Why do we fear Secularism (Secularism from a Liberal Muslims Perspective)

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I apologize for missing your post before... I don't know how I missed it.

By claiming we want the Muslims to paint a knock-off Da Vinci you continue to claim that Secularism is a concept alien to Islam. A fundamental difference in our opinion which makes it difficult for us to agree. Though I do believe we can learn from the West. If they have a superior system than ours why not try to implement it with adjustments for a highly emotional Muslim populace to our society. Majoritarianism will still rule even with a Secular system... so if it is unacceptable for 90% of the population to drink, then the drinks will only be available in an enclosed environment where it can reach the 10% that do drink.

More than 1 Billion Muslims today live in abject poverty because we failed to modernize ourselves with changing times, to accept equality and justice as important concepts in our society.

I will disagree with you on Quaid E Azam's philosophy... he was a secular Muslim who did more for Muslims than anyone else could have. By giving Muslims of South Asia Pakistan he saved them from years of discrimination. We could have lived together in India yes, but the Indian did not give our areas self rule. (For more information read Jaswant Singh's book on partition which blames the partition on the Congress and call's Jinnah a secularist who was forced to go for an Islamic State due to utter bias)... I think Jinnah understood that a state could not function if it didn't manage to accept its people were equal. If it continued to be divided on the base of religion and ethnicity... pity that those that came later tore apart his dreams.

Again my haq or justice also refers to the right of Pakistani Christian to practice her religion freely without being framed on false charges on the Blasphemy law. Justice also means that Ahmedi's are not slaughtered or not permitted to go to their mosques because they believe in another prophet. It also means a man must have liberty to believe what he wishes, to do with his life what he wants. If a person wants to drink or dance it is not our responsibility to stop him... Its his choice

To you be your faith... to you be your ideas... do what you want. Your Religion, your beliefs have nothing to do with me... Islam and Secularism again are not incompatible... disagreement on this key point is pushing our debate back to point 1...

This is the truth. Eventually the Muslim masses will have to find their own solution to their problems. We cannot promote secularism to this highly emotional population that has been taught from birth that Secularism is against Islamic concepts.

In a way you are right. Let the people decide... is as the saying goes... but the people are bombarded by Islamist ideology from left right and center. If we introduce a new ideology and present it at least its there for the people to accept or reject. I am not imposing Secularism on the population as Islamist thought has been imposed. But at least the idea should be there...



It is not, but not all people agree on what Shariah is, brother. Would these people really be killed in a correct Shariah system? What is a correct Shariah system? You will find when you impose a 'correct Shariah system' according to you some people will continue to claim it is an UnIslamic system or proper Shariah has not been imposed. Example of this is the Swat deal with militants.

Pakistan has come very close to imposing full shariah during the time of Zia Ul Haq who was the biggest Islamist in the history of Pakistan... plus we imposed shariah in Swat when the militants demanded it to appease them. It still didn't appease them because they wanted another version of Shariah. (You see the problem this talk of imposing Shariah causes)

In the end all this talk of imposing shariah comes down to increasing one's power and influence. Look at what is going on in Pakhtunkhwa. Militant commanders exist for every tribal area, every region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Wali Ur Rehman and Hakeemullah rule in South Waziristan, Faqir Mohammed in Bajaur, Mullah Toofan in Kurram, Omar Khalid in Mohmand... each striving to increase his influence and power and impose his version of Shariah and Islam... they fool the people in the name of Islam... we know this but do the people know? They are foolish and misled.

The question is with thousands of factions in Islamist thought which 'Shariah' is the right Shariah Randolph? By focusing on the question and by focusing on which Islam to impose on the population we are wasting our time and resources while we could be spending them on building up a powerful, prosperous society. Instead all we care about today is ensuring we somehow impose on others that our "Islam is the right Islam, yours is wrong"... just think about the waste of resources and time this causes.

When you can't get ahead of simple things as what is supposed to be the length of your Shalwar and should it be coming to our ankles how can we even think of dealing with bigger things.

I think a simple example suffices to show where you are wrong.

For instance, take the American Constitution and its application. Each and every supreme court case modifies or augments the interpretation of the that document that forms the central basis for American Governance. No doubt the constitution is a brilliant document. The minds that put it together did their best to provide checks/balances/safegaurds etc. That alone did not propel the Americans into becoming an economic superpower. The latter was a byproduct of economic and historical circumstance (side note: same might be said of the rising power of the Arabs at the time of the Khilafat Rashidun in terms of the right time/right place).

In this same way, you are ignoring huge swathes of Islamic law and, like a missionary, taking these verses out of the context in which they were revealed. It would as if I took a single portion of an article in the constitution and did not read the rest of it.

So for instance, the verse on compulsion in religion is embedded within a surah that discusses Islam's relation to the prior faiths and some components of Islamic law. No where in that ayah or the ones surrounding it does it allow an Islamic nidus state, such as the one that the Prophet formed, to cede Islamic governance based on that ayaah. It simply says: You cannot force people to believe what they dont want to.

A similar example is how America's first amendment does not protect people against private business actions. The idea is that certainly, by the first amendment you have the right to free speech, but an employer is not obligated to let you run your mouth at the expense of his business. As an example take Rush Limbaugh and his rant against Sandra Fluke recently. The sponsers of his show were not obligated to support his speech or show, but he wont be hauled off and put in jail. For that matter, money matters in the US as well. So if you are on the receiving end of a law suit from Al Dershowitz, you can bet that free speech might not avail you much (refer to the curious case of Norm Finkelstein's tenure loss).

So now, take the examples you mention... drinking and dancing. The Quran clearly prohibits drinking and Abdullah ibn Masud and the Khalifas are noted as having given punishments according to Prophetic guidelines.

"Narrated 'Alqama:
While we were in the city of Hims (in Syria), Ibn Mas'ud recited Surat Yusuf. A man said to him), "It was not revealed in this way." Then Ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited it in this way before Allah's Apostle and he confirmed my recitation by saying, 'Well done!' " Ibn Mas'ud detected the smell of wine from the man's mouth, so he said to him, "Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah's Book and (along with this) you drink alcoholic liquors too?" Then he lashed him according to the law."

So now, can you please define for us as to why any Muslim theologian should concede to your lack of knowledge on Islamic law matters to simply accept the false conclusion that secularism and Quranic driven law meld?

Other examples directly from the Prophets time discussed in Western sources is the constitution of Medina which addresses multiple tribal and religous groups in the Prophet Muhammad's own time in Medina. There is no relegating Islamic law to second place; rather there is a direct ideology of all matters coming through the Prophet and him using each group of people's own set of laws by judgement.

The same goes for the ayaahs you posted towards the tail end of the Quran. They are not providing legal guidance, the surah in question is an early Meccan address to the Kuffar of Mecca regarding their harrassment of the nascent Muslim population.

Regarding the Christian blasphemy laws and the treatment of Ahmadis, I think this is a canard when it comes to discussing the issue of war and peace. Its basically a way for Pakistanis to have their cake and eat it too without thinking about what they are doing in the Pashtun areas.

You cannot on the one hand have a country with a festing insurgency and a view toward occupation and not expect humans to have human reactions, even foolish ones.

It would be like in the situation of the Civil War or the Vietnam war if one were asking the Vietcong to not harrass Buddhists. It matters little if it all while a nation is fighting for its survival and autonomy that one deflects to these distractors. Most of the time these issues are discussed in concert with Taliban in order to rouse up sentiment against the Afghan insurgency so as to advertise to the world: If America loses every Christian in the middle east and Central Asia will die. This is also a confusion of cause and effect. In Jerusalem under Caliph Omar Christians Jews and Muslims flourished... however if there had been an insurgency I bet the situation would have been drastically different. People don't wear bow ties and tuxedos to gun fights my friend.

In regard to the question of right shariah, this is another canard as well. Any law system provides some levarge when clever jurists are involved. One can make habeus corpus disappear in a moment's notice if they are Abraham Lincoln and one can create Federal Reserve Banks out of thin air if they serve in another congression era. Dismissing the magnificence, grandeur, and deep intricacy of Islamic law is as foolish as doing the same for the amazing and exceptional design of American law.

[Al Hanif]

It was the quickest website that showed all the statistics. They are correct. I do not have time to prove to apes that 83% of Frenchmen and women think they are Christian.

Why do you call me an ape ?

I told you they are not Christians because they identify as Atheists and Agnostics, not because they are not practising.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Do you know what discrimination means?

It's like talking to a baboon. DO YOU LIVE IN THE WEST?

Hey Road runner, gotta run myself,

but I would then that the French moves which pretty much center on Sarkozy attempting to attract the reactionary right is a blatant example of Islam being targeted. France is a far more secular society than the American one, where a healthy debate about church and state persists.

Or Dutch laws.

Secularity in its ideal form does as you say, but in the confines of human error whatever system it is being applied under can bend that ideal. So in a secular democracy for instance, a France effect can occur.

[roadrunner]

You can look it up in the CIA world fact book. The French government doesn't collect records of religion.

[roadrunner]

Hey Road runner, gotta run myself,

but I would then that the French moves which pretty much center on Sarkozy attempting to attract the reactionary right is a blatant example of Islam being targeted. France is a far more secular society than the American one, where a healthy debate about church and state persists.

Or Dutch laws.

Secularity in its ideal form does as you say, but in the confines of human error whatever system it is being applied under can bend that ideal. So in a secular democracy for instance, a France effect can occur.

That's not judicial discrimination though is it? It's targeted by the press and used as a tool to attract votes by politicians but the society is secularly run.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That's not judicial discrimination though is it? It's targeted by the press and used as a tool to attract votes by politicians but the society is secularly run.

But one group is targeted... the rhetoric by LaPen and colleauges is centered on the green menace.

Thats the whole issue you dont need to keep religion statitics either in France or America. Democracy is about an appeal to popular sentiments and can override secularism to a certain extent.

For instance, there does exist a clause permitting amendment ratification in specific instances in the US which Santorum and Co may appeal to in regard to Gay marriage for instance.

So its not simply secular insulation... its what secularism is coupled to.

Take for instance the shariah law votes in many states in the US... many of which have less than .01% Muslims.

At the end of the day humans are humans.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

or the recent debate centering around contraceptives and whether religious organizations which employ people have to cover them in insurance. Obama had to strike many compromises. So its not as cut and dry as you present.

[roadrunner]

One group is targeted, I'll agree. So what?

Does it make it a less secular society where everyone pays the same tax regardless of religion or color etc? It's still a secular society in which democracy exists. You could remove democracy and le pen's would disappear. Remove secularism it won't make any difference.

[haviZsultan]

I think a simple example suffices to show where you are wrong.

For instance, take the American Constitution and its application. Each and every supreme court case modifies or augments the interpretation of the that document that forms the central basis for American Governance. No doubt the constitution is a brilliant document. The minds that put it together did their best to provide checks/balances/safegaurds etc. That alone did not propel the Americans into becoming an economic superpower. The latter was a byproduct of economic and historical circumstance (side note: same might be said of the rising power of the Arabs at the time of the Khilafat Rashidun in terms of the right time/right place).

Thank you for your post BarakzaiAbdali. I must say you are a good debater.

I will type in red to avoid confusion...

I do not agree that the American constitution had nothing to do with their success. Because their constitution provided freedom they have succeeded remarkably. They may be killing foreigners like flies... and treating us like **** but at least they are treating their own people fairly. Something we have failed to do despite more than 60 years.

In this same way, you are ignoring huge swathes of Islamic law and, like a missionary, taking these verses out of the context in which they were revealed. It would as if I took a single portion of an article in the constitution and did not read the rest of it.

So for instance, the verse on compulsion in religion is embedded within a surah that discusses Islam's relation to the prior faiths and some components of Islamic law. No where in that ayah or the ones surrounding it does it allow an Islamic nidus state, such as the one that the Prophet formed, to cede Islamic governance based on that ayaah. It simply says: You cannot force people to believe what they dont want to.

The problem between our discussion is our thinking is two poles apart.
Let us agree that we follow a 'different Islam' each... I do not accept the legitimacy of the violent Hadiths you are digging up from questionable people. What about the Wahabi who goes only by the Quran? Again the same problem rises again. How can we have an Islamic Republic when we can't agree on simple things, simple concepts of what is Islamic and what is not.

I use the Hadith to mean that Islam is personal matter and people can believe what they want. This allows us to shape a secular constitution. You disagree. My Islam is different from yours. Another one will come here and say a person should be stoned for adultery, another will say he should be lashed, another will say these are ancient ways of punishing a person, he should be let go, another will say he should be shot instead of stoned as it is more 'modern'... which is the right way?

A similar example is how America's first amendment does not protect people against private business actions. The idea is that certainly, by the first amendment you have the right to free speech, but an employer is not obligated to let you run your mouth at the expense of his business. As an example take Rush Limbaugh and his rant against Sandra Fluke recently. The sponsers of his show were not obligated to support his speech or show, but he wont be hauled off and put in jail. For that matter, money matters in the US as well. So if you are on the receiving end of a law suit from Al Dershowitz, you can bet that free speech might not avail you much (refer to the curious case of Norm Finkelstein's tenure loss).

BarakzaiAbdali you are a good debater but these examples sometimes give me a headache. They make the post longer and make it difficult for me to concentrate. I have a book to write as well which means I cannot spend as much time debating as you.

So now, take the examples you mention... drinking and dancing. The Quran clearly prohibits drinking and Abdullah ibn Masud and the Khalifas are noted as having given punishments according to Prophetic guidelines.

"Narrated 'Alqama:
While we were in the city of Hims (in Syria), Ibn Mas'ud recited Surat Yusuf. A man said to him), "It was not revealed in this way." Then Ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited it in this way before Allah's Apostle and he confirmed my recitation by saying, 'Well done!' " Ibn Mas'ud detected the smell of wine from the man's mouth, so he said to him, "Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah's Book and (along with this) you drink alcoholic liquors too?" Then he lashed him according to the law."

So now, can you please define for us as to why any Muslim theologian should concede to your lack of knowledge on Islamic law matters to simply accept the false conclusion that secularism and Quranic driven law meld?

You have described a common thought process in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Muslim theologian... if he follows a violent and fanatical brand of Islam will not use logic and modern thinking to deal with the situation but will dig up the most intolerant and evil things he can find. Material that is already questionable and is used to defame Islam further in the west.

I claim the Hadith's are questionable as do some Wahabi's about the permissibility of Music. What do we do now? We each follow our own different Islam. Have you heard of Dr Mohammed Farooq Khan? He was a liberal Islamic thinker and philospher who was killed by Wahabi terrorists for his ideas about the permissability of music in Islam. Our following different Islam has now become a reason to kill each other.

Again the question of which Islam each of us follows. We are divided into sections. The liberal Muslim camp open to new ideas and the camp that thinks any modern idea is a sin. If we are more open-minded, only then can we expand.

Other examples directly from the Prophets time discussed in Western sources is the constitution of Medina which addresses multiple tribal and religous groups in the Prophet Muhammad's own time in Medina. There is no relegating Islamic law to second place; rather there is a direct ideology of all matters coming through the Prophet and him using each group of people's own set of laws by judgement.

The same goes for the ayaahs you posted towards the tail end of the Quran. They are not providing legal guidance, the surah in question is an early Meccan address to the Kuffar of Mecca regarding their harrassment of the nascent Muslim population.

We are going around and around... I refuse to agree with you... I believe the Ayah is law... a rule when dealing with other faiths.

Regarding the Christian blasphemy laws and the treatment of Ahmadis, I think this is a canard when it comes to discussing the issue of war and peace. Its basically a way for Pakistanis to have their cake and eat it too without thinking about what they are doing in the Pashtun areas.

You cannot on the one hand have a country with a festing insurgency and a view toward occupation and not expect humans to have human reactions, even foolish ones.

Barakzai I did not expect you justify the Taliban militancy... there is no excuse for what these people are doing 'Occupation' or not. Killing our own people, fellow Muslims is never the solution to any problem. In fact it will take us 20 years backwards. This is not a human reaction but an animal reaction of a violent man who is used to imposing his faith on the rest of the population. Of course since in the Islamist setup we have been taught to impose our belief's on others we can only blame the current setup for it.

It would be like in the situation of the Civil War or the Vietnam war if one were asking the Vietcong to not harrass Buddhists. It matters little if it all while a nation is fighting for its survival and autonomy that one deflects to these distractors. Most of the time these issues are discussed in concert with Taliban in order to rouse up sentiment against the Afghan insurgency so as to advertise to the world: If America loses every Christian in the middle east and Central Asia will die. This is also a confusion of cause and effect. In Jerusalem under Caliph Omar Christians Jews and Muslims flourished... however if there had been an insurgency I bet the situation would have been drastically different. People don't wear bow ties and tuxedos to gun fights my friend.

In regard to the question of right shariah, this is another canard as well. Any law system provides some levarge when clever jurists are involved. One can make habeus corpus disappear in a moment's notice if they are Abraham Lincoln and one can create Federal Reserve Banks out of thin air if they serve in another congression era. Dismissing the magnificence, grandeur, and deep intricacy of Islamic law is as foolish as doing the same for the amazing and exceptional design of American law.

If Islamists do not accept changing times and do not modernize we will disappear into obscurity and oblivion. Today there is no Islamic law. It is all about the interests of the person. Islam is being used for power and influence today. You guys blame Pakistan? What is your primary beef with Pakistan-that it used Islam for its own gains and advantages... the taliban does this, the Saudi does this. Islam has become a tool in the hands of few powerful people... who actually don't give a damn about it

Name one country where an Islamic system truly exists. You will find none. When we have been trying for years and failing to impose Islam why not just give up and instead just give each person his freedom and dignity.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Thank you for your post BarakzaiAbdali. I must say you are a good debater.

I will type in red to avoid confusion...

I do not agree that the American constitution had nothing to do with their success. Because their constitution provided freedom they have succeeded remarkably. They may be killing foreigners like flies... and treating us like **** but at least they are treating their own people fairly. Something we have failed to do despite more than 60 years.

The problem between our discussion is our thinking is two poles apart.
Let us agree that we follow a 'different Islam' each... I do not accept the legitimacy of the violent Hadiths you are digging up from questionable people. What about the Wahabi who goes only by the Quran? Again the same problem rises again. How can we have an Islamic Republic when we can't agree on simple things, simple concepts of what is Islamic and what is not.

I use the Hadith to mean that Islam is personal matter and people can believe what they want. This allows us to shape a secular constitution. You disagree. My Islam is different from yours. Another one will come here and say a person should be stoned for adultery, another will say he should be lashed, another will say these are ancient ways of punishing a person, he should be let go, another will say he should be shot instead of stoned as it is more 'modern'... which is the right way?

BarakzaiAbdali you are a good debater but these examples sometimes give me a headache. They make the post longer and make it difficult for me to concentrate. I have a book to write as well which means I cannot spend as much time debating as you.

You have described a common thought process in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Muslim theologian... if he follows a violent and fanatical brand of Islam will not use logic and modern thinking to deal with the situation but will dig up the most intolerant and evil things he can find. Material that is already questionable and is used to defame Islam further in the west.

I claim the Hadith's are questionable as do some Wahabi's about the permissibility of Music. What do we do now? We each follow our own different Islam. Have you heard of Dr Mohammed Farooq Khan? He was a liberal Islamic thinker and philospher who was killed by Wahabi terrorists for his ideas about the permissability of music in Islam. Our following different Islam has now become a reason to kill each other.

Again the question of which Islam each of us follows. We are divided into sections. The liberal Muslim camp open to new ideas and the camp that thinks any modern idea is a sin. If we are more open-minded, only then can we expand.

We are going around and around... I refuse to agree with you... I believe the Ayah is law... a rule when dealing with other faiths.

Barakzai I did not expect you justify the Taliban militancy... there is no excuse for what these people are doing 'Occupation' or not. Killing our own people, fellow Muslims is never the solution to any problem. In fact it will take us 20 years backwards. This is not a human reaction but an animal reaction of a violent man who is used to imposing his faith on the rest of the population. Of course since in the Islamist setup we have been taught to impose our belief's on others we can only blame the current setup for it.

If Islamists do not accept changing times and do not modernize we will disappear into obscurity and oblivion. Today there is no Islamic law. It is all about the interests of the person. Islam is being used for power and influence today. You guys blame Pakistan? What is your primary beef with Pakistan-that it used Islam for its own gains and advantages... the taliban does this, the Saudi does this. Islam has become a tool in the hands of few powerful people... who actually don't give a damn about it

Name one country where an Islamic system truly exists. You will find none. When we have been trying for years and failing to impose Islam why not just give up and instead just give each person his freedom and dignity.

I disagree with a few points here Havi. Its not about debate, its about an exchange of ideas.

So I will actually start with the last point first. I think you are viewing the looking glass through the back way instead of the way that the Taliban and others that you mentioned view their struggle and their association with Islam. Dalia Mujahed and John Esposito noted that the language of Islam, and/or the associated cultures and historical references permeated their study of the Muslim world. Its not necessarily about them simply latching onto Islam for gain, but rather the fact that Islam is the closest ideology Esposito found that provides a motivation fabric. One proof Professor Jerade provides for this is the Iranian revolution and the language behind it ... he personally told me that Espositos work rings true in the fact that even the Tudeh party rode the Islamic wave alongside Khomeini as a uniting factor.

As noted, the farmers in Latin America and the folks behind Geuvara and Castro did not have the fabric of Catholicism as the Spanish American nation states really were not ruled by Christian theocratic law at any point in time. For this reason, the language of populism and marxism was something that easily united a movement. When one looks at Geuvara through the other side of the looking glass, from rebel on the one side to killer on the other, the Cuban elite viewed him as the latter due to his killing Cuban college students that aided the Batiste regime.

Basically people take on teh mantle of local ideas that comfortably provide a galvanizing force. They may legitimately say what they mean and mean what they say... it just may be that you disagree with it.

The other point I want to address is the issue of minority rights and the climate of aggression against minorities in the Afghan basin and in many parts of the Muslim world.

Let us this singe case that I posted somewhere else that illustrates rather vividly what the reprecussions of occupation and insurgency have been:
------------------------------------------------------------------
A practical example: here is the pre invasion approach the Taliban took to Sikhs:

"Ironically the rise to power of the hardline Islamist Taliban marked an improvement in the lives of those who remained — and some emigres even started to return.
“The Taliban did not suppress us — they respected our religion and if we had any problem they would resolve it immediately, let alone delay it until the next day,” says Singh.
Some Afghan Hindus were baffled by Western outrage at one Taliban decree — ordering them to wear a yellow tag to identify their religion — saying in practical terms it spared their clean-shaven faces from the wrath of the Taliban religious police, who insisted Muslim Afghan men must grow beards."

http://afghanhindu.wordpress.com/201...ertain-future/

Compare this with the post invasion retaliatory tactics:

"The Taliban has reportedly beheaded two Sikhs in Pakistan's lawless tribal region bordering Afghanistan and sent the heads to a gurdwara."

My point is that you will be on a Quixotic quest if you think that an occupied nation will prosper and abandon extremism (ie. a normal appearing response to confrontation) simply if a few guys get engineering degrees and medical degrees.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-religious-tax

------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that I had commented little on the case of the soldier in Panjwai here.

Why is that? Because I think your approach of telling an insurgency fighting a vastly asymmetric war using people form all walks of life who were anything from ditch diggers to engineers is going to result in a vast array of reactionary responses in different forms to stimuli.

In that same way, assuming that the introduction of the world's strongest armies into a battle field will not produce any civilian casualties or murders is like beleiving in the tooth fairy.

That is why I have a hard time demanding the head of that US Soldier.

No, I think we have to be broader and deeper in our thought processes about how to dole out guilt in such situations.

When I see the henchman that for instance killed Salman Taseer without any semblance of an Islamic trial or when I see this soldier of the Panjwai murders I see a crime for sure that was committed. Crimes also deserve punishment.

However what the gradations of the crime? What was the scenario and were their greater crimes? Do the greater crimes absolve the lesser ones since others dont committ them? Obviously the answer is no since others DONT committ them and get by just fine.

But when I set up the scales, and I am not God I see a series of larger and smaller crimes:

Large Scale Crimes:
1) Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clinton taking a group of innocent young men who were doing just fine living their lives in the world's most wealthy and powerful nation and inserting them, militarily, into a status of occupation under false pretenses while not even offering their own children to lead these battles. At least Alexander led his men to battle when he put them in harm's way. When you take a kid who grew up in Cincinnati OH (this soldier), one of the wealthier cities that is a bit more bucolic, and insert him into the war zone against a people he feels no kinship for, you are dramatically increasing the possibility that he will do what he does.
2) Mr. Gilani, Mr. Karzai, Mr. Taj Wardak, Mr. Zardari, Mr. Manmohan Singh embroiling the innocents of their countries in further warfare and occupation to make a fast buck without consenting their people in regard to the decisions they make. This inevitably compromises their people's autonomy.
3) The leaders of the Arab world who were all too willing in the 1980s to send young Arab men who they viewed as threats to their own regime to the killing fields of Afghanistan in order to secure US support indefinitly and get rid of their own internal "problems." Yet they imprisoned these same men after garlanding them and elevating them to war hero status simply because they demanded autonomy for their respective nation states (i.e. minimizing Western involvement in the Arab regions and in Arab Arab conflicts).
4) The Russians who were so paranoid about central asian block control that they rolled over a number of people and decided to ruin the lives and tribal histories of millions of people. Their initial intervention and taking the so called bait would lead to decades of conflict.
5) The United Nations and its knowingly unevenhanded approach to world conflicts that favor the strong at the expense of the weak.

Basically Havi, these folks in concert disenfranchesized so many and set the world on fire and turned war into a sick racket.

Crimes that Occured as a Result of the Above and might be considered minor relative to the massive deaths inflicted by the major players
1) The furthering of the theorized clash of civilizations due to lighting the emotional fuse of a swathe of people across the middle and far east and Latin America. Therefore all things Yankee, even if they were good became thought of as sinful, including education. Reactionary feelings dominated.
2) The soldiers and insurgents that comitt their localized crimes. These folks are minor players and were sent by the major players above. These folks would have been living their lives, loving their wives, and enjoying their children growing up had they not made the Orwellian mistake of not listening to the major players.
3) Those economically involved in the war racket, including translaters, arms producers, and NGOs with a goal of benefiting and trying to implement their social experiments (ie taking on the "white man's burden" and educating their "little brown brother" in the occupied nations).
4) The local political parties and other groups that seek to utilize the major forces to support their goals (Mr. Karzai's kin are guilty of this and the political parties in Pakistan are all betting on their race horse and are guilty of this)

Unfortunately as we can see with the NYPD spy ring and attack in a western mosque and as we can see with the recent killing of an American in Yemen these feelings of consternation are growing out of control. The masses are beginning to believe in the narrative of "the other" and become so over whelming blind to the games the world's elites have been playing.

The problem with your approach is that you are ignoring the forest to focus on the trees. This only exacerbates the problem because the occupied then view you as someone who is willing to point out the wrongs being done locally by their battalions but not point out the causal factors and the circumstances that augmented them.

Remember, just 300 years ago Ahmad Shah Abdali was allowing Hindu merchants to trade in Kandahar. Remember that just a century ago Amanullah Shah was discussing theology with Jews. Just a decade ago Christian missionaries captured by the Taliban were talking about how their captors kept them well fed and well taken care of and asked them why they were so hated and repeated told them that they loved them as people of the book. Sadly, the immediate blow back is only going to be augmented with your solutions. In order to finish this septic shock the Muslim world is in, it needs antibiotics to remove the bacterial nidus of occupation and tyranny.

In respect to Pakistan rising as a nation state, I would say that even Toramana's Central Asian United Group of Muslim States makes much more sense than the idea of Pakistan becoming a dominant force any time soon.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Also in regard to execution of the law, I repeat once again Havi, you are ignoring the fact that I can get 100 Harvard Law professors and 9 supreme court judges into 1 room and most of them will have differences of ideology in terms of the execution of American law and what the founding fathers meant by the constitution they wrote. Just as we give the complexity and interpretation of penal codes respect and we expect learned and intelligence and able people to provide a reasonable guidance for societal stability, and just as Omar Al Khattab knew when and how to execute the law of theivery, so too does Islamic law have its checks and balances. For instance, the hanging of Najib and even Saudi Royals is not something that jurists have promoted as a way to execute vigilantism. The killing of Qaddafi could have been seen in this same way. All of these folks deserve trials according to many jurists. Ijma and consensus are concepts that are not foreign to islam... yet you refuse to admit that debates need to be hand, jurists can be educated and law can be executed as per consensus.

Society reaches a point where factions realize that overwhelming force against eachother will render them weak and susceptible to outside intervention. They may put aside differences and try to reach such consensus points. The idea of the Sunni jurists in regard to Jaffari Shiites is an example of plausible evolution of thought through the ages.

In regard to what is just and what is right and what is sacred and private in teh home, as noted, these are your opinions on where limits ought to be. One case study in the US that the penal code had to approach was the issue of pornography. The original statues all were worded in a way that indicated the public standard regulated this particular field. As time went on, lawyers argued that certain standards had changed and overturned local sets of laws to allow for proliferation. As another example, the execution of the laws regarding indecent exposure have also changed in the last 100 years consistently in the US. Larger sets of economic laws, for instance the utilization of the Gold standard, were economic laws that were modified perhaps detrimentally. More recent debate centers on teh constitutionality of declaring corperations as citizens with rights.

So the issue is not necessarily a set of laws, but who executes it.

The Biblical parable of Solomon's wisdom is an example of a sort of commentary on how wise leadership can result in the execution of laws in such a way as to provide a particular outcome that may be just and suitable for all. In that parable Solomon pulled a bluff on two women arguing over a male child. Solomon told them that his decision was that the child be sawed in half. He as a prophet would never have allowed this to occur, but his reasoning was that the woman who was his real mother would never allow hurt to come to her son and that she would rather sacrifice her caretaker status than see a hair on the infants head hurt. A brutal law decision by a King? Perhaps? Would Solomon have watched an innocent child cut in half? Not likely.

Another instance was when the Caliph Omar was shouted down by women when he tried to cap dowries. He understood the limits on his power as an imam.

So once again, please respect the intricacy of Islamic law.

If you take an idiot and have him execute Hebrew Law, Islamic Law, Secular Law, and Roman Law he will likely promote idiocy irrespective of what system he utilizes. As in the examples I provided you previously, the secular system has seen lives destroyed in other ways as well.

The key isse one needs to avoid is giving a cause celebre to teh West to intervene in places like Somalia or Egypt simply because they feel that they have the right to put in place a system against the wishes of the masses. For instance, intervention overtly or covertly against the Muslim Brotherhood will yield even more blowback. Remember that Aiman Al Zawahari is a product of the Gamaal era interventions of the two duling super powers. Imagine what will come next when the powers stick their nose into an authentic Egyptian revolution? The Tahrir square liberals will basically see that what the religionists have been saying was right all along in respect to the fact that the outside Western powers will never let the people of Egypt have their independence and autonomy.

[Radiant-star]

I have no problem with secularism as long as it does not interfere the religious matters but the problem is that it does interfere and it has happened to be a parallel system to the system of God. It totally kicks out God from the daily routine matters, from the political matters, from the state matters, from the social matters, from the religious matters, from the finance matters, from the judicial matters, from the educational matters and every that matter which is relevant to the good of the human being.
Secularism has become a religion. People spending their energies for promoting secularism, they live for it, they die for it and they do whatever they can do for it.

[haviZsultan]

I disagree with a few points here Havi. Its not about debate, its about an exchange of ideas.

So I will actually start with the last point first. I think you are viewing the looking glass through the back way instead of the way that the Taliban and others that you mentioned view their struggle and their association with Islam. Dalia Mujahed and John Esposito noted that the language of Islam, and/or the associated cultures and historical references permeated their study of the Muslim world. Its not necessarily about them simply latching onto Islam for gain, but rather the fact that Islam is the closest ideology Esposito found that provides a motivation fabric. One proof Professor Jerade provides for this is the Iranian revolution and the language behind it ... he personally told me that Espositos work rings true in the fact that even the Tudeh party rode the Islamic wave alongside Khomeini as a uniting factor.

As noted, the farmers in Latin America and the folks behind Geuvara and Castro did not have the fabric of Catholicism as the Spanish American nation states really were not ruled by Christian theocratic law at any point in time. For this reason, the language of populism and marxism was something that easily united a movement. When one looks at Geuvara through the other side of the looking glass, from rebel on the one side to killer on the other, the Cuban elite viewed him as the latter due to his killing Cuban college students that aided the Batiste regime.

Basically people take on teh mantle of local ideas that comfortably provide a galvanizing force. They may legitimately say what they mean and mean what they say... it just may be that you disagree with it.

The other point I want to address is the issue of minority rights and the climate of aggression against minorities in the Afghan basin and in many parts of the Muslim world.

Let us this singe case that I posted somewhere else that illustrates rather vividly what the reprecussions of occupation and insurgency have been:
------------------------------------------------------------------
A practical example: here is the pre invasion approach the Taliban took to Sikhs:

"Ironically the rise to power of the hardline Islamist Taliban marked an improvement in the lives of those who remained — and some emigres even started to return.
“The Taliban did not suppress us — they respected our religion and if we had any problem they would resolve it immediately, let alone delay it until the next day,” says Singh.
Some Afghan Hindus were baffled by Western outrage at one Taliban decree — ordering them to wear a yellow tag to identify their religion — saying in practical terms it spared their clean-shaven faces from the wrath of the Taliban religious police, who insisted Muslim Afghan men must grow beards."

http://afghanhindu.wordpress.com/201...ertain-future/

Compare this with the post invasion retaliatory tactics:

"The Taliban has reportedly beheaded two Sikhs in Pakistan's lawless tribal region bordering Afghanistan and sent the heads to a gurdwara."

My point is that you will be on a Quixotic quest if you think that an occupied nation will prosper and abandon extremism (ie. a normal appearing response to confrontation) simply if a few guys get engineering degrees and medical degrees.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-religious-tax

------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that I had commented little on the case of the soldier in Panjwai here.

Why is that? Because I think your approach of telling an insurgency fighting a vastly asymmetric war using people form all walks of life who were anything from ditch diggers to engineers is going to result in a vast array of reactionary responses in different forms to stimuli.

In that same way, assuming that the introduction of the world's strongest armies into a battle field will not produce any civilian casualties or murders is like beleiving in the tooth fairy.

That is why I have a hard time demanding the head of that US Soldier.

No, I think we have to be broader and deeper in our thought processes about how to dole out guilt in such situations.

When I see the henchman that for instance killed Salman Taseer without any semblance of an Islamic trial or when I see this soldier of the Panjwai murders I see a crime for sure that was committed. Crimes also deserve punishment.

However what the gradations of the crime? What was the scenario and were their greater crimes? Do the greater crimes absolve the lesser ones since others dont committ them? Obviously the answer is no since others DONT committ them and get by just fine.

But when I set up the scales, and I am not God I see a series of larger and smaller crimes:

Large Scale Crimes:
1) Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clinton taking a group of innocent young men who were doing just fine living their lives in the world's most wealthy and powerful nation and inserting them, militarily, into a status of occupation under false pretenses while not even offering their own children to lead these battles. At least Alexander led his men to battle when he put them in harm's way. When you take a kid who grew up in Cincinnati OH (this soldier), one of the wealthier cities that is a bit more bucolic, and insert him into the war zone against a people he feels no kinship for, you are dramatically increasing the possibility that he will do what he does.
2) Mr. Gilani, Mr. Karzai, Mr. Taj Wardak, Mr. Zardari, Mr. Manmohan Singh embroiling the innocents of their countries in further warfare and occupation to make a fast buck without consenting their people in regard to the decisions they make. This inevitably compromises their people's autonomy.
3) The leaders of the Arab world who were all too willing in the 1980s to send young Arab men who they viewed as threats to their own regime to the killing fields of Afghanistan in order to secure US support indefinitly and get rid of their own internal "problems." Yet they imprisoned these same men after garlanding them and elevating them to war hero status simply because they demanded autonomy for their respective nation states (i.e. minimizing Western involvement in the Arab regions and in Arab Arab conflicts).
4) The Russians who were so paranoid about central asian block control that they rolled over a number of people and decided to ruin the lives and tribal histories of millions of people. Their initial intervention and taking the so called bait would lead to decades of conflict.
5) The United Nations and its knowingly unevenhanded approach to world conflicts that favor the strong at the expense of the weak.

Basically Havi, these folks in concert disenfranchesized so many and set the world on fire and turned war into a sick racket.

Crimes that Occured as a Result of the Above and might be considered minor relative to the massive deaths inflicted by the major players
1) The furthering of the theorized clash of civilizations due to lighting the emotional fuse of a swathe of people across the middle and far east and Latin America. Therefore all things Yankee, even if they were good became thought of as sinful, including education. Reactionary feelings dominated.
2) The soldiers and insurgents that comitt their localized crimes. These folks are minor players and were sent by the major players above. These folks would have been living their lives, loving their wives, and enjoying their children growing up had they not made the Orwellian mistake of not listening to the major players.
3) Those economically involved in the war racket, including translaters, arms producers, and NGOs with a goal of benefiting and trying to implement their social experiments (ie taking on the "white man's burden" and educating their "little brown brother" in the occupied nations).
4) The local political parties and other groups that seek to utilize the major forces to support their goals (Mr. Karzai's kin are guilty of this and the political parties in Pakistan are all betting on their race horse and are guilty of this)

Unfortunately as we can see with the NYPD spy ring and attack in a western mosque and as we can see with the recent killing of an American in Yemen these feelings of consternation are growing out of control. The masses are beginning to believe in the narrative of "the other" and become so over whelming blind to the games the world's elites have been playing.

The problem with your approach is that you are ignoring the forest to focus on the trees. This only exacerbates the problem because the occupied then view you as someone who is willing to point out the wrongs being done locally by their battalions but not point out the causal factors and the circumstances that augmented them.

Remember, just 300 years ago Ahmad Shah Abdali was allowing Hindu merchants to trade in Kandahar. Remember that just a century ago Amanullah Shah was discussing theology with Jews. Just a decade ago Christian missionaries captured by the Taliban were talking about how their captors kept them well fed and well taken care of and asked them why they were so hated and repeated told them that they loved them as people of the book. Sadly, the immediate blow back is only going to be augmented with your solutions. In order to finish this septic shock the Muslim world is in, it needs antibiotics to remove the bacterial nidus of occupation and tyranny.

In respect to Pakistan rising as a nation state, I would say that even Toramana's Central Asian United Group of Muslim States makes much more sense than the idea of Pakistan becoming a dominant force any time soon.

I have a book to write and I cannot get into a lengthy never ending debate... however I will say the invasion is no excuse. As the concept promoted in my book states one atrocity, usually committed to take revenge leads to an endless cycle of violence. Therefore eventually someone has to stop. I wish either the US, Taliban or our government had the brains to find a peaceful solution to a fruitless war.

By taking part in the violence and killing not even Americans but local civilians in cold blood the Taliban are cold blooded killers if anything else. There is no justification in the fact that they are part of the cycle. Anyone part of the cycle is wrong and is inevitably taking us backwards.

Also foreign occupation cannot be used as an excuse for the atrocities the militants commit, or our own people commit by hiding behind our laws like the Blasphemy law.

Meanwhile in Lahore another young mother has been charged with insulting the prophet Muhammad. Her friends insist that the charges are false, and that she was arrested after relatives became enraged by her refusal to embrace Islam.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...?storyid=13671

You cannot blame all the violence on the occupation but have to accept the intolerance of Islamists is playing a huge part in this. Why aren't women and men beheaded for adultery by Muslims in the west who are threaded into secular systems. Why only in our countries which try to follow Islamist systems as closely as possible...

Being critical of foreign occupation does not give us excuse to ignore or justify the atrocities taking place in our lands. I was the leader of the PNA. I myself suffered injustice and discrimination from the back-stabbing Canadians. That does not mean we take 'revenge' by adopting an Islamist system used as a tool of oppression against our own people. In fact its the worst thing we can do.

What is good about the current system. Laws are misused, the rich can do what they want including dance, drink etc They can even rape someone and leave her in a ditch cowering for breathe.

A Christian woman was brutally raped on Saturday afternoon in the outskirts of Lahore yesterday. Her body was found in a ditch by two workers going to their village from work.

Barely half the rapists in Pakistan have been tried. Most of them escape justice in our Islamic system. If the current system is not working how does it make sense to maintain the system? Just because of our emotions? Just because the word Islam is attached to them even if in reality it doesn't apply?

Plus this link doesn't work:
http://afghanhindu.wordpress.com/201...ertain-future/

And I highly doubt that this isn't Taliban propaganda because in the years of the civil war and Taliban rule no minorities were left in Afghanistan much less returned there. Who am I to say. I am not doubting what you say. You have proven to be an excellent debater who stands for what he believes in. Just your source.

Then lets come to the crimes. All crimes committed by foreigners which you believe to some extent caused acts of revenge from local afghans or Pakistanis. Again, I will continue to hold that an act of injustice does not mean we go blind with rage... so blind that we begin to massacre our own people on the slightest excuse. Plus we have to think of our own benefit for once.

After fighting for more than 3000 years all of Europe adopted a system that kept it away from each others necks and granted equality to all living within... not regarding how they oppressed those living abroad. At least they managed to stay united within.

Let me tell you. The westerners actually want us to be intolerant fools, to be locked at each others necks. This is the ideal situation for them. We don't develop any product or service, their products and services flood our markets ever-increasing our dependency on them... there is nothing better for the west. If we continue fighting over religion and ethnicity and don't find a better system we are ruined.

My people will never understand this because they are emotional for 'Islamic republics' and foolish laws created by Islamists that cause discrimination. They have been taught from childhood that the twisted version of the Islamic law they have been taught is the ultimate law....

If secularism is an intolerable system that leads to the degradation of Islam why are over 16 million muslims in europe. Why are 2.6 Million in US?

Brother I think the best thing to do for us is agree we have differing views. However please accept that I have only the well-being of the Islamic religion in mind when I talk about liberalizing Islam and secularizing society. Its the best solution. I will give the benefits of secularism as compared to an Islamist setup and let the people decide. I know the overwhelming majority is emotional and still does not understand the benefits.

[haviZsultan]

Also in regard to execution of the law, I repeat once again Havi, you are ignoring the fact that I can get 100 Harvard Law professors and 9 supreme court judges into 1 room and most of them will have differences of ideology in terms of the execution of American law and what the founding fathers meant by the constitution they wrote. Just as we give the complexity and interpretation of penal codes respect and we expect learned and intelligence and able people to provide a reasonable guidance for societal stability, and just as Omar Al Khattab knew when and how to execute the law of theivery, so too does Islamic law have its checks and balances. For instance, the hanging of Najib and even Saudi Royals is not something that jurists have promoted as a way to execute vigilantism. The killing of Qaddafi could have been seen in this same way. All of these folks deserve trials according to many jurists. Ijma and consensus are concepts that are not foreign to islam... yet you refuse to admit that debates need to be hand, jurists can be educated and law can be executed as per consensus.

Society reaches a point where factions realize that overwhelming force against eachother will render them weak and susceptible to outside intervention. They may put aside differences and try to reach such consensus points. The idea of the Sunni jurists in regard to Jaffari Shiites is an example of plausible evolution of thought through the ages.

In regard to what is just and what is right and what is sacred and private in teh home, as noted, these are your opinions on where limits ought to be. One case study in the US that the penal code had to approach was the issue of pornography. The original statues all were worded in a way that indicated the public standard regulated this particular field. As time went on, lawyers argued that certain standards had changed and overturned local sets of laws to allow for proliferation. As another example, the execution of the laws regarding indecent exposure have also changed in the last 100 years consistently in the US. Larger sets of economic laws, for instance the utilization of the Gold standard, were economic laws that were modified perhaps detrimentally. More recent debate centers on teh constitutionality of declaring corperations as citizens with rights.

So the issue is not necessarily a set of laws, but who executes it.

The Biblical parable of Solomon's wisdom is an example of a sort of commentary on how wise leadership can result in the execution of laws in such a way as to provide a particular outcome that may be just and suitable for all. In that parable Solomon pulled a bluff on two women arguing over a male child. Solomon told them that his decision was that the child be sawed in half. He as a prophet would never have allowed this to occur, but his reasoning was that the woman who was his real mother would never allow hurt to come to her son and that she would rather sacrifice her caretaker status than see a hair on the infants head hurt. A brutal law decision by a King? Perhaps? Would Solomon have watched an innocent child cut in half? Not likely.

Another instance was when the Caliph Omar was shouted down by women when he tried to cap dowries. He understood the limits on his power as an imam.

So once again, please respect the intricacy of Islamic law.

If you take an idiot and have him execute Hebrew Law, Islamic Law, Secular Law, and Roman Law he will likely promote idiocy irrespective of what system he utilizes. As in the examples I provided you previously, the secular system has seen lives destroyed in other ways as well.

The key isse one needs to avoid is giving a cause celebre to teh West to intervene in places like Somalia or Egypt simply because they feel that they have the right to put in place a system against the wishes of the masses. For instance, intervention overtly or covertly against the Muslim Brotherhood will yield even more blowback. Remember that Aiman Al Zawahari is a product of the Gamaal era interventions of the two duling super powers. Imagine what will come next when the powers stick their nose into an authentic Egyptian revolution? The Tahrir square liberals will basically see that what the religionists have been saying was right all along in respect to the fact that the outside Western powers will never let the people of Egypt have their independence and autonomy.

This goes far beyond the west and its interference. Neither is this about just the misuse of the laws and their execution only for the benefits of some people.

Its about our future. Our decisions will inevitably affect our future and it greatly troubles me to know we are actually going no where but deeper and deeper into decline. Neither Pakistan, nor Afghanistan can attempt to claim they are advancing with their Islamist setup's which despite being Islamist have caused an insurgency because as I said earlier everyone wants to impose his brand of Islam.

I do not believe with this statement:

So the issue is not necessarily a set of laws, but who executes it.

Official patronage and curbs set on worship during the time of later Hindu dynasties on Buddhist ones caused a decline in their culture and religion. By the time Islam came to the region the Buddhists had mostly been replaced by the Hindus particularly in the Indus.

When the law supports something or promotes something, including Islamist thought it strenthens it. In this case it is strengthening religious divisions in the country and intolerance. You gave Salman Taseers example in the last post. What caused his death. A single man or intolerance that has been bred in a puritanical Islamist society for years?

He was questioning a man-made law, not God or blaspheming... today we cannot even question it... Islamicization my friend is a one way road. Look how we can't question the misuse of the blasphemy law in fear of being shot dead. It will only lead us to stricter and stricter interpretations of Islam until each Muslim kills the other and there's no Muslim left. If this is the future we want then the current setup is best for us.

[haviZsultan]

Barakzai I think I should tell you beforehand. I may not reply to more posts on this thread... so you can reply but I cannot guarantee a response. My book is important to me and I am committed to writing at least a few 500-2000 words each day.

But I will leave you the negative points of the current Islamist system and the benefits of a Secular system... easy to read... in points.

Negative points of an Islamist system:

-Misuse of laws meant to safeguard for the personal interests of people-ie the Blasphemy law to frame innocent Muslims, Christians and Hindus on false charges of blasphemy in order to settle disputes.

An example of how this law is misused was the case of Mohammad Imran who was arrested in Faisalabad for blasphemy on the 28th of October 2007. He was falsely blamed because of a personal argument. After being arrested he was first tortured by the police, then the inmates and later he was placed in solitary confinement without anyone looking after his injuries. He was only released in April 2009 after being declared innocent.

-No laws for the rich and powerful. All laws apply for the weak. For example a rich man can drink, have sex, do whatever he wants without any fear... even rape women without ever being punished but a poor man is always punished. Is this justice?

Those before you went astray, for, when one of the committed a crime and he was a great man, they would not punish him, and when he was a poor man they would execute the punishment (Bu: 86:12)

-Differences in the belief of Islam-which Islam do we want. What do we do if some factions do not agree with the Islam we are currently following. Should it be Wahabism, Sufism, Deobandi or Hanafi Islam? How will we deal with differing interpretations which will cause more and more confusion.

-When religion gets infused into society fanaticism and terrorism are only by products. This is why religion should be a personal matter.

-Muslims killing Muslims. Again divide caused by the differences in our belief's have caused a vast divide among the Muslims. So much that it is now leading to us killing each other.

-People begin using the excuse of religion to increase their power and authority. For example there are over 30 Taliban commanders in the tribal belts each vying for power and influence. In the end the struggle for Islam becomes a cruel struggle for power and influence.

-When a country decides to judge its people by how much or how little they follow their religion it fails to focus on other important things such as science and growth. Ignoring these sectors has often led to decline in Islamic societies.

-Islamist thought can only cause more and more gradual factionalism and division as people get divided into sects and various groups. Each religious group crowds to his religious group for protection. For example the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. A man was shot for questioning a man-made law that has led to the murder of innocent muslims, christians and hindus on false charges of blasphemy. The law simply cannot be erased but it can only get worse because of Islamist influence. What is next? Declaring all Hindus Kaffir and declaring them wajib ul qatil?

-Despite trying to impose Islam for over 60 years Pakistan has miserably failed. Today the rich can get away with any crime. Bribes are taken and given with impunity and justice can be sold.

-Islamists today are keen to impose their own Islam on others. This is causing tension and is also not allowing us to focus on more important issues such as human rights and literacy.

More than a Billion Muslims live in abject poverty. Has having an "Islamic Republic" helped them in any way?

Benefits of Secularism:

-By allowing freedom and giving each man his dignity we give everyone their rights. A person has the right to believe what he or she wishes and stand for whatever he believes in. Islam itself allows us this freedom:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)]

-Secularism will not degrade Islam but will instead allow it to flourish as secularism means the equal treatment of each and every religion. By equally treating Muslims we do away with biases a non religious or non-muslim resident would suffer yet we do not discriminate against the Muslims.

-Secularism will do away with the problems in an Islamist system relating to which 'Islam' to impose when Muslims are divided into so many various sects and groups each believing something different. Here everyone will be equal.

-Secularism will disallow commanders to use religion for their own gains and power.

-Secularism will actually cause the growth of Islam and its evolution. In the past our rulers won the respect of minorities and their people and as a result Islam spread far and wide.

Taxation in the Caliphate is on excess wealth and not income, and there are no regressive taxes like VAT. The only taxes on companies are the agricultural land taxes (ushur and kharaj) that are a percentage of the agricultural produce or the land value. Non-agricultural companies do not pay this. Muslim owned companies will also pay the alms tax (zakat), but non-Muslim companies are exempt from this.

Non-Muslim men must pay a nominal tax called Jizya that gives them full citizenship rights, exempting them from National Service and taxes specific to Muslims such as zakat . Jizya is means tested and there are different bands for different levels of wealth. Caliph Omar imposed three bands for the Jizya tax - 4 dinars (£108) for the rich, 2 dinars (£54) for the middle class and 1 dinar (£27) for the poor. The Jizya tax rate is much lower than that of zakat, therefore the tax burden of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims in the Caliphate.

-Secularism will allow us to concentrate on bigger and better things. Like science, technology, culture and education which are much needed in Muslim states. Secularism has its obvious benefits because when religion is out of the equation we are not stuck on questions like the height of the shalwar.

-Today Muslims are trying to kill each other and are at each others throats. Isn't anything better than Muslims blowing Muslims up? Shouldn't we try another system, something that actually works now? According to stats around 1 Million or more Muslims were killed (Most were killed by Muslims themselves) in the past 10 years. Isn't it time to reflect and judge whether the Islamist system is actually working for us.

Now its for the people to judge whether they want to maintain their Islamist thinking or will adopt a modern thinking that will help them advance in life and do something for their religion that actually counts.