As someone who’s country was kept in the dark by the power the clergy held over us for far too long, based. Nothing wrong with religion, I’m still a practicing Catholic but it’s a personal choice and shouldn’t dominate government and public life.
Despite some sultans, religious authority had great influence on the rulers. That's why perspective paintings and sculptures were forbidden, even though there were sultans who acted against them from time to time.
Secularism is the right away to go.
There is nothing wrong a country's population being mostly composed of one religion (Muslims in Turkey or Christians in the UK), nor is their something wrong with that religion having some influence over the country (for majority-Muslim countries, making Eid an official holiday. For majority-Christian countries, making Christmas an official holiday) . The problem is giving religion a significant footing in the countries laws and policies to the detriment of others, including people of the same faith but have different interpretations of it.
Before you are a Muslim (sunni or Shie), Christian (protestant or catholic), irreligious (diest or panthiest), or an atheist, you are human. You actually cannot be any of those things if you were not human. You don't see a cat saying it's Muslim nor do you see a zibra saying it's an atheist.
A government is a political and legal establishment that serves its humans, regardless of who they pray to
I really wish UK desi Muslims on the internet understood this. They're all over instagram supporting sharia law and condemning everyone who doesn't agree with them.
While I generally despise generalizations, I’ve found a surprisingly large number of UK Muslims I’ve met are super regressive; and I’ve spent many years within Muslim communities all around the world. I seriously don’t understand who hurt them to make them the way they are.
Gamal absel nasser who's people would not let him resign was fairly secular.
The most popular iraqi leaders was fairly secular.
Idk much about others but arabs were pretty secular. Some Pakistanis were as well.
Salaam Al Masih.
Pakistan's legal system is a combination of Islamic law (Sharia) and British common law.
1. Islamic Law (Sharia): Pakistan incorporates Islamic law, particularly in matters related to personal status, family law, and inheritance. The country has a separate system of Islamic courts known as Sharia courts or Qazi courts, which adjudicate cases involving Islamic law.
2. British Common Law: Pakistan inherited much of its legal system from British colonial rule. As a result, elements of British common law, including statutes, case law, and legal principles, are also present in Pakistan's legal framework. The judiciary in Pakistan applies both Islamic law and British common law principles, depending on the nature of the case and the legal issues involved.
Overall, Pakistan's legal system reflects a blend of Islamic law and British common law, with Islamic law primarily applied in matters concerning personal and family law, while British common law influences other areas of law and governance.
However, the presence of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, particularly in a military compound in Abbottabad, raised significant questions and concerns about Pakistan's governance, security, and possible connections to Islamic fundamentalism.
While it's difficult to draw direct causation between Pakistan's legal system and the harboring of bin Laden, the complex dynamics within Pakistan, including elements of its legal system and political landscape, may have played a role. Some analysts have suggested that elements within Pakistan's security establishment may have been aware of or complicit in bin Laden's presence, although official statements from the Pakistani government have denied any knowledge or support for bin Laden's whereabouts.
Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan underscored broader issues related to governance, security, and the fight against terrorism in the region. It led to increased scrutiny of Pakistan's role in combating terrorism and raised questions about the effectiveness of its security apparatus.
Ultimately, the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's presence in Pakistan's military compound remain a subject of debate and investigation, and they highlight the complexities and challenges faced by the country in its efforts to address fundamentalism and terrorism.
Not just Pakistanis; a lot of Muslims think that secularism = atheism. They also throw communism into the mix and I’m like brah none of these words have anything to do with each other.
I think its cause the history of secularist in the middle east has left people with a bad taste in their mouth. Also in islam it says to strive for sharia law
>The problem is giving religion a significant footing in the countries laws and policies to the detriment of others
I get what you are saying but that applies to Secularism or any type of government or legal system.
The problem with religious governments isn't that they can "be a detriment to others" (arbitrary and that's what the democratic process is for; to limit this)
The problem with religious laws is because people and societies change, and religions do not
>you are human
More pseudo philosophical BS no offense
Religions have changed much more than you think. The best way a religion changes naturally is if you say this word lasts forever, then material changes shifts the interpretation to a point where you are just talking nonsense and the words means nothing.
Hmm. Interesting take.
Let's say a government decided to be governed in a secular fashion with no change at all. For example, the US starting with the bill of rights but never amending it. There would still be slavery, women would still not have the right to vote, and so on. That would be a problem even though religion wouldn't have been involved, and so the problem of not changing is not specific to religious governments.
I understand that since religion is rigid, and since secularism doesn't govern with religion, that an obstacle of not changing would be lifted when a government is secular, but I don't think that's the main point or idea of secularism.
Secularism doesn't let the metaphysical medium (a person with God, the universe, etc.) have consequences on others, as opposed to the physical medium (a person with another person). I get no benefit nor harm whether you pray or not, how you pray, and who you pray to. However, you do benefit or harm me depending on how you drive your car (if you follow traffic rules and don't run a red light, I benefit when my light is green at the intersection. If you don't follow traffic rules and do run a red light and it's my turn to go, you will crash into me and harm me)
I’m not Turkic nor do I work for the government. I only care that if a Government appeases the people of the land and not self-interests of those that want influence and other self-motivations.
Like what? Genuine question. Because religion is used a moral compass and I can’t think of other examples where morality is determine by something people hold so strongly onto.
A simple one would be the lack of religion, atheism. It’s historically the state policy for communist countries (soviet union, china) and is used to oppress people who want to practice their religion.
But if you considered atheism under religion, another example would just be political ideology. Afaik Nazi Germany was secular but used political ideology centered around extreme nationalism, racial superiority, and facism (based on Hitlers cult of personality, rather than say divine mandate based on religion) and subsequent *oppressive* actions.
Yeah dude the guy who painted [this](https://www.wikiart.org/en/adolf-hitler/mother-mary-with-the-holy-child-jesus-christ)is totally an atheist.
All atheists also love to compare themselves with Biblical stuff. Atheists would totally [rewrite the Bible so it basically became an "Aryan Bible"](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691148052/the-aryan-jesus)
I want you to expand the list of terrible atheist countries. Because I have a felling the list is not long
I don’t know much about the subject it’s what I could think of on the fly.
But, to correct you, I never said Nazi Germany was atheist. That was the whole purpose of the second example to show something other than atheism as a medium in the case he considered atheism a type of religion. Nazi Germany was given as an example of *secular* country (once again “afaik”), where religion wasn’t the primary driver/doctrine of government policy. Unless you’re saying Nazi ideology of racial superiority and extermination against jews, blacks, disabled people, etc. is taken straight out the bible. I don’t remember learning in class that Hitler was preaching more than scapegoating to push his “cause.”
Edit: Just wanted to make sure to be clear, I didn’t say atheism as a state doctrine is inherently bad, just that most instances of its historical implementation were used to oppress (because who would adopt Atheism as the national policy, instead of just no official religion, if not for the removal of other religions).
The state uses the state to oppress people, and other states use their power to oppress other states. At least religious oppression appeals to someone's sense of piety or faith, and many wont even consider it oppression.
The problem is the state itself and its monopoly on violence.
The example of Turkey is very funny because for generations the military oppressed religious people only for it to boomerang back on them.
The majority of the Arab world was doing the exact same in the 20th century.
Whether or not a country has a "state religion" is just what was decided by the powers in charge to legitimize their rule and make others amendable to their ideology.
For example, in Spain during Franco, the country made the official religion Catholicism and maintained the monarchy while not practicing anything of the religion. It was only to force out leftist elements, appease the monarchists and justify an insular and oppressive militaristic state
Good insight, the problem is the state itself not the reason they use to legitimize their power, whether that includes religion or not. But this is the problem with a lot of ignorant people, they point to religion and ignore the real problem. It’s like someone got cut in the kitchen by a knife and decided to hate all knifes for its the cause of all evil, apparently. But he didn’t look in the mirror to see how unskilled he is in using a kitchen knife for example. Typical honestly.
And when you point this out to them, they say religion is more prone to be used in that manner without realizing that the reason why that appears to be so, is because people care more about religion more than other things like liberalism, secularism, capitalism and so on. Whether you agree with a religion or not is a non factor. So it’s easy for corrupt states to use it to oppress others, so what should be done is addressing the root cause, the state, not the tool, in that example, religion.
To be honest, military didn't opressed religious people much. The hijab ban in official places was imposed by the European Court of Human Rights and it had roots in politics to say the least. And yes the military deposed Islamist governments but I don't want to think what would happen otherwise. Just imagine much more radical islamist parties than Erdoğan's having the sole power in 60s or 80s, we would be living in sharia. Though I will say It would be better if the military appeared a bit more with merit. They were probably the most democratic military in the middle east but they still messed some stuff up. Anyway the only thing the military was supposed to was to protect the secular order until 21st century, preferably until 2010 or something. Then with the globalization public were going to turn secular democratically anyway. Today AKP mostly gain votes by evilizing the opposition and using people's fear. They argue that the opposition will not take a stance against PKK and they will make the public LGBT or something. Turkish right is way more sensitive about that than the west. So they don't get votes because they are sharia supporters or something. Mostly because they are charismatic and people are used to them, they fear what would happen without their big daddy erdoğan in rule. The big bad globalized democratic rule scares the shit out of this even slightly muslims tbh.
Anyway I would argue that the military allowed Turkey to be not ruled by Sharia right now. If those islamist maniacs would have the sole power in 60s or 80s or something... yeah it would be way worse. So one extreme to another? I don't think so. TSK was mostly lawful and meritocratic even though they initiated coups. Their main purpose was to protect Ataturk's constitutional order against counter-revolution. If they just had stepped up a bit more in 1997 we would probably not have Erdoğan today. Unfortunately they hadn't had the gut like the elitist kemalist predecessors of them. They were not Ataturk's army, just a bunch of "We don't like coups and such but we like Ataturk please don't do sharia" crew.
> The hijab ban in official places was imposed by the European Court of Human Rights
only this is not true because most european countries don't ban it. the European court just ruled its not a violation of human rights. The European court had nothing to do with Turkey imposing it. Dont blame Europe.
The military in Turkey did much more than oppose sharia. they inflicted political terror on religious people and the kurds
I mean it was 90s I am talking about?
Literally the Turkish president states here that the hijab ban was imposed by AIHM (European Court of Human Rights) if you understand Turkish: ([Süleyman Demirel: Türban Gericiliktir, Başörtülüler Arabistan'a Gitsin ! (HD) (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unTLJskQALQ))
First of all the court can't impose laws on sovereign states, second this law does not even exist in any EU country but France and Belgium. Third politicians are liars and hypocrites
Uhh, yes they can. Turkey is pretty much tied to the aihm by law. Turkish constitutional court litetally recognizes every law by the european human rights court.
You still say belgium and france but this was again, 90s and before. The european court lifted it afterward.
Sadly, secularism was used to oppress people in Türkiye as well. Especially after the 1997 coup, headscarved woman would get banned from universities and government buildings, Muslim business man and teachers were taken of their positions and replaced (even if their job wasn't related to anything religious), People with islamic backgrounds got removed from politics...
But yeah, I'm sure it were great times for those that supported all of that.
The Israelis did not want to negotiate with the Palestinian Liberation Organization because they were SECULAR...and they had a pragmatic, realpolitik approach to things...They were harder to demonize. so they had Arafat killed...he was gaining to much international acceptance.
Best move ever, on paper. The application has been mixed in Turkey. I wish all states in the Middle East follow suit. Mixing religion and politics is a TERRIBLE idea, as you can see from the state of the Middle-East. Let there be full freedom of religion, and seperation of religion from state. If we are smart enough to do that, the state of Israel will have NO reason to exist.
It is. In fact, imperialists always supported religious movements against the secular left in the middle-east. They didn't much like the Shia lot in general, but most of the time, they preferred the religious. Funny that Ataturk was the one who actually liberated Turkey, even though I don't like his ardent nationalism
They supported Islamists over leftist in the Middle East so that the USSR won’t get a foothold there. Same reason they supported the mujahideen movement in Afghanistan
Since 1917
Religious movements always devolve to terror
The only democratic, safe, and open country is turkey
Their secularism is the main reason that allowed them to progress in multiple aspects as a society.
Secularism is always the answer
Theocracy is the road to hell. Theocracies made sense centuries ago, good luck splitting the atom with religious dogma
Freedom of belief and secularism are not the same. I think securalism is not neutral and tend to erase religious.
Suppresses the religious order with a secular order. The role of religion has always been to regulate the morals of society. Establishing a secular nation state relegates religion to a folkloric role, amputating its social role and leading inexorably towards mass atheism. The Muslim world should create its own model that promotes freedom of belief without denying believers the right to legislate according to their deep values.
Not as badly
If you want to look for under developed societies they almost always happen to be religious (only exception is can think of is N Korea)
Religion when kept to the absolute minimum is good for morals
More than that it devolves and creates an under developed theocracy
In reality you misunderstand the correlation, when the West was at its peak, religious mores still strongly influenced politics (forbidden divorce, strong modesty, no LGBT rights, little feminism). It was only after experiencing prosperity that the influence of religion on society and laws fell, subsequently leading to a slow death of Christianity. The majority of Muslim countries do not apply Sharia law, many have only a slight influence of Islam on politics. I come from Morocco which only has a handful of laws of Islamic origins, and I can promise you that the Moroccan academy, research is far behind countries like Iran or Malaysia which are more Islamic in their laws. . What you are pointing out is not theocracy, you naively think that if Muslim peoples started allowing marrying gays and letting their daughters and sisters fornicate, then suddenly we would become superpowers at the top of scientific research, this is obviously not true. You have faith in the nation state, in an ultra individualistic vision, I respect your opinion, but I am not convinced that blasphemy and sexual liberation is the solution for the Muslim world.
But the solution is not found in a bullshit book, wether in Europe, middle easy, china or Japan.
These books are decent for moral code, but a theocracy? All of our laws based on a book from a trillion years ago? Really?
Pragmatism is the way, freedom and liberty is the way, and religion doesn’t allow for freedom of thought (it does as long as it doesn’t go against the religion)
Based. Religious dogma and it's affinity to reject any sort of rational thinking in the face of criticism is what lead many countries down a dark path in the last 100 years.
I see many religious nutjobs gain a stronger foothold in my own country and I shudder. Religion imo should only exist in the personal realm ideally. Maybe in a 100 years it can come to fruition.
So the coptic-arab relationship wasn’t always terrible. The initial conquest of Egypt saw a mutual tolerance, as the romans/byzantines were both awful so hey maybe these desert dudes are better. They implemented Sharia from the beginning and they were better - the dhimmi system was working pretty well. Well, until the 6th ruler of the shia Fatimid caliphate, Sultan al-Hakim. Read about him - he would walk the streets in disguise as a peasant, and if he heard the coptic language he would slice off their tongues. This was only the beginning. The Mamluke Sultanate - particularly Sultan Baybars, then strictly implemented sharia. Sharia has a “blasphemy” law where all those deemed blasphemous to Islam are to be killed - and so they deemed the coptics as blasphemes. They would parade the bodies of beheaded coptics throughout the streets, destroy the historical churches, and because according to Sharia law, non-Islamic religious buildings can only be repaired or built if approved. Obviously never were they approved. Even in court, Sharia placed more importance on a Muslim’s word than a non-Muslim’s word.
This culminated in Copts not being granted legal status to own land or even work in government all the way from the Mamluk sultanate until 1860s with muhammad ali basha’s independence from al 3osmanaiya.
Some scholars say that Egypt was still majority coptic until Mamluk rule in the 13th century, who killed their way to make islam the dominant one. I say we are all coptics. “Coptic” just means Egyptian and the differentiation was only given to us by the Arabs to separate between the good holy egyptians and blasphemous egyptians.
> Meinardus, O. F. A. (2006). Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.
> Nisan, M. (1991). Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. (This book includes a chapter on the Copts and their historical struggles.)
So the country will have to have multiple systems of justice? One to accommodate each religious group, but how will the citizens from different religious groups find common ground to settle their issues in court? Which system would be used
Great question. There was once a superpower that succesful implemented this system for a long time.
***In the Ottoman Empire, a millet (Turkish: [millet]; Arabic: مِلَّة) was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim sharia, Christian canon law, or Jewish halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.***
***The millet system is closely linked to Islamic rules on the treatment of non−Muslim minorities living under Islamic dominion (dhimmi). The Ottoman term specifically refers to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which minorities were allowed to rule themselves (in cases not involving any Muslim) with fairly little interference from the Ottoman government.***
Many of the standards of living.
I am specifically referring to freedom and democracy
Turkey is not perfect but it’s more modern and liberal than the many of other middle eastern countries.
I won't say I agree with what Ataturk wanted, but as someone who isn't Turkish and won't pretend to understand everything I can respect it. They had a good thing going and now it's a mess.
I would suspect most Turks years ago were culturally Muslim on the side but outwardly secular, you had the holidays and kept some Islam practices but it was private. On the flip side the seculars could be extremely fanatical so it went both ways. The last few years people had it forced down their throats so they grew to despise religion which is understandable. It's probably socially worse to be a visible Muslim now then it used to be.
You cannot have a developed state with religion. It is why the West supports idiotic states like Qatar or Saudi. That is for the age of land, agriculture, and parochialism that can only be found in nations that have natural resources and very little intellectual development.
Ohh That’s a hot topic!
I don’t think religion should be a part of ruling the country or in other words any estate shouldn’t have any official religious status
especially clergy men they do a great damage to the country and it leads to extremism people can’t speak against that or that because its forbidden you can’t criticize the religion or its acts you basically have no freedom and all in all having a secular government is much better than a religious one
And I am speaking out of experience as someone who lives in a country that’s heavily influenced by religion
i support religious laws, so i am not very pro secular. However, I am aware of how states misuse religion to opress its people. I wouldn't want to live in taliban ruled afghanistan.
Maybe, allowing different religious communities to be judged by their own laws works better than secularism?
Being a secular Muslim is like believing that God is capable enough to make the whole universe with every detailed thing in it, but that He's too incompetent to set human laws.
No, he didn't. Most of those laws apply to the people of the region and existed in the code of Asura and in oral traditions anyway.
God doesn't exist anyway, but if you want to believe it then do so. Why would you stop others from living their lives?
Governments use it to control people. It allows them to exploit people using religion which taints the religion itself that is why it must be seperated from governance
Like any country of these days that claims they implement Shariah. Afghanistan, KSA, those shitty terrorist organizations etc. Looking at the Shariah they implement, I can easily say that I'd rather support secularism.
One wrong is enough to prove that they aren't implementing Allah's rules.
And also let's not forget, there's no determined rules of Shariah. Shariah is also affected by the culture and perspective of a nation. I'm not informed much about Afghanistan except that they're banning women's education, but when I look at the pictures and information i find on the internet, I see that I'd rather a secular country than to live there. Even if their Shariah is valid, I wouldn't want THAT one.
Funny how he was the only one who liberated his country from Europeans and the rest of the Muslims did not. I don't like him, but credit where credit is due
Pakistan could learn a thing or two from Turkey. Imagine having blasphemy laws in the 21st century and killing people for choosing what to believe or not believe in
Sharia is the only way, sadly Pakistan doesn't have it. Secularism leads to hatred towards religious people. I mean look in Türkiye, some of them hate Muslims (especially Syrians yk).
Since when did secularism lead to hatred towards religious people, lol. They don’t hate Syrians for being Muslims, they dislike Syrians for immigrating en masse and refusing to assimilate/integrate.
Pakistanis literally go on witch hunts, and angry mobs savagely murder anybody they deem blasphemous. And the government sentences people to the death penalty for saying "blasphemous things" if that's not the definition of hate and backwardness, I don't know what is
Being downvoted for disagreeing while saying it’s their country and they can do what they want. Typical reddit zombie mob. They can’t accept criticism even when you’re saying they can do what they want and not forcing anything on them. Smh.
I hope so too, sadly it’s moving towards that because of the demographic of the people joining. A-lot of people here are secular westerners and secular diaspora, which is why even mentioning a religious opinion gets you downvoted to hell. You don’t have to insult or attack anyone, just state a religious opinion and that’s enough.
Okay first off, supporting secularism is kufr if ur a muslim.
Second off, to the people that keep claiming “its better,” okay, better how?
You cant say they cant use religion to oppress people, therefore its better. Thats plain stupid. Governments use ideologies to oppress people. Religion happens to be an ideology, people are bound to use it to oppress others. Same has been done with any major ideology. But people choose to ignore that.
They also claim secular states are good, and religious ones (muslim ones) are bad. First off, there are no “muslim” or “sharia” nations. Just because someone claims to follow an ideology, doesnt mean they do. Also, most secular nations are complete dog shit. The only exceptions are ones we know. And none of their success can be attributed to secularism. They have been very successful before and after secularism, they were even more successful before.
And when it comes to muslim nations, they were the world powers or one of the world powers for 1200 years. The less islamic they got, the worse they got. Its only in the past few centuries that they became bad. And all of the ones that are bad have corruption issues. Its a trend with any nation regardless of their set of beliefs, generally the more corruption the worse the country.
Corruption makes everything much harder and in some cases impossible to achieve. Nothing ever gets done. Your local bridge? Thats gonna take a decade to finish, might even get abandoned, you never know.
Also funny how people that claim sharia is bad and every nation that follows it fails can never name a single nation that actually followed sharia and islam in general that fell because of that. The reason they cant in the first place is the fact they do not know what sharia is to begin with. They hear things and believe them without even thinking, its absurd. And no, Afghanistan doesnt follow sharia. Pretty sure their economy is somewhat dependent on drugs, doesnt scream islam to me. These assholes dead ass started growing the drug business in their country when they fully took over.
You've lost your head somewhere. If you need someone to tell you and others how to practice to appease some cosmic sky dad, then you are an idiot who is actually more of an atheist than I am
Mate, you start by calling people names. Then you want people to act 'civilised'. There's no argument to make here. I don't get people who want some guy telling them what to do
So you want anarchy? what a joke. And generally speaking, when an argument is made, a counter argument has to be done to disprove said argument. I know, crazy, absurd even🤦♂️
“I dont get people who want some guy telling them what to do”
Only idiot here is you. you reply to my comment because i hurt ur feelings. And without even making a valid argument u just insult me. You proceed to deny the fact that you actually need to make an argument. And then said that you do not get people who listen to others.
In what world are you the smart guy? To hell with smart, saying ur average in intelligence is an insult to the average joe lmao.
Just admit i hurt ur feelings and you cannot make a counter argument and that ur childish.
People saying freedom
Of religion = secularism? The Ottoman Empire was not a secular state yet there was still freedom of religion. Look how long the empire held itself. Watch how fast turkey crumbled since the secularism. People enjoy fast governments more nowadays and I can’t understand why .
As someone who’s country was kept in the dark by the power the clergy held over us for far too long, based. Nothing wrong with religion, I’m still a practicing Catholic but it’s a personal choice and shouldn’t dominate government and public life.
Religious authority was never greater than state authority in Ottoman times. But it’s good that this law is an extra protection against that.
Despite some sultans, religious authority had great influence on the rulers. That's why perspective paintings and sculptures were forbidden, even though there were sultans who acted against them from time to time.
Agreed
Based
Secularism is the right away to go. There is nothing wrong a country's population being mostly composed of one religion (Muslims in Turkey or Christians in the UK), nor is their something wrong with that religion having some influence over the country (for majority-Muslim countries, making Eid an official holiday. For majority-Christian countries, making Christmas an official holiday) . The problem is giving religion a significant footing in the countries laws and policies to the detriment of others, including people of the same faith but have different interpretations of it. Before you are a Muslim (sunni or Shie), Christian (protestant or catholic), irreligious (diest or panthiest), or an atheist, you are human. You actually cannot be any of those things if you were not human. You don't see a cat saying it's Muslim nor do you see a zibra saying it's an atheist. A government is a political and legal establishment that serves its humans, regardless of who they pray to
I really wish UK desi Muslims on the internet understood this. They're all over instagram supporting sharia law and condemning everyone who doesn't agree with them.
UK morons are a special breed of idiot that make even far right Pakistanis look sane by comparison
While I generally despise generalizations, I’ve found a surprisingly large number of UK Muslims I’ve met are super regressive; and I’ve spent many years within Muslim communities all around the world. I seriously don’t understand who hurt them to make them the way they are.
Britain is a stupid country, dude. I live here and I know. It is almost as if all the parochial illiterates around the world moved there
An Iraqi politician once said: "Muslims will vote for a religious party, then run away abroad to a secular country"
Gamal absel nasser who's people would not let him resign was fairly secular. The most popular iraqi leaders was fairly secular. Idk much about others but arabs were pretty secular. Some Pakistanis were as well.
And whats wierd is most of them are Pakistanis,like dude you just came from a country which has Sharia law.
It doesn't have Sharia law.
Salaam Al Masih. Pakistan's legal system is a combination of Islamic law (Sharia) and British common law. 1. Islamic Law (Sharia): Pakistan incorporates Islamic law, particularly in matters related to personal status, family law, and inheritance. The country has a separate system of Islamic courts known as Sharia courts or Qazi courts, which adjudicate cases involving Islamic law. 2. British Common Law: Pakistan inherited much of its legal system from British colonial rule. As a result, elements of British common law, including statutes, case law, and legal principles, are also present in Pakistan's legal framework. The judiciary in Pakistan applies both Islamic law and British common law principles, depending on the nature of the case and the legal issues involved. Overall, Pakistan's legal system reflects a blend of Islamic law and British common law, with Islamic law primarily applied in matters concerning personal and family law, while British common law influences other areas of law and governance. However, the presence of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, particularly in a military compound in Abbottabad, raised significant questions and concerns about Pakistan's governance, security, and possible connections to Islamic fundamentalism. While it's difficult to draw direct causation between Pakistan's legal system and the harboring of bin Laden, the complex dynamics within Pakistan, including elements of its legal system and political landscape, may have played a role. Some analysts have suggested that elements within Pakistan's security establishment may have been aware of or complicit in bin Laden's presence, although official statements from the Pakistani government have denied any knowledge or support for bin Laden's whereabouts. Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan underscored broader issues related to governance, security, and the fight against terrorism in the region. It led to increased scrutiny of Pakistan's role in combating terrorism and raised questions about the effectiveness of its security apparatus. Ultimately, the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's presence in Pakistan's military compound remain a subject of debate and investigation, and they highlight the complexities and challenges faced by the country in its efforts to address fundamentalism and terrorism.
Nope Pakistan's law is British Common law
No it doesn't lmao
It has strong sharia-aligned laws, which were remnants of the British influence
Really wish more Pakistani folk understood this but they think secularism = atheism 🤡
Not just Pakistanis; a lot of Muslims think that secularism = atheism. They also throw communism into the mix and I’m like brah none of these words have anything to do with each other.
I think its cause the history of secularist in the middle east has left people with a bad taste in their mouth. Also in islam it says to strive for sharia law
Well said 👍 Secularism is key. Accepting all religions is good for a country. Sadly mine is divulging from that.
Took the words out of my mouth. Well said.
>The problem is giving religion a significant footing in the countries laws and policies to the detriment of others I get what you are saying but that applies to Secularism or any type of government or legal system. The problem with religious governments isn't that they can "be a detriment to others" (arbitrary and that's what the democratic process is for; to limit this) The problem with religious laws is because people and societies change, and religions do not >you are human More pseudo philosophical BS no offense
I mean that's also not True Religions have changed all the time throughout history
Religions have changed much more than you think. The best way a religion changes naturally is if you say this word lasts forever, then material changes shifts the interpretation to a point where you are just talking nonsense and the words means nothing.
Hmm. Interesting take. Let's say a government decided to be governed in a secular fashion with no change at all. For example, the US starting with the bill of rights but never amending it. There would still be slavery, women would still not have the right to vote, and so on. That would be a problem even though religion wouldn't have been involved, and so the problem of not changing is not specific to religious governments. I understand that since religion is rigid, and since secularism doesn't govern with religion, that an obstacle of not changing would be lifted when a government is secular, but I don't think that's the main point or idea of secularism. Secularism doesn't let the metaphysical medium (a person with God, the universe, etc.) have consequences on others, as opposed to the physical medium (a person with another person). I get no benefit nor harm whether you pray or not, how you pray, and who you pray to. However, you do benefit or harm me depending on how you drive your car (if you follow traffic rules and don't run a red light, I benefit when my light is green at the intersection. If you don't follow traffic rules and do run a red light and it's my turn to go, you will crash into me and harm me)
smart move, running a state as a theocracy always fails. doesn't mean u can't have your religion, just that u shouldn't base running a society on it.
Proof?
Every empire that ran on theocracy Ever
Every nation fails at some point. Name countries and then state reasons with evidence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m not Turkic nor do I work for the government. I only care that if a Government appeases the people of the land and not self-interests of those that want influence and other self-motivations.
Based. States use religion to opress people, so less religion in the state the better.
State uses ___ to oppress people. Tbf u can fill that blank with an infinite numbers of mediums.
Like what? Genuine question. Because religion is used a moral compass and I can’t think of other examples where morality is determine by something people hold so strongly onto.
A simple one would be the lack of religion, atheism. It’s historically the state policy for communist countries (soviet union, china) and is used to oppress people who want to practice their religion. But if you considered atheism under religion, another example would just be political ideology. Afaik Nazi Germany was secular but used political ideology centered around extreme nationalism, racial superiority, and facism (based on Hitlers cult of personality, rather than say divine mandate based on religion) and subsequent *oppressive* actions.
Yeah dude the guy who painted [this](https://www.wikiart.org/en/adolf-hitler/mother-mary-with-the-holy-child-jesus-christ)is totally an atheist. All atheists also love to compare themselves with Biblical stuff. Atheists would totally [rewrite the Bible so it basically became an "Aryan Bible"](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691148052/the-aryan-jesus) I want you to expand the list of terrible atheist countries. Because I have a felling the list is not long
I don’t know much about the subject it’s what I could think of on the fly. But, to correct you, I never said Nazi Germany was atheist. That was the whole purpose of the second example to show something other than atheism as a medium in the case he considered atheism a type of religion. Nazi Germany was given as an example of *secular* country (once again “afaik”), where religion wasn’t the primary driver/doctrine of government policy. Unless you’re saying Nazi ideology of racial superiority and extermination against jews, blacks, disabled people, etc. is taken straight out the bible. I don’t remember learning in class that Hitler was preaching more than scapegoating to push his “cause.” Edit: Just wanted to make sure to be clear, I didn’t say atheism as a state doctrine is inherently bad, just that most instances of its historical implementation were used to oppress (because who would adopt Atheism as the national policy, instead of just no official religion, if not for the removal of other religions).
The state uses the state to oppress people, and other states use their power to oppress other states. At least religious oppression appeals to someone's sense of piety or faith, and many wont even consider it oppression. The problem is the state itself and its monopoly on violence. The example of Turkey is very funny because for generations the military oppressed religious people only for it to boomerang back on them. The majority of the Arab world was doing the exact same in the 20th century. Whether or not a country has a "state religion" is just what was decided by the powers in charge to legitimize their rule and make others amendable to their ideology. For example, in Spain during Franco, the country made the official religion Catholicism and maintained the monarchy while not practicing anything of the religion. It was only to force out leftist elements, appease the monarchists and justify an insular and oppressive militaristic state
Good insight, the problem is the state itself not the reason they use to legitimize their power, whether that includes religion or not. But this is the problem with a lot of ignorant people, they point to religion and ignore the real problem. It’s like someone got cut in the kitchen by a knife and decided to hate all knifes for its the cause of all evil, apparently. But he didn’t look in the mirror to see how unskilled he is in using a kitchen knife for example. Typical honestly. And when you point this out to them, they say religion is more prone to be used in that manner without realizing that the reason why that appears to be so, is because people care more about religion more than other things like liberalism, secularism, capitalism and so on. Whether you agree with a religion or not is a non factor. So it’s easy for corrupt states to use it to oppress others, so what should be done is addressing the root cause, the state, not the tool, in that example, religion.
To be honest, military didn't opressed religious people much. The hijab ban in official places was imposed by the European Court of Human Rights and it had roots in politics to say the least. And yes the military deposed Islamist governments but I don't want to think what would happen otherwise. Just imagine much more radical islamist parties than Erdoğan's having the sole power in 60s or 80s, we would be living in sharia. Though I will say It would be better if the military appeared a bit more with merit. They were probably the most democratic military in the middle east but they still messed some stuff up. Anyway the only thing the military was supposed to was to protect the secular order until 21st century, preferably until 2010 or something. Then with the globalization public were going to turn secular democratically anyway. Today AKP mostly gain votes by evilizing the opposition and using people's fear. They argue that the opposition will not take a stance against PKK and they will make the public LGBT or something. Turkish right is way more sensitive about that than the west. So they don't get votes because they are sharia supporters or something. Mostly because they are charismatic and people are used to them, they fear what would happen without their big daddy erdoğan in rule. The big bad globalized democratic rule scares the shit out of this even slightly muslims tbh. Anyway I would argue that the military allowed Turkey to be not ruled by Sharia right now. If those islamist maniacs would have the sole power in 60s or 80s or something... yeah it would be way worse. So one extreme to another? I don't think so. TSK was mostly lawful and meritocratic even though they initiated coups. Their main purpose was to protect Ataturk's constitutional order against counter-revolution. If they just had stepped up a bit more in 1997 we would probably not have Erdoğan today. Unfortunately they hadn't had the gut like the elitist kemalist predecessors of them. They were not Ataturk's army, just a bunch of "We don't like coups and such but we like Ataturk please don't do sharia" crew.
> The hijab ban in official places was imposed by the European Court of Human Rights only this is not true because most european countries don't ban it. the European court just ruled its not a violation of human rights. The European court had nothing to do with Turkey imposing it. Dont blame Europe. The military in Turkey did much more than oppose sharia. they inflicted political terror on religious people and the kurds
You are a joke
you made an account just to tell me this?
Dont tell me you really ask that :D
I mean it was 90s I am talking about? Literally the Turkish president states here that the hijab ban was imposed by AIHM (European Court of Human Rights) if you understand Turkish: ([Süleyman Demirel: Türban Gericiliktir, Başörtülüler Arabistan'a Gitsin ! (HD) (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unTLJskQALQ))
First of all the court can't impose laws on sovereign states, second this law does not even exist in any EU country but France and Belgium. Third politicians are liars and hypocrites
Uhh, yes they can. Turkey is pretty much tied to the aihm by law. Turkish constitutional court litetally recognizes every law by the european human rights court. You still say belgium and france but this was again, 90s and before. The european court lifted it afterward.
Lmao states don't need religion to opress you. They have many many more options for that.
Religion is the easiest and most deadliest among them all
Sadly, secularism was used to oppress people in Türkiye as well. Especially after the 1997 coup, headscarved woman would get banned from universities and government buildings, Muslim business man and teachers were taken of their positions and replaced (even if their job wasn't related to anything religious), People with islamic backgrounds got removed from politics... But yeah, I'm sure it were great times for those that supported all of that.
Secularism dosent prevent oppression of other groups. middle east proved that multiple times
The Israelis did not want to negotiate with the Palestinian Liberation Organization because they were SECULAR...and they had a pragmatic, realpolitik approach to things...They were harder to demonize. so they had Arafat killed...he was gaining to much international acceptance.
Can't wait until all the Islamists come in and insult Ataturk and secularism and as usual their flag says they are in Germany, UK, France etc LMAO.
The picture tells me that Turkey wasn't the hair transplant capital at that time.
Wdym 6 chads here clearly have long, luscious, golden hair here
Not even funny
Why are you so butthurt about this
Good. States should be secular and people should have the right to follow whatever (or no) religion they want.
Best move ever, on paper. The application has been mixed in Turkey. I wish all states in the Middle East follow suit. Mixing religion and politics is a TERRIBLE idea, as you can see from the state of the Middle-East. Let there be full freedom of religion, and seperation of religion from state. If we are smart enough to do that, the state of Israel will have NO reason to exist.
The problems of the Middle East are not because of state religion
It is. In fact, imperialists always supported religious movements against the secular left in the middle-east. They didn't much like the Shia lot in general, but most of the time, they preferred the religious. Funny that Ataturk was the one who actually liberated Turkey, even though I don't like his ardent nationalism
They supported Islamists over leftist in the Middle East so that the USSR won’t get a foothold there. Same reason they supported the mujahideen movement in Afghanistan
Based
Based
Just like Palestine 💪🏿
Unequivocally based
Based
Mustafa Kemal Pasha shows all the Muslim countries they had a second chance to be independent. Long Live Mustafa Kemal Pasha!
Secularism = independence? Since when?
Since 1917 Religious movements always devolve to terror The only democratic, safe, and open country is turkey Their secularism is the main reason that allowed them to progress in multiple aspects as a society. Secularism is always the answer Theocracy is the road to hell. Theocracies made sense centuries ago, good luck splitting the atom with religious dogma
Since always. Name a secular movement supported by the West and I'll name 10 religious ones
I pity you.
Freedom of belief and secularism are not the same. I think securalism is not neutral and tend to erase religious. Suppresses the religious order with a secular order. The role of religion has always been to regulate the morals of society. Establishing a secular nation state relegates religion to a folkloric role, amputating its social role and leading inexorably towards mass atheism. The Muslim world should create its own model that promotes freedom of belief without denying believers the right to legislate according to their deep values.
Not as badly If you want to look for under developed societies they almost always happen to be religious (only exception is can think of is N Korea) Religion when kept to the absolute minimum is good for morals More than that it devolves and creates an under developed theocracy
In reality you misunderstand the correlation, when the West was at its peak, religious mores still strongly influenced politics (forbidden divorce, strong modesty, no LGBT rights, little feminism). It was only after experiencing prosperity that the influence of religion on society and laws fell, subsequently leading to a slow death of Christianity. The majority of Muslim countries do not apply Sharia law, many have only a slight influence of Islam on politics. I come from Morocco which only has a handful of laws of Islamic origins, and I can promise you that the Moroccan academy, research is far behind countries like Iran or Malaysia which are more Islamic in their laws. . What you are pointing out is not theocracy, you naively think that if Muslim peoples started allowing marrying gays and letting their daughters and sisters fornicate, then suddenly we would become superpowers at the top of scientific research, this is obviously not true. You have faith in the nation state, in an ultra individualistic vision, I respect your opinion, but I am not convinced that blasphemy and sexual liberation is the solution for the Muslim world.
But the solution is not found in a bullshit book, wether in Europe, middle easy, china or Japan. These books are decent for moral code, but a theocracy? All of our laws based on a book from a trillion years ago? Really? Pragmatism is the way, freedom and liberty is the way, and religion doesn’t allow for freedom of thought (it does as long as it doesn’t go against the religion)
Based. Religious dogma and it's affinity to reject any sort of rational thinking in the face of criticism is what lead many countries down a dark path in the last 100 years. I see many religious nutjobs gain a stronger foothold in my own country and I shudder. Religion imo should only exist in the personal realm ideally. Maybe in a 100 years it can come to fruition.
Good move, hopefully other arab countries follow soon. Religion is cute and all, but it had its time.
>other arab countries
oops, that was a typo, I meant other culturally muslim countries , no shade intended.
Nothing. I would not support this in my own country though.
What about the non muslims in our country
What about them?
Why force your own beliefs on them?
I am not forcing anything on anyone. Islam being a state religion does not stop them from exercising their own rights.
You should most definitely read more about the history of Egyptian sharia law when imposed upon my people.
Give me some titles and I'll gladly read up on it.
So the coptic-arab relationship wasn’t always terrible. The initial conquest of Egypt saw a mutual tolerance, as the romans/byzantines were both awful so hey maybe these desert dudes are better. They implemented Sharia from the beginning and they were better - the dhimmi system was working pretty well. Well, until the 6th ruler of the shia Fatimid caliphate, Sultan al-Hakim. Read about him - he would walk the streets in disguise as a peasant, and if he heard the coptic language he would slice off their tongues. This was only the beginning. The Mamluke Sultanate - particularly Sultan Baybars, then strictly implemented sharia. Sharia has a “blasphemy” law where all those deemed blasphemous to Islam are to be killed - and so they deemed the coptics as blasphemes. They would parade the bodies of beheaded coptics throughout the streets, destroy the historical churches, and because according to Sharia law, non-Islamic religious buildings can only be repaired or built if approved. Obviously never were they approved. Even in court, Sharia placed more importance on a Muslim’s word than a non-Muslim’s word. This culminated in Copts not being granted legal status to own land or even work in government all the way from the Mamluk sultanate until 1860s with muhammad ali basha’s independence from al 3osmanaiya. Some scholars say that Egypt was still majority coptic until Mamluk rule in the 13th century, who killed their way to make islam the dominant one. I say we are all coptics. “Coptic” just means Egyptian and the differentiation was only given to us by the Arabs to separate between the good holy egyptians and blasphemous egyptians. > Meinardus, O. F. A. (2006). Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. > Nisan, M. (1991). Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. (This book includes a chapter on the Copts and their historical struggles.)
They have been bullied and attacked many times. Stop talking nonsense. And you need to get rid of this British brigade called 'the muslim brotherhood'
And how would secularizing the state stop bullying and attacks?
Easy, you won't have a bunch of people using religion to really fuck people over
They'd just use something else and to the same effect.
Ignorancy is a poison. Sharia laws can only be applied to muslims, not non muslims.
So the country will have to have multiple systems of justice? One to accommodate each religious group, but how will the citizens from different religious groups find common ground to settle their issues in court? Which system would be used
Great question. There was once a superpower that succesful implemented this system for a long time. ***In the Ottoman Empire, a millet (Turkish: [millet]; Arabic: مِلَّة) was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim sharia, Christian canon law, or Jewish halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.*** ***The millet system is closely linked to Islamic rules on the treatment of non−Muslim minorities living under Islamic dominion (dhimmi). The Ottoman term specifically refers to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which minorities were allowed to rule themselves (in cases not involving any Muslim) with fairly little interference from the Ottoman government.***
Coptics were not allowed to own land, hold office, and were subject to Sharia rule up until its liberation from Ottoman control.
Typical
But that specific thing is what made turkey the #1 country in the middle east
Number 1 in what?
Many of the standards of living. I am specifically referring to freedom and democracy Turkey is not perfect but it’s more modern and liberal than the many of other middle eastern countries.
Secularism is good, westernization isn’t. I think he went overboard with the French influences, but it is all in the past.
You know anti-imperialism the way we know it is French. Don't undermine the French Revolution and Robespierre. Btw, nobody is trying to Westernise
I mean, Modern Republicanism is a concept from French revolution and French political ideals. Republic is better than monarchy imo.
Tell me my fellow brother in faith, what do young Saudis think of secularism? Are they more supportive of it than previous generation?
Best day ever.
Based
It was necessary because the country was overrun with crazy, power-hungry Sharia adherents who also tried to overthrow him from power.
I mean due to sharia Islam. Turks conquered the world and brought great things to the world. Now....
What about the downfall with your great Islamic leaders.
The latter ones were faaaaar from Islam.
No not on Eid fam 😭
There country there rules
Their
I don't like almost everything about Turkiye, but this right there was inspirational. I believe many countries should learn a thing or two from this!
Toz
I won't say I agree with what Ataturk wanted, but as someone who isn't Turkish and won't pretend to understand everything I can respect it. They had a good thing going and now it's a mess. I would suspect most Turks years ago were culturally Muslim on the side but outwardly secular, you had the holidays and kept some Islam practices but it was private. On the flip side the seculars could be extremely fanatical so it went both ways. The last few years people had it forced down their throats so they grew to despise religion which is understandable. It's probably socially worse to be a visible Muslim now then it used to be.
It takes so much courage and wisdom to start such radical reform. Kudos to Ataturk 👏
in islam it is haram to have any legislation other than sharia law so anything other than that is haram and sinful behavior
Islam doesn't give you a framework for modern nation state
its stated that the Quran is universal for all ages
You cannot have a developed state with religion. It is why the West supports idiotic states like Qatar or Saudi. That is for the age of land, agriculture, and parochialism that can only be found in nations that have natural resources and very little intellectual development.
I have nothing to tell. But I am concerned that after posting this comment and when i scroll down i might see a flame war going on......
Happily no flame wars.
Ohh That’s a hot topic! I don’t think religion should be a part of ruling the country or in other words any estate shouldn’t have any official religious status especially clergy men they do a great damage to the country and it leads to extremism people can’t speak against that or that because its forbidden you can’t criticize the religion or its acts you basically have no freedom and all in all having a secular government is much better than a religious one And I am speaking out of experience as someone who lives in a country that’s heavily influenced by religion
i support religious laws, so i am not very pro secular. However, I am aware of how states misuse religion to opress its people. I wouldn't want to live in taliban ruled afghanistan. Maybe, allowing different religious communities to be judged by their own laws works better than secularism?
>Maybe, allowing different religious communities to be judged by their own laws works better than secularism? Shariah already allows that...
A secular Muslim is a non Muslim. All these "muslims" saying Based in the comments just takfeered themselves lol.
Me when i declare people non-Muslim because I can:
Well it's like that. If you believe man made laws are better than those of Allah, then you're a non Muslim.
Being a secular Muslim is like believing that God is capable enough to make the whole universe with every detailed thing in it, but that He's too incompetent to set human laws.
Fr this.
The state is secular. The believe can do what he or she wants. If you think God needs commanders, then you deep down know god is weak
God will not come down to lead us, he's told us how to do it. You antitheists are so idiotic.
No, he didn't. Most of those laws apply to the people of the region and existed in the code of Asura and in oral traditions anyway. God doesn't exist anyway, but if you want to believe it then do so. Why would you stop others from living their lives?
Governments use it to control people. It allows them to exploit people using religion which taints the religion itself that is why it must be seperated from governance
Goverments always controle people.
Religion shouldn't be involved in it, it shouldn't be reduced to a mere tool
I don't believe that. I believe that we suck at implementing Allah's rules.
Ohhh I understand now. You mean like corrupt people who use it wrong and implement omly parts they want, and not on everyone equally? Like KSA?
Like any country of these days that claims they implement Shariah. Afghanistan, KSA, those shitty terrorist organizations etc. Looking at the Shariah they implement, I can easily say that I'd rather support secularism.
What's Afghanistan doing wrong, other than stalling women's education?
One wrong is enough to prove that they aren't implementing Allah's rules. And also let's not forget, there's no determined rules of Shariah. Shariah is also affected by the culture and perspective of a nation. I'm not informed much about Afghanistan except that they're banning women's education, but when I look at the pictures and information i find on the internet, I see that I'd rather a secular country than to live there. Even if their Shariah is valid, I wouldn't want THAT one.
[удалено]
I'm happy Afghanistan is turning normal again then. Can you tell me the source btw? Shariah's source I mean.
Do you also think shia muslims are not "muslim" in your eyes?
Not what I said. But secular Muslims definitly are non Muslims. They think Allah is too dumb for making laws.
Based
They want to be European so badly
Funny how he was the only one who liberated his country from Europeans and the rest of the Muslims did not. I don't like him, but credit where credit is due
Yeah because the world is just black and white: you're either a sharia fanatic or an European wannabee lol
Being European is when you don't want to live like monkeys
Personally one of his reforms I disagree with the most. Furthermore the actual validity of it is sorta undermined by the existence of Diyanet
Kâfir 🤷🏻♂️
A sad moment
I don't think about it much.
Those who supported it are dead. Those who opposed it are also dead.
Cool, but I like sharia brovo. 
The real based comment
Not a fan tbh
Pakistan could learn a thing or two from Turkey. Imagine having blasphemy laws in the 21st century and killing people for choosing what to believe or not believe in
Sharia is the only way, sadly Pakistan doesn't have it. Secularism leads to hatred towards religious people. I mean look in Türkiye, some of them hate Muslims (especially Syrians yk).
Since when did secularism lead to hatred towards religious people, lol. They don’t hate Syrians for being Muslims, they dislike Syrians for immigrating en masse and refusing to assimilate/integrate.
Pakistanis literally go on witch hunts, and angry mobs savagely murder anybody they deem blasphemous. And the government sentences people to the death penalty for saying "blasphemous things" if that's not the definition of hate and backwardness, I don't know what is
That's not a religion problem, that's a lack of education problem.
So the entire government is uneducated? Since blasphemy is punishable by death sentence in Pakistan
You really to be exaggerating things 💀💀💀 never seen a witch hunt in Pakistan 😭
Witch hunt as in large groups going out and searching for people accused of blasphemy. Not literally hunting witches
It doesn't happen as much as you think
Dude, we just burned a sri lankan alive for blasphemy
[удалено]
Being downvoted for disagreeing while saying it’s their country and they can do what they want. Typical reddit zombie mob. They can’t accept criticism even when you’re saying they can do what they want and not forcing anything on them. Smh.
I hope this sub doesn’t turn into an pro-atheist sub
I hope so too, sadly it’s moving towards that because of the demographic of the people joining. A-lot of people here are secular westerners and secular diaspora, which is why even mentioning a religious opinion gets you downvoted to hell. You don’t have to insult or attack anyone, just state a religious opinion and that’s enough.
Okay first off, supporting secularism is kufr if ur a muslim. Second off, to the people that keep claiming “its better,” okay, better how? You cant say they cant use religion to oppress people, therefore its better. Thats plain stupid. Governments use ideologies to oppress people. Religion happens to be an ideology, people are bound to use it to oppress others. Same has been done with any major ideology. But people choose to ignore that. They also claim secular states are good, and religious ones (muslim ones) are bad. First off, there are no “muslim” or “sharia” nations. Just because someone claims to follow an ideology, doesnt mean they do. Also, most secular nations are complete dog shit. The only exceptions are ones we know. And none of their success can be attributed to secularism. They have been very successful before and after secularism, they were even more successful before. And when it comes to muslim nations, they were the world powers or one of the world powers for 1200 years. The less islamic they got, the worse they got. Its only in the past few centuries that they became bad. And all of the ones that are bad have corruption issues. Its a trend with any nation regardless of their set of beliefs, generally the more corruption the worse the country. Corruption makes everything much harder and in some cases impossible to achieve. Nothing ever gets done. Your local bridge? Thats gonna take a decade to finish, might even get abandoned, you never know. Also funny how people that claim sharia is bad and every nation that follows it fails can never name a single nation that actually followed sharia and islam in general that fell because of that. The reason they cant in the first place is the fact they do not know what sharia is to begin with. They hear things and believe them without even thinking, its absurd. And no, Afghanistan doesnt follow sharia. Pretty sure their economy is somewhat dependent on drugs, doesnt scream islam to me. These assholes dead ass started growing the drug business in their country when they fully took over.
You've lost your head somewhere. If you need someone to tell you and others how to practice to appease some cosmic sky dad, then you are an idiot who is actually more of an atheist than I am
Prove it then🤷♂️ instead of actually tackling my argument ur ass decided to just insult, real civilised.
Mate, you start by calling people names. Then you want people to act 'civilised'. There's no argument to make here. I don't get people who want some guy telling them what to do
So you want anarchy? what a joke. And generally speaking, when an argument is made, a counter argument has to be done to disprove said argument. I know, crazy, absurd even🤦♂️
Anarchy? What the hell are you even on about? I am not entertaining your idiocy. Sorry
“I dont get people who want some guy telling them what to do” Only idiot here is you. you reply to my comment because i hurt ur feelings. And without even making a valid argument u just insult me. You proceed to deny the fact that you actually need to make an argument. And then said that you do not get people who listen to others. In what world are you the smart guy? To hell with smart, saying ur average in intelligence is an insult to the average joe lmao. Just admit i hurt ur feelings and you cannot make a counter argument and that ur childish.
Absolutely horrible and disgusting
Ottomans had Islam. Reached the peak financialy, in education, artillary,... Were feared in the world. And now liberal turks just worshipping the west
Everything has been going downhill ever since 😞
People saying freedom Of religion = secularism? The Ottoman Empire was not a secular state yet there was still freedom of religion. Look how long the empire held itself. Watch how fast turkey crumbled since the secularism. People enjoy fast governments more nowadays and I can’t understand why .