Why should I become a Secular Pashtun Nationalist?

[fzpz]

It's obvious she was using the concept of muslim ummah.

[Alchemist]

With faye...nothing is obvious.

[faye]

I'll be nice. You tried to fit a broad concept (ummah) into a narrower concept (iran). It's like saying why doesn't a room have a house. Saying why doesn't ummah have (or include) iran would make sense.

why does answering a question about islam have to be in the realm of being nice. i would think that you might be pleased that a non-muslim is interested enough to ask these questions?
alchemist is behaving like a 7 year old i am genuinely curious.
i read that mohammad created an ummah and it was not universal, but do you mean that it encompased all of the people that were then muslims plus the pagans, jews and christians?

[faye]

With faye...nothing is obvious.

to you

[fzpz]

It wasn't about islam, just common sense. Apparently alchemist has issues, but don't worry, he's just blowing off steam.

When people nowadays refer to the ummah it means a pan-muslim community.

[faye]

ok. i've just read a short version of afghanis vision of a pan-islamic civilisation. what i had thought is that one islamic country could create the ummah as an example.

[randolph85]

Why does it have to be about atheism vs religion?

I live in Canada and it is a secular nation. Everyone can follow their own religion. The Government holds no pretense and does not, at least legally, advocate one religion over another. Rather the Government promotes multiculturalism.
When the Muslims migrated from Mecca to Medina, the social contract that was signed between the differing parties was by the broadest sense secular. In that the differences of the inhabitants would be put aside so that the community at large would act as one.
But let us keep our discussion to the contemporary sense of the definition of secularism. Still, you can't say that "atheism" and secularism are synonymous. China is not a secular state since it bans all other view points, and not necessarily religious views. However, its religious views itself are "Secular", e.g taoism. Polytheism itself is also a form of cultural secularism since there is no exclusivity of one deity or one view point. But here we are discussing "Secular Nationalism" and in it's strictest term, no nation on earth is practically secular. Similarly, we could argue that there are no real Islamic states in the world. However examples of true theistic domains exist, e.g the holy see and vatican city-state. Pragmatically almost all nation states are secular in nature. The policies and institutions of almost all the nations are, in one way or another, in congruence to an international standard, as set by the UN. Iran being the exception here since it is heavily theocratic in that even it's foreign policy is defiant to the larger secularist view espoused by all other "islamic" nation. For a short period of time, under the rule of Taliban, Afghanistan was also theocratic. But we have seen the short falls of both of these two countries so whatever criticism you have against secularism the same can be said about. And then even if you ask any communist, they will give the same excuses that advocates of theocracy will give - "it is good in theory but fails in action". So obviously the problem is not in the "conviction" but in the people themselves.
So if you give the example of france banning hijab, then the counter example is Iran and Saudi which enforcement hijab. Really there is no black or white about this. If it is wrong to fine someone for wearing a hijab, then how is it right to fine someone for not wearing it? It gives that impression that Islam was spread by the sword, as the orientalist say. Did hijab become enforced when Islam was first introduced?

I am not advocating for secularism. I just don't think your argument against it is strong.

secularism is nearly a religion of its own, as it advocates its moral superiority over other systems. the west no longer tries to export christianity as they themselves threw away their old religion a while ago, its now secularism thats being exported under the guise of freedom and human rights.

u can be a believing muslim in the west but not an entirely practicing muslim as we are subject to secular laws. this is what has turned christianity into nearly a dead religion, theres some christians out there (not many) but no one actually practices the religion. the most religious conviction u will get out of westerners is some **** wearing a cross necklace as a fashion accessory and a douchebag getting a cross tattoo, maybe even a group prayer before a football game.

basically, secularism and islam are incompatable and if anyone wants a good example, look no further than turkey. the turks have turned into what the christians of the west have.

i forgot what this thread was about after about the 3rd sentence but whatever.

[faye]

booze and boys.

what's this randolph, a freudian slip?

[PakiPathan]

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad belonged to and had remained the president of the the secular Indian national congress. He had written a very authentic commentry of the holy Quran. Do you all consider him an atheist and Kafir?

[ScimitarXEdge]

So - it sounds like Scimitar is saying that all 3 of them started out as
secular nationalists ?
If that's the right term, then what formed you guys in that line of thought.

And then what brought you, thankfully!, back to Islam ?

Not all three of us, but yes on the other two; I was actually more like Shamlawar is now. LOL

[ScimitarXEdge]

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad belonged to and had remained the president of the the secular Indian national congress. He had written a very authentic commentry of the holy Quran. Do you all consider him an atheist and Kafir?

Neither

but definitely someone who didn't truly embody the words of the Qur'an.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Alchemist is right , lexically ummah doesn't translate into nation, it actually literally means "maternally connected" but it is applied to mean collective, the word "awam" which means "society" or "people" also is rooted in the same word.

If you want to say "state" as in a institution which governs over people you would use the word "Dawlah".

These are arabic terms, not native to the Pushto language.

[Catya Sher]

Thanks, Scimitar, for answering my question yesterday.
What you and others have written on this thread has been educational,
including randolph's observation minus the terminology...!
Actually there ARE practicing Christians - go into a Russian Orthodox church
for example - if you live in the Bay Area, Randolph, take a look at the
San Francisco Cathedral on 26th and Geary at midnight on April 23, which is the biggest occasion of the year.

Or any Sunday morning.

There you'll see EVIDENCE of piety. I say evidence because who can say what is in the souls of the worshippers?

Some are just faking, as there are
Muslims who do the same going through the motions due to peer pressure or family pressure, etc.

Overall it's the Protestants [the vast majority of self-described Christians ] who have lost all their steam, that's because they
never had any umph to start with.

Some and in fact many of those bible belt types DO believe fiercely in "Jesus and the Bible", viewed as all that is required for one to go to heaven...
It's very superficial by contrast to Islam or other Christian groups.

Alchemist has a right to question faye on that truly nonsensical question.
She might think to phrase a question better before opening up mouth /new post.

I pretended not to notice and refrained from saying anything, but better for her to
spend much more time reading and learning, not asking kindergartner questions
of these guys whose time is very valuable.
They are smart, each in his own way with his own talents.
Have some respect for them.

[Niazi]

To all e Taliban .

http://www.drpaulose.com/wp-content/uploads/like-ostrich.jpg

[ScimitarXEdge]

To all e Taliban .

http://www.drpaulose.com/wp-content/...ke-ostrich.jpg

LOL, so if people question secular nationalism this automatically means they're Taliban?

what about Modernist Pan Islam, how is their emphasize on reviving scientific and technological progress comparable to the Taliban's rejection of science?