Why Secularism will Worsen Pakistan’s security situation

[PakAl]

Exactly. And if you replace Islam with secularism like some people are dying to do, instead of killing in the name of Islam the same people will kill in the name of ethnicity, which is a far bigger and more difficult problem to solve.

1971 war was between normal bangali citzens/secular leadership v Pakistan army, these people were not fundamentalists but normal people who as alleged were being oppressed and started to rebel which lead to the war, similarly how Balochis are not religious fundamentalists but as alleged are being oppressed. Its possible this is the reason why Gen Zia ul Haq started state sponsor of religious fundamentalists, the money was also paid by foreign brotherly nations, elite had their pockets full, weapons came through. The state mindset was any normal person can be brainwashed to fight against own state but these brainwashed zombies are our zombies, the end product, the zombies attacks the handlers. So they used religous people against secular people, and now want to use secular v religious people. The secular end up in ethnicities wars and religious ones with jihad wars.

 

[panzerfaust 3]

I really enjoyed reading all the comments,

In the words of a mahapurush -
We get the leaders we really deserve !

You will get the system you truly deserve ,and be sure there will be no thing such as modernity and secularism in pakistan, ( like they say it once you cross the line there's no turning back- in this case you have crossed the threshold of extremism! Reaching a point of no return)

You have no choice

 

[That_Guy]

They can follow the Hadith if they want, Quran is the final complete word of Allah and anyone opposing it can be tried by the state for blasphemy too.

Even Saudi’s are acknowledging the issues of reliability and authority of many Hadith that mullahs use for their own political agenda.

And you even saying this proves the problem with trying to impose Islam as the state religion in Pakistan.

Unlike in Saudi Arabia where 90% of the population follows a single sect, Pakistan has dozens of major sects, with millions of followers.

And that right there is what will cause violence.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Every nation has traitors, who killed Kennedy, it wasnt a Muslim.

Yes! But others managed to work around their “traitors” and hasn’t stopped them developing.

They don’t use that as an excuse.

Again I ask, what are the problems unique to Pakistan that has stalled progress.

Everyone has corruption, traitors, blah blah

But these issues don’t hinder them.

What are the issues that are unique to Pakistan?

 

[_Arabia_]

And you even saying this proves the problem with trying to impose Islam as the state religion in Pakistan.

Unlike in Saudi Arabia where 90% of the population follows a single sect, Pakistan has dozens of major sects, with millions of followers.

And that right there is what will cause violence.

If by 90% you mean various indigenous Sunni Muslim sects (Hanbalis, Shafi’s, Malikis, Hanafis, Sufis, Salafis), you are right.

Make that 80-85% as the rest are Shias (Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis). Practically the only major Islamic sect not found within KSA is Ibadism but that is present in fairly large numbers next door in Oman.

So obviously the number or singularity of sects should play no role in any comparisons here. Much more to do with education, economics, law and order (stability), opportunities, strong and effective government, clerics appointed/controlled by the state, ethnic homogeneity by large (the many non-local communities in terms of ethnic groups and races have since time immortal been intermarrying with locals and adopting local customs with few exceptions) and simply on average a better understanding of Islam. Which again is tied to culture and education.

 

[PakAl]

And you even saying this proves the problem with trying to impose Islam as the state religion in Pakistan.

Unlike in Saudi Arabia where 90% of the population follows a single sect, Pakistan has dozens of major sects, with millions of followers.

And that right there is what will cause violence.

That's not correct. Saudi Arabia has Shia population, in Hijaz its mainly Malikis and in Riyadh areas they have Hanbalis/salafis. Today minority salafis are in power who some people refer to as hanbalis. Recently Bin Salman is trying to bring others in to important positions aswell in order to give everyone rights. Before AlSaud took power it was Malikis in power for centuries and held all important positions of power such as Imam Makka and Imam Kaba.

 

[PakAl]

If by 90% you mean various indigenous Sunni Muslim sects (Hanbalis, Shafi’s, Malikis, Hanafis, Sufis, Salafis), you are right.

Make that 80-85% as the rest are Shias (Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis). Practically the only major Islamic sect not found within KSA is Ibadism but that is present in fairly large numbers next door in Oman.

So obviously the number or singularity of sects should play no role in any comparisons here. Much more to do with education, economics, law and order (stability), opportunities, strong and effective government, clerics appointed/controlled by the state, ethnic homogeneity by large (the many non-local communities in terms of ethnic groups and races have since time immortal been intermarrying with locals and adopting local customs with few exceptions) and simply on average a better understanding of Islam. Which again is tied to culture and education.

Is it true majority of Saudis are malikis in fiqh, especially around makka and Madina. I love Sheikh Alawi al Maliki Rahimullah, he was former Imam of Makka. His funeral prayer was one of the biggest.

 

[That_Guy]

If by 90% you mean various indigenous Sunni Muslim sects (Hanbalis, Shafi’s, Malikis, Hanafis, Sufis, Salafis), you are right.

Make that 80-85% as the rest are Shias (Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis). Practically the only major Islamic sect not found within KSA is Ibadism but that is present in fairly large numbers next door in Oman.

So obviously the number or singularity of sects should play no role in any comparisons here. Much more to do with education, economics, law and order (stability), opportunities, strong and effective government, clerics appointed/controlled by the state, ethnic homogeneity by large (the many non-local communities in terms of ethnic groups and races have since time immortal been intermarrying with locals and adopting local customs with few exceptions) and simply on average a better understanding of Islam. Which again is tied to culture and education.

Hanbalis, Shafi’s, Malikis, Hanafis aren't sects.

They're schools of thought and don't consider each other to be necessarily wrong.

Regardless, I do agree in large part with what you're saying.

 

[That_Guy]

That's not correct. Saudi Arabia has Shia population, in Hijaz its mainly Malikis and in Riyadh areas they have Hanbalis/salafis. Today minority salafis are in power who some people refer to as hanbalis. Recently Bin Salman is trying to bring others in to important positions aswell in order to give everyone rights. Before AlSaud took power it was Malikis in power for centuries and held all important positions of power such as Imam Makka and Imam Kaba.

I think you need to re-read my comment. I never said there were no Shia in KSA.

 

[Cookie Monster]

It’s not that Pakistani, Indian, or Bangladeshi Muslims are unaware of their Hindu ancestry—they just refuse to acknowledge it. As I mentioned earlier, there’s a stigma attached to being a forced convert. No South Asian Muslim would claim to be Arab in front of an actual Arab, but in South Asia, they will claim to be an Arab.

U r just a hateful creature parroting the same hateful things against Muslims that I see all the rest of ur kind spreading everywhere. Islam makes it abundantly clear that from the Islamic(and Jewish/Christian) point of view…it has always been the one true God, Adam/Eve, Satan, etc…
…all the idol worshipping and straying from the path came from time to time in all parts of the world throughout time. Prophets were sent to guide ppl back on the righteous path all over the world. So ALL modern day Jews, Christians, Muslims…can most likely trace back to some idol worshipping ancestors. The same applies to Arabs…

There is no stigma in conversion. Muslims welcome a conversion of a non Muslim.

Forced converts? Do you have any evidence or scholarly work that somehow confirms your claim of South Asian Muslims being "forced converts"? Who forcibly converted them exactly? I can tell you that Arabs did not force them so who did it? The Mughals? You are writing nonsense again.

You are also talking about South Asian Muslims like they were/are one people. Not the case. A Pakistani Muslim is probably closer genetically to Middle Eastern people than Bangladeshi Muslims. At least the Baloch and Pashtuns. Look wise also.

Pakistanis and Indians are not the same people either. To begin with Indians are a recent creation (1947) and made up by many races, ethnic groups etc. What has a Punjabi Indian to do with an Indian from Kerala or an Indian Bengali or an Indian Dravidian from the South? You guys are more different from within than an Arab from Oman is to an Arab from Morocco. You even speak totally different languages.

I think your idea/concept of 1 united South Asia never existed.

Anyway ending it here as we are off-topic.

There aren’t any forced conversions(except maybe few fringe cases of some power hungry king gone mad somewhere back in time). In fact a forced conversion doesn’t really count per Islam. In order for someone to embrace Islam and be Muslim…he/she has to wholeheartedly accept it without compulsion.

He is just spreading the same old lies of “Islam was spread with the sword”…
…if this was the case…Islam wouldn’t have flourished in Indonesia/Malaysia…as no Islamic empire throughout history invaded/occupied them. All of these hateful Hindus would’ve been wiped out over centuries of Muslim rule in India if Islam was spread forcefully…the fact they are in the majority in the subcontinent to this day makes their lies fall flat.

I respect your responses to this Hindu c*mstain on a Lindu. I enjoy your posts as we’ve had good discussion in the past.

I am one of those ethnic Pakistanis who are also Seyyid. Think @Cookie Monster might have put it more effectively on another post about Seyyids in Pakistan.

Due to the civil strife after Karbala, many Seyyids (not all) did migrate towards Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India. But not everyone who claims to be Seyyid is actually one. It’s also used as a name and honorific title. Not to deviate from this good discussion, but the truth is not as simple.

I said this many years ago on the previous forum while explaining this to another brain dead Indian Hindu, they think we claim To be Arab, Turk, and Persian because we follow Islam very closely. Reading the Quran in Arabic, praying 5x day, observing the Islamic holidays. To an extremist Hindu (regardless of their education), they view this as SA Muslims trying to be something that they are not.

Whenever I’ve come across Muslims in other countries in the Middle East, I can’t emphasis enough that there is a deep connection between on the mere account of being Muslims. It’s like meeting your brothers after years of separation. Not a single time a religious discussion was had. There was no need for one. From Algerians to Jordanians to Egyptians to Qataris to Saudis to Iranians. This while myself being Shia, there was not a single issue between us (knowing that some of them were “Sunni.” Just putting it in perspective for others.

Additionally, to these extremist Hindus, so many Muslims in lands they mistakenly believe belongs to Pagans and Hindus, were worse than invaders, were traitor for giving up our previous pagan religions.

My dad side is Seyyid (and genetically it shows), whereas my mom is more local background (also shows somewhat).

They don’t get the difference between lineage…and genetic make up. They are two different things…
…but bcuz they can confuse ppl with that and spread their lies…they continue to spread such falsehoods.
There are some Muslims in Pakistan(and I assume in India/BD) who trace back their lineage to some respected figure in Islam.

This doesn’t mean their genetic make up is that of an Arab. This is not how tracing a lineage works. They could very well have that one Arab ancestor…but the remaining 99% ppl on the list generation after generation would be native(and this doesn’t even include the mothers, grandmothers, etc. which would also be native).
The point of such a “Shajra-e-nasb” isn’t to show that u r an Arab. It is a point of pride to have some respected figure as ur ancestor.

I have no issue with Pakistanis claiming to be Arabs. In fact, we Indians would be quite happy if they identified as Arabs instead of Indians in the West.

This is again…another one of ur lies…
I live in the US and I have met many Pakistanis. I have explored much of the US…and I have NEVER once come across a Pakistani pretending to be Indian. In fact overseas Pakistanis tend to be more nationalistic than the average Pakistani living in Pakistan. In Pakistan they may cling more to ethnic stuff like Punjabi, Baloch, etc…but here they highlight more the fact that they are Pakistani.

It is not Pakistanis who are ruining Indian name…Indians do it themselves by being creeps, thinking themselves overly smart, and of course the widespread scamming. Go back to ur day job of killing rats u street shitter.

 

[_Arabia_]

Is it true majority of Saudis are malikis in fiqh, especially around makka and Madina. I love Sheikh Alawi al Maliki Rahimullah, he was former Imam of Makka. His funeral prayer was one of the biggest.

Shafi’’i’s actually but many Malikis as well. Hanbalis are well represented everywhere in KSA and it is the official state fiqh. But in the last 8-10 years, even during the King Abdullah era, other Sunni madahib have been more included and now the situation better reflects the actual numbers of local adherences and the rich diversity. Hanbalis are still the dominant group though in the clergy but MbS/new establishment wants each region to be represented by their clergy. MbS was also the one that dealt a well-deserved death blow to the remnants of the Sahwa era.

 

[_Arabia_]

Hanbalis, Shafi’s, Malikis, Hanafis aren't sects.

They're schools of thought and don't consider each other to be necessarily wrong.

Regardless, I do agree in large part with what you're saying.

My wording was wrong, they are madahib not sects per se but many Muslims treat those various schools of thought as separate sects which is wrong if you ask me. In reality there is little difference between all recognised/traditional Sunni and Shia schools. Salafis and Sufis (mainstream) also have very small differences overall. Humans are just wired to obsess over the smallest differences be it sect, religion, politics, ethnicity, race or whatever due to the inherent tribalism of humans. I was always against the recent monopolistic position of Hanbalis in KSA because it did not reflect the overall society as a whole. Nothing against Hanbalis or Hanbalism, I just prefer to have a reflective representation and KSA has a very rich diversity on numerous fronts that is often forgotten and instead it is put into 1 or 2 boxes and generalised. Personally I come from a Shafi’i background for what it is worth but it really plays no role.

 

[That_Guy]

Of course you can play favorites. You just have to behead some of the non-favorites

And thats the sad truth.

 

[Pataliputra]

We are not the ones claiming to be the origin of aryans who invaded Europe, nor do we follow a caste system revolving around ancestry like you do.

Stop projecting and scram. Your highest caste, ‘Brahmin’, is literally a cheap insult akin to ‘chamar’ in Pakistan. We could not care less about your genetic mental gymnastics.

This obsession with Arab identity is more pronounced among Punjabi Muslim converts, as they experienced repeated colonization by Afghans, Turks, Iranians, and Arabs, who plundered their lands. A brief period of relief came during the rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who not only protected the wealth and women of Punjabi Muslims from the predatory Afghan Pashtun forces but also avenged the deaths of their ancestors.

 

[شَاھِین شَاہِ لَولَاک]

Pakistan is literally a secular country. what is so Islamic about Pakistan???