debates:
5. Morality in this nation has worsened at the same time that adherence to traditional Christian beliefs has declined. Obviously, the latter has caused the former, so encouraging Christianity will ensure a return to traditional moral standards.
In the above example, it is assumed that the correlation between dropping standards of morality and weakening adherence to traditional Christianity means that the latter is the cause of the former. This position ignores, however, the possibility of some third event being the cause for both. Thus, for example, it may be that growing diversity in society has weakened the bonds of all traditional institutions - including both religion and moral standards. Simplistic explanations like the above make it easy to propose simplistic solutions, but they cannot be accepted until alternatives like possible common causes have been addressed.
Science, Correlation, and Causation
At this point, one might wonder what the difference is between the fallacy of correlation vs. causation and the normal process of science. After all, isn't much of science a matter of correlating various observations and constructing theories about why they occur? There is some justice in asking this question - but nevertheless, there are important differences. Let's consider this example:
6. When the sun is visible, we have daylight. When the sun is gone, we don't have daylight. Therefore, the sun is responsible for daylight.
Isn't this an example of confusing correlation and causation? Why can't we say:
7. Daylight is caused by the luminescent radiance of Apollo. It just seems like daylight is caused by the sun because Apollo habitually travels alongside it. But Apollo is the real cause of light.
Well, we certainly could say that - but what's the difference between examples #6 and #7? What can make #6 justified rather than a fallacy? There are a couple of key characteristics - the first and perhaps the most important of which is that of testable predictions.
A theory is scientific if we can use it to make testable predictions about other observations we might be able to make. Are there testable predictions we can derive from example #6? Yes: when a place my hand between my eyes and the sun, the light is blocked; when clouds move between the sun and an object, it is shrouded in darkness; and when the moon moves between our planet and the sun, there is a cone of darkness on the planet.
All of these and more predictions can be made, resulting in observations that are consistent with the idea that the sun is responsible for daylight. Are there any predictions that we can derive from example #7? No - and if we tried, we wouldn't be able to reliably test them.
This points us to a second important issue that helps us separate a valid from an invalid causal connection: do we have any viable alternatives? If #7 were genuinely and successfully tested, then we would have much less justification for confidently asserting #6. The fact of the matter is, though, that there aren't any viable alternatives to #6.
So how can we be absolutely certain that an correlation between two events indicates a causal relationship? We can't, actually - the knowledge provided by the scientific method is never absolutely certain. Science forces us to remain open to the possibility that new evidence will cause a change in what we know and believe. Science doesn't allow us to become complacent, assuming that we already know everything.
Science is, however, quite reliable. With enough information, we can justify concluding that a strong correlation between two events points to a causal relationship. When all reliable evidence points to one conclusion while no reliable evidence points to anything else, then we don't commit the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation by concluding that we have likely identified the cause of the phenomenon in question.

faye

03-02-2011, 07:32 AM

osho,most of the poor countries on the planet were once colonised. they colonisers became wealthy from this rape, pillage and theft of land. now they are recolonising the poor countries as they start to become wealthy. mc donalds, monsanto,loans, sales of arms etc. these countries are not interested in israel for the reason you stated, it is because the jews have respective governments by the b****. they control the media, they have aggressive and brutish lobby groups and many of them are in government, especially in america. israel is also a focal point for those that are anxious for armageddon. the jewish fanatics are just hanging to knock down al aqsa mosque. christian extremists are also now overtly supporting israel. so israel is not just this progressive wee country, quietly and democratically slogging away in the midst of the middle east, it is a major flashpoint that doesn't recieve publicity for being so.
can you imagine what will happen there if these jews demolish al aqsa mosque?
do you not think that all the wealthy jews from around the world, are investing in israel?
even in australia, our new prime minister and partner were given an all expenses paid trip to israel, by the jewish lobby here, and other politicians also. one was taken by private plane. these people never say a word against israel and it's treatment of the palestinians.
they are very clever and have most bases covered, i'll grant them that.

Badlun

03-02-2011, 12:27 PM

Correlation vs causation..where we have discussed the topic, secularism, economy, poverty, development, GDP, HDI,,,all the examples given are not relevant to the topic. Its a good piece of writing but it says nothing about the topic. Also no source has been given. No context, seems just copy paste stuff!

Badlun

03-02-2011, 12:50 PM

All the poor countries were not colonized. The glaring example is Afghanistan.

In the colonized countries we also have Brazil, the world 6th largest economy , Argentina, Mexico, Australia, India , South Africa, Indonesia are members of G20.

Muslims from Mecca and Madina also not only colonized but completely conquered 58 countries that we have today in the Muslim world.

These western colonizing countries did not become wealthy because of the colonization because they were already great empires before they started colonizing other countries.Compare Spain, Great Britannia,Portugal before and after colonization. Colonization rather made them small countries not wealthy countries. They are wealthy today because of secularism, industrialization, democracy, rule of law and better governance.

Arabs or Muslims on the other hand were dwellers of small cities but became monarchs after conquering all these countries.

If we have mc donalds, monsanto,loans, sales of arms etc.then it is business for both buyers and sellers. They dont compel you to buy these items.Why we dont have our own better products!

If Jews have money or control the media, they have lobby groups and many of them are in government, especially in America then it speaks volumes of the talent of Jews. Why we dont become like them.

Jews should not demolish Alaqsa mosque but if they do so, Muslims also did the same. Both will do bad!

I think very good of all the wealthy jews from around the world, who are investing in Israel. Others should follow them. Seventy million Pashtuns should invest in Afghanistan.

Centuries passed after the colonization era. Let stop accusing others for our problems. Now we have time to build our selves as great nations. The formula is secularism, democracy, human rights,rule of law, modern education, science and technology. Let the developed world should be our model.

faye

03-02-2011, 06:21 PM

you may find that a lot of these loans are on the basis that the money is to buy arms.
sorry, i just never thought of these european colonosirs as being 'great' other than great ship builders and marauders.
if your desire is to follow in the footsteps of the jews, who have made alot of their wealth in assisting in the creation of wars, then you are hardly following islam, as it means peace.

Badlun

03-03-2011, 11:46 AM

The topic is secularism as a solution to the problems of Pashtuns not Israel or Jews. However Jews are the most suffered people by wars. Millions of Jews have been killed in various wars including world wars. How can they be assisting wars.

A nation state must be strong enough to defend itself and for defence you need arms bought by loans or not does not matter.

Islam as a religion yes means peace and i agree with it. But war is subject of politics not religion.A state with Muslim population has the right to have defence system but managed by politicians not by Taliban or Mullas.Their job is mosque or religion and this is what secularism teaches us and this what what Pashtunwali separates between Hujra and Jumat, the institutionalized secularism among true Pashtuns.

faye

03-03-2011, 11:57 AM

you put forward israel as an axample of a positive example of a democratically progressive state. i questioned your example. if you prefer that people don't question you then where is the conversation or debate?
if you don't now what wars are about and how they are started and who is involved in starting them, then i suggest you do a lot more research.

Badlun

03-03-2011, 12:37 PM

For discussion on Israel please see

http://www.pashtunforums.com/creative-writing-research-37/isarel-model-state-pashtuns-arabs-muslims-14589/

I will be grateful if I am enlightened on the subject of wars as related to secularism.

graveyardofempires

03-03-2011, 12:41 PM

da komey khaberey rawaney dey
My name is Khan ,nice ot meet you.

faye

03-03-2011, 02:30 PM

try the book ' wall st and the rise of hitler' for starters. some of it is online.

Badlun

04-18-2013, 12:39 PM

It seems secularism is triumphing and now Jamate Islami a strong Islamist party in Pakistan is embracing secularism and shunning its Islamist agenda

Test of JI chief | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2013/04/18/test-of-ji-chief/)

Of late, there has been a toning down of the party's main plank, the Islamic ‘system’.
The emphasis has been on political issues of the day — from Aafia Siddiqi and drone attacks to America’s hand in the assassination attempt on Qazi Hussain Ahmed.Worldwide, Islamist parties are attempting to recast their philosophies in the light of today’s realities.

The radical changes made by the Indian JI can perhaps be ignored, because its acceptance of secularism can be understood in a country where Muslims are in a minority.

But greater changes are in the offing in the Middle East and Maghreb, where forces unleashed by the Arab Spring are trying to find newer grounds for relevance in today’s world.

In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party repudiated his mentor Necmettin Erbakan’s philosophy and publicly embraced secularism. Once in power it has made stunning changes in state policies from within. One can see the same process in embryonic form in Tunisia and Egypt. There is no evidence that the Pakistan JI has bothered to listen to these stentorian voices.

Al Hanif

04-18-2013, 12:49 PM

Jamate Islami a strong Islamist party in Pakistan is embracing secularism and shunning its Islamist agenda

As if their party was 'islamic' in the first place.

A 'party' can't be 'islamic'. By definition it's 'part' of the 'system'.

Friend

04-18-2013, 06:10 PM

It seems secularism is triumphing and now Jamate Islami a strong Islamist party in Pakistan is embracing secularism and shunning its Islamist agenda

Test of JI chief | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2013/04/18/test-of-ji-chief/)

Of late, there has been a toning down of the party's main plank, the Islamic ‘system’.
The emphasis has been on political issues of the day — from Aafia Siddiqi and drone attacks to America’s hand in the assassination attempt on Qazi Hussain Ahmed.Worldwide, Islamist parties are attempting to recast their philosophies in the light of today’s realities.

The radical changes made by the Indian JI can perhaps be ignored, because its acceptance of secularism can be understood in a country where Muslims are in a minority.

But greater changes are in the offing in the Middle East and Maghreb, where forces unleashed by the Arab Spring are trying to find newer grounds for relevance in today’s world
In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party repudiated his mentor Necmettin Erbakan’s philosophy and publicly embraced secularism. Once in power it has made stunning changes in state policies from within. One can see the same process in embryonic form in Tunisia and Egypt. There is no evidence that the Pakistan JI has bothered to listen to these stentorian voices.so badlun, when are you going to join JI because they are going to do what you want.