/his/No.185313805 replies1 images0 reposts

/his/ — If secular leaders were always bad for Islam then explain Pakistan

5 replies, 1 images

If secular leaders were always bad for Islam then explain PakistanAnonymous06/15/26(Mon)11:44:18

File: Jinnah1945c.jpg (219 KB, 650x853)

Islamists and Ikhwanis claim that any type of secular leader/dictator such as Saddam, Gaddafi, Reza Shah, Ataturk, Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat, Barre etc are bad for Islam and that they "forcibly remove Islam from their countries and rule by manmade laws and enforce liberalism and Westernization"

Islamists further claim that the majority of the current rulers of the Muslim world are "apostates" and that they are against Islam such as MBS, King Abdullah and Sisi.

Yet Pakistan since its independence in 1947 has always had clean-shaven secular Prime Ministers and leaders and today Pakis have the lowest apostate rates in the Islamic world. They are the most feverishly devout Muslims on the planet and their Islam does not seem to have been affected in any way by decades and decades of being governed by secular Prime Ministers.

Pakis have never been ruled by a Taliban or Khomeinist type system, they have always had secular leaders.

So if secular dictators and westernized leaders are so bad how come none of it rubbed off on Pakis? They remain the most fervent and strict of all Muslims.

Anonymous06/15/26(Mon)11:59:34

>>18531380 (OP)
Because Pakistan is just Muslim India and on the basis of being Indian they will be somewhat insane

Anonymous06/15/26(Mon)13:40:59

>>18531380 (OP)
Why does this question even need to be asked? Islamists want Islamist leaders. That's all.

Anonymous06/15/26(Mon)14:32:44

File: IMG_0574.jpg (235 KB, 1170x2407)

Because in authoritarian countries (the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries) there's a disconnection between the government and the people, and so the opinion of the government and the opinion of the people are not necessarily the same.

If you leave Islam in Pakistan, it's not the government that will punish you for it but your own family or "friends."

And it's not like secular rulers rule for secularism, the government of Saudi Arabia could perfectly legalize being LGBT in public if they wanted to, but they have to compromise with a very conservative population that would repeat the Meccah seizure and the Great Awakening of the 80s if such a thing happened.

Anonymous06/15/26(Mon)14:46:30

>>18531490
Yeah but that's what i mean. If the people themselves are still firm Muslims and ruthlessly conservative then why does having a secular dictator who supposedly secularizes the country matter? Islamists say that the biggest problem is that Muslim countries are ruled by Western-bootlicking secularist puppets, but these puppets are obviously having zero influence on their populations if the populations remain ruthlessly Muslim. So why is the secular puppet leader even a big deal? clearly these populations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not being harmed by their policies. It's not like the populations of these countries are leaving Islam en masse and becoming secular liberal atheists due to their leaders. They ALL remain staunch Muslims.

The irony being that in Islamist Iran people ARE becoming atheist.

So it's like the other way around from what the Islamists say. In Iran where it's ruled by Shia Islamists everyone is becoming atheist, but in Saudi and Pakistan where the rulership is more Westernized people are more devout than ever!

Anonymous06/15/26(Mon)14:57:08

>>18531380 (OP)
>Pakis have never been ruled by a Taliban or Khomeinist type system, they have always had secular leaders
Zia ul-Haq bro he invited Salafi scholars from Saudia and also funded ran guns to the Mujahedeen during the Soviet War in Afghanistan and continued sponsoring them after as the Taliban to have a regional ally in the event of a war with India