Pakistan

[MJJ]

A good start to end this bickering and bad relationship is to start with our own selves. Start respecting people and think very carefully before using words such as bigots. They will then defend you against such people on other sites and forums.

I am happy you posted this sultan and hope @Hitchez learns the importance of branding around words like bigot in the future when somebody is highlighting a positive thing.

 

[Sultan]

I am happy you posted this sultan and hope @Hitchez learns the importance of branding around words like bigot in the future when somebody is highlighting a positive thing.

People are generally intelligent it doesn't help our cause pointing out individuals. A general comment works well and doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. I'll make a diplomat out of you, In-Shaa-Allah.

 

[MJJ]

People are generally intelligent it doesn't help our cause pointing out individuals. A general comment works well and doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. I'll make a diplomat out of you, In-Shaa-Allah.

In Sha Allah.

 

[Sultan]

Probably not a realist on this but I have in my heart and mind never accepted border lines drawn by the British separating the land between India, Pakitan and Bangladesh. We're one people, and God willing we will all be one again.

I can dream!

 

[Sultan]

I've lost 3 hours of important work trying to get this thread back to some semblance of normality. Peace out!

 

[Zlatattack]

Good post Zlat however speaking against a nation is not just treason. Like I cant get punished for throwing a Pakistani flag on the ground or expressing anti-Pakistani sentiments whereas that is exactly what the blasphemy laws are being used at. I don't mind having laws in place to protect our Islamic identity but there needs to a balance.

Agree, the blasphemy laws are abused big time. should be fixed.

 

[africanspur]

You quoted zlat post which was regarding the genwral attitude of the hinduvta crowd and those two posters.

I completely agree with you that the statement isn't ideal but it's a carefully worded political statement where they try and not directly comment on ahmadis. Like a few posters have said it would have been political suicide to do anything else. Change comes slowly not in one day that's why it's unfair to label him a bigot because of it.

I did and it came after Vidared's and Hitchez's posts so I assumed it was directed towards them. If not, then my mistake. Those posters don't strike me as Modi supporters regardless.

I think that is fair but then perhaps people could just acknowledge that rather than just dismiss it. Zlatan has compared blasphemy laws to treason laws in the West. So extrapolating that, imagine if a UK politician said they agreed with laws that meant Muslims could not paint themselves as UK citizens? Or were downgraded in society in any way? I don't think we'd find that acceptable here and it shouldn't be just dismissed as ok elsewhere either.

Takfeer is a dangerous concept and one which I vehemntly disagree with.

 

[MJJ]

I did and it came after Vidared's and Hitchez's posts so I assumed it was directed towards them. If not, then my mistake. Those posters don't strike me as Modi supporters regardless.

I think that is fair but then perhaps people could just acknowledge that rather than just dismiss it. Zlatan has compared blasphemy laws to treason laws in the West. So extrapolating that, imagine if a UK politician said they agreed with laws that meant Muslims could not paint themselves as UK citizens? Or were downgraded in society in any way? I don't think we'd find that acceptable here and it shouldn't be just dismissed as ok elsewhere either.

Takfeer is a dangerous concept and one which I vehemntly disagree with.

Yeah I dont think vida is one and Hitchez himself said he isnt.

I was dismissing him being a bigot but have explicitly stated that its sad that he has to be politically correct about this. Thats why I first posted in this thread as was happy he had elected an Ahmahdi to his economic council.

 

[Zlatattack]

I did and it came after Vidared's and Hitchez's posts so I assumed it was directed towards them. If not, then my mistake. Those posters don't strike me as Modi supporters regardless.

I think that is fair but then perhaps people could just acknowledge that rather than just dismiss it. Zlatan has compared blasphemy laws to treason laws in the West. So extrapolating that, imagine if a UK politician said they agreed with laws that meant Muslims could not paint themselves as UK citizens? Or were downgraded in society in any way? I don't think we'd find that acceptable here and it shouldn't be just dismissed as ok elsewhere either.

Takfeer is a dangerous concept and one which I vehemntly disagree with.

If we didn't fit the legal definition, then that would be fine. The downgrading bit is unfair. Legally nobody is downgraded in Pakistan (but practically they are which I oppose 100%).

The Islamic identity thing is about a legal definition. Personally I'm happy to see it go. It's only served to undermine a section of society. It could be argued that was never the intention but it is what has happened.

Before anyone has a religion they are created human. Religion is intended to serve humanity. Where it takes us away from humanity, we're doing it wrong.

 

[Sultan]

Religion is intended to serve humanity. Where it takes us away from humanity, we're doing it wrong.

Beautifully said, brother. I'll add, to serve humanity is to serve God and its the ultimate form of worship.

 

[2cents]

As for the religious status of Ahmadis, they do not fit the definition of Muslim. There is a clear documented procedure to being Muslim. In its simplest form it is the declaration of faith and the belief in 1 God and that Muhammad pbuh is his final messenger.

If your religious beliefs are contrary to that, you are welcome to them, but they are not Islam.

You are of course free to decide whether or not you believe Ahmadis to be Muslim or not. Just as they should be free to define themselves as Muslim if they choose. If you're in favour of the state having the power to legally regulate how individuals or groups choose to define themselves, then I'd say you're part of the problem and can have no complaints should you and your beliefs be targeted in a similar manner.

People are opposed to blasphemy laws because religion doesn't matter to you. If you are one of those people than consider them our equivalent to laws against treason. In the secular world nothing is more precious than the nation state and treason will get you the most harsh punishment. Why? Because national identity is how you define yourselves, your society etc. It's precious to you. We consider Islamic identity precious in that same way.

People - religious, non-religious, and/or secular - are opposed to such laws because (a) they violate stuff like freedom of speech/expression, and (b) as you've noted they are often abused in order to pursue petty vendettas and religious persecution.

Second, treason is not the secular equivalent of blasphemy. Freedom for the citizenship to 'blaspheme' against the nation-state is one of the fundamental cornerstones of liberal democracies. For example any Irish citizen may walk down a street in Ireland with a placard declaring the Irish state to be illegitimate, they may mock the founders of the Irish state to their heart's content, or declare that Irish nationhood is based on a series of lies, safe in the knowledge that the powers of the state may not legally be wielded against them. Of course, perhaps Ireland is a poor example to use since we also have a ridiculous blasphemy law still on the cards, thankfully it is rarely if ever used.

Treason requires some definitive action to be taken against the state, not just propaganda or preaching.

The easiest way out of this predicament would be a name change for the group, but I doubt the Qadianis would accept this solution. Any other solutions which can peacefully resolve the issue?

The 'easiest way'? Seriously?

How about this - just leave people free to define their religious identity as they please. 'Problem' solved.

Qadian is the name of the place in Pakistan where the groups' leader Ahmad originate. In SE Asia people are generally recognised or referred to from the place of their birth or origin.

Most if not all (other) South Asian Islamic movements are referred to by how they define themselves. In the two (other) cases I can think of where an Islamic movement is generally referred to by a place name - Barelvis and Deobandis - adherents of both often use the term themselves, although Barelvis are named for their founder (Ahmad Riza Khan Barelvi) who in turn was named for his place of origin, Bareilly, and seem to prefer Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamaat, or just Sunnis. As you know, both movements are Hanafi Sunni and these designations are used simply to distinguish particular trends within South Asian Hanafism, so their use isn't really equivalent to the use of Qadiani.

Ahmadis do not refer to themselves as Qadianis, and consider the term offensive. They'd prefer to be recognised simply as Muslims, since this is what they 100% believe themselves to be (no less than you or Zlatattack do), but if you can't bring yourself to do that then Ahmadi suffices.

 

[Hitchez]

As for the religious status of Ahmadis, they do not fit the definition of Muslim. There is a clear documented procedure to being Muslim. In its simplest form it is the declaration of faith and the belief in 1 God and that Muhammad pbuh is his final messenger. if your religious beliefs are contrary to that, you are welcome to them, but they are not Islam..
.

With all due respect it's not up to you to decide so I wouldn't throw around. Ahmedis are Muslims. You can either make peace with it or take your bigotry elsewhere. I find this downright offensive

I'm not even going to quote the rest of your post because the rest of it was downright scary.

I am happy you posted this sultan and hope @Hitchez learns the importance of branding around words like bigot in the future when somebody is highlighting a positive thing.

What? Imran is a bigot and I stand by it. It's laughable people can listen to the stuff he says and ignore it as politics.

Imran Bhakts are seemingly just as bad as Modi bhakts.

 

[Sultan]

You are of course free to decide whether or not you believe Ahmadis to be Muslim or not. Just as they should be free to define themselves as Muslim if they choose. If you're in favour of the state having the power to legally regulate how individuals or groups choose to define themselves, then I'd say you're part of the problem and can have no complaints should you and your beliefs be targeted in a similar manner.



People - religious, non-religious, and/or secular - are opposed to such laws because (a) they violate stuff like freedom of speech/expression, and (b) as you've noted they are often abused in order to pursue petty vendettas and religious persecution.

Second, treason is not the secular equivalent of blasphemy. Freedom for the citizenship to 'blaspheme' against the nation-state is one of the fundamental cornerstones of liberal democracies. For example any Irish citizen may walk down a street in Ireland with a placard declaring the Irish state to be illegitimate, they may mock the founders of the Irish state to their heart's content, or declare that Irish nationhood is based on a series of lies, safe in the knowledge that the powers of the state may not legally be wielded against them. Of course, perhaps Ireland is a poor example to use since we also have a ridiculous blasphemy law still on the cards, thankfully it is rarely if ever used.

Treason requires some definitive action to be taken against the state, not just propaganda or preaching.



The 'easiest way'? Seriously?

How about this - just leave people free to define their religious identity as they please. 'Problem' solved.

Most if not all (other) South Asian Islamic movements are referred to by how they define themselves. In the two (other) cases I can think of where an Islamic movement is generally referred to by a place name - Barelvis and Deobandis - adherents of both often use the term themselves, although Barelvis are named for their founder (Ahmad Riza Khan Barelvi) who in turn was named for his place of origin, Bareilly, and seem to prefer Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamaat, or just Sunnis. As you know, both movements are Hanafi Sunni and these designations are used simply to distinguish particular trends within South Asian Hanafism, so their use isn't really equivalent to the use of Qadiani.

Ahmadis do not refer to themselves as Qadianis, and consider the term offensive. They'd prefer to be recognised simply as Muslims, since this is what they 100% believe themselves to be (no less than you or Zlatattack do), but if you can't bring yourself to do that then Ahmadi suffices.

I understand the sympathies. However, giving yourself labels does not give legitimacy to who, what or where you belong. There are conditions and basic concepts in life. I cannot believe in just certain aspects of a particular religion and claim to be its' adherent. Well, I can but I'm just fooling myself and others won't take me seriously. It's unanimously and universally understood they are outside of basic principles of Islam. That is not to say they should be any less Pakistani or be lower form of human being. They should be treated equally.

As Muslims, I'm sure we would all want them to be part of the Universal Ummah but the rules are pretty clear and Scholars have accordingly made feelings known.

http://www.irshad.org/exposed/fatwas.php

 

[MJJ]

With all due respect it's not up to you to decide so I wouldn't throw around. Ahmedis are Muslims. You can either make peace with it or take your bigotry elsewhere. I find this downright offensive

I'm not even going to quote the rest of your post because the rest of it was downright scary.



What? Imran is a bigot and I stand by it. It's laughable people can listen to the stuff he says and ignore it as politics.

Imran Bhakts are seemingly just as bad as Modi bhakts.

Who is it up to decide then hitchez?

 

[2cents]

I cannot believe in just certain aspects of a particular religion and claim to be its' adherent. Well, I can but I'm just fooling myself and others won't take me seriously.

Such arrogance in this, belittling the sincerity of others' beliefs.

 

[Sultan]

Such arrogance in this, belittling the sincerity of others' beliefs.

Where am I belittling their sincerity? I'm just debating their claim to be called Muslim when their actual beliefs are contrary to those considered wrong by Islamic scholars throughout the World. They have every right to call other Muslims to be on the wrong path to themselves. It works both ways.

Would I be considered a Christian if I believed the Pope was a Prophet or be labelled a heretic? Going back by a few decades I'd be hung.

 

[Zlatattack]

You are of course free to decide whether or not you believe Ahmadis to be Muslim or not. Just as they should be free to define themselves as Muslim if they choose. If you're in favour of the state having the power to legally regulate how individuals or groups choose to define themselves, then I'd say you're part of the problem and can have no complaints should you and your beliefs be targeted in a similar manner.



People - religious, non-religious, and/or secular - are opposed to such laws because (a) they violate stuff like freedom of speech/expression, and (b) as you've noted they are often abused in order to pursue petty vendettas and religious persecution.

Second, treason is not the secular equivalent of blasphemy. Freedom for the citizenship to 'blaspheme' against the nation-state is one of the fundamental cornerstones of liberal democracies. For example any Irish citizen may walk down a street in Ireland with a placard declaring the Irish state to be illegitimate, they may mock the founders of the Irish state to their heart's content, or declare that Irish nationhood is based on a series of lies, safe in the knowledge that the powers of the state may not legally be wielded against them. Of course, perhaps Ireland is a poor example to use since we also have a ridiculous blasphemy law still on the cards, thankfully it is rarely if ever used.

Treason requires some definitive action to be taken against the state, not just propaganda or preaching.



The 'easiest way'? Seriously?

How about this - just leave people free to define their religious identity as they please. 'Problem' solved.



Most if not all (other) South Asian Islamic movements are referred to by how they define themselves. In the two (other) cases I can think of where an Islamic movement is generally referred to by a place name - Barelvis and Deobandis - adherents of both often use the term themselves, although Barelvis are named for their founder (Ahmad Riza Khan Barelvi) who in turn was named for his place of origin, Bareilly, and seem to prefer Ahl-i Sunnat wa Jamaat, or just Sunnis. As you know, both movements are Hanafi Sunni and these designations are used simply to distinguish particular trends within South Asian Hanafism, so their use isn't really equivalent to the use of Qadiani.

Ahmadis do not refer to themselves as Qadianis, and consider the term offensive. They'd prefer to be recognised simply as Muslims, since this is what they 100% believe themselves to be (no less than you or Zlatattack do), but if you can't bring yourself to do that then Ahmadi suffices.

Pakistan is not a Liberal democracy nor does it aspire to be. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. We define ourselves by Islam. Pakistani people will compromise on democracy but we won't compromise on Islam. Its who we are, we are proud of our identity.

With all due respect it's not up to you to decide so I wouldn't throw around. Ahmedis are Muslims. You can either make peace with it or take your bigotry elsewhere. I find this downright offensive

I'm not even going to quote the rest of your post because the rest of it was downright scary.

I don't define it, it's a legal definition that came to by a panel of Islamic experts. Its accepted across the Muslim world. We don't tell you how to define who is Catholic or protestant.

 

[Hitchez]

Who is it up to decide then hitchez?

Self determination. People have or should have the complete freedom to chose their own religion and label themselves whatever they want. It's quite ludicrous that we're even having this discussion but does go to show why the second ammendment to the constitution is still in play and why Imran and most of Pakistan support it.

If we're going to to tell people that they do not belong to so and so religion because they do not conform to every single supposed adherents of that religion the world would be full of atheists.

 

[KM]

Pakistan is not a Liberal democracy nor does it aspire to be. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. We define ourselves by Islam. Pakistani people will compromise on democracy but we won't compromise on Islam. Its who we are, we are proud of our identity.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[2cents]

Where am I belittling their sincerity?

By claiming they're fooling themselves, and previously by suggesting that the 'easiest' solution would be for them to call themselves something different. As if it is they who should be expected to compromise on a matter of such vast importance to their entire belief system, because it happens to run counter to how you judge them. Why on earth would you even think for a moment that they would be ready to compromise on how they define themselves any more than you would be, unless you somehow think the depth of their belief is less than your own? It's arrogant and patronising, but to be honest I don't find it all that surprising. I've seen it on here before, and now in this thread, the idea pushed that "you need to understand, as Muslims we take our religion very seriously", as if others don't. Such a load of bollox which says more about the writer's ignorance of other religions than about the depth of their commitment to Islam.

Would I be considered a Christian if I believed the Pope was a Prophet or be labelled a heretic? Going back by a few decades I'd be hung.

Decades? Try centuries, and yes, thank God those days are (hopefully) behind us for the most part.

Pakistan is not a Liberal democracy nor does it aspire to be. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. We define ourselves by Islam. Pakistani people will compromise on democracy but we won't compromise on Islam. Its who we are, we are proud of our identity.

Which is fine, but it makes your blasphemy = treason analogy completely redundant.

 

[Hitchez]

Pakistan is not a Liberal democracy nor does it aspire to be. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. We define ourselves by Islam. Pakistani people will compromise on democracy but we won't compromise on Islam. Its who we are, we are proud of our identity.

So proud and yet so ignorant.

“You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan,” he said. “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

 

[MJJ]

Self determination. People have or should have the complete freedom to chose their own religion and label themselves whatever they want. It's quite ludicrous that we're even having this discussion but does go to show why the second ammendment to the constitution is still in play and why Imran and most of Pakistan support it.

If we're going to to tell people that they do not belong to so and so religion because they do not conform to every single supposed adherents of that religion the world would be full of atheists.

This I disagree with, every organised religious authority has a book and a set of rules to follow. You cant make up your own and still claim to be a part of the same religion and its not a minor adherent, its a core tenet of the religion.

Btw just curious but are you an ahmadi?

 

[Varun]

Pakistani people will compromise on democracy but we won't compromise on Islam.

I'm not one to get involved in threads like these but this is absolutely mindboggling to me.

Out of curiosity, do you live in Pakistan?

 

[Zlatattack]

So proud and yet so ignorant.

Before Jinnah we had Allah.

 

[anant]

Pakistan is not a Liberal democracy nor does it aspire to be. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. We define ourselves by Islam. Pakistani people will compromise on democracy but we won't compromise on Islam. Its who we are, we are proud of our identity.

Mate, literally every country in the world would trade anything for them to become a democracy, there have been revolutions for this! And here you are who'd trade democracy to retain a religious based identity

 

[Sultan]

@Hitchez

You have every right to disagree with opinions but please don't insult by calling posters ignorant.

 

[MJJ]

I'm not one to get involved in threads like these but this is absolutely mindboggling to me.

Out of curiosity, do you live in Pakistan?

Mate, literally every country in the world would trade anything for them to become a democracy, there have been revolutions for this! And here you are who'd trade democracy to retain a religious based identity

Wow. Just wow.

Its like you all get an alert or something.

@Zlatattack The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Zlatattack]

I'm not one to get involved in threads like these but this is absolutely mindboggling to me.

Out of curiosity, do you live in Pakistan?

No, due to better economic conditions in the UK. If that were to change, I'd go back.

Don't be so mind boggled. Pakistani society has accepted and even welcomed military rule at times because democracy in Pakistan was so corrupt an inept. Try challenging Islam in Pakistan and see how long you stay in power. In Pakistan Islam will always come ahead of politics. Its what we created a separate state upon, religious identity.
What's so hard to grasp about that.

 

[Sultan]

Mate, literally every country in the world would trade anything for them to become a democracy, there have been revolutions for this! And here you are who'd trade democracy to retain a religious based identity

To be fair, he used the word compromise, not trade. Pakistan is a democracy.

 

[Varun]

Its like you all get an alert or something.

Yeah, my involvement in these discussions is off the charts. Must be all the alerts I get.

 

[Zlatattack]

Mate, literally every country in the world would trade anything for them to become a democracy, there have been revolutions for this! And here you are who'd trade democracy to retain a religious based identity

Bullshit. People want security, they want freedom, they want prosperity. Anyone who delivers that is a success. Chinese people are happy as communists because they're successful as communists.

Pakistani people repeatedly chose parliamentary democracy as a way of governance, not as a way of life or an ideology. Read our constitution.

I'm not some closet Al queda rambling for my Caliphate or some BS like that, in our constitution it states the law or the Quran and sunnah are supreme and no law shall be passed in contradiction to it.

Pakistan wants good governance so it can be safe, prosperous and free. If that is delivered by democracy, a king, a dictator, communism, some new alternative... Nobody cares.

 

[Zlatattack]

To those accusing me and Imran Khan of bigotry I ask...

If I was a jew and I accepted jesus as the messiah, am I still a jew or a Christian?

If I'm a Christian and I accepted Muhammad (pbuh) as gods final prophet am I still a Christian or a Muslim?

 

[Varun]

No, due to better economic conditions in the UK. If that were to change, I'd go back.

Don't be so mind boggled. Pakistani society has accepted and even welcomed military rule at times because democracy in Pakistan was so corrupt an inept. Try challenging Islam in Pakistan and see how long you stay in power. In Pakistan Islam will always come ahead of politics. Its what we created a separate state upon, religious identity.
What's so hard to grasp about that.

That someone would live in a city/country and be willing to swap/compromise on democracy for religion there. Anyway, I don't want to go deeper into this conversation, I just wanted to know whether you resided in the country where you were advocating this.

 

[Hitchez]

Before Jinnah we had Allah.

Factually incorrect.

@Hitchez
You have every right to disagree with opinions but please don't insult by calling posters ignorant.

It wasn't an insult. I just pointed out a historical fact that he was ignorant or unaware (if that word is more to your liking) of.

 

[MJJ]

Yeah, my involvement in these discussions is off the charts. Must be all the alerts I get.

Shadi keeps you busy bro warna you would be posting like crazy

 

[Hitchez]

To those accusing me and Imran Khan of bigotry I ask...

If I was a jew and I accepted jesus as the messiah, am I still a jew or a Christian?

If I'm a Christian and I accepted Muhammad (pbuh) as gods final prophet am I still a Christian or a Muslim?

You are whatever you want to label yourself as. It's not rocket science.

Besides, any cleric could find a number of things you have not adhered to as a Muslim if he so chose to and denounce you as a Muslim. In fact I find non acceptance of others personal choice un Islamic which would make you an infidel.

 

[2cents]

To those accusing me and Imran Khan of bigotry I ask...

If I was a jew and I accepted jesus as the messiah, am I still a jew or a Christian?

If I'm a Christian and I accepted Muhammad (pbuh) as gods final prophet am I still a Christian or a Muslim?

Nobody is arguing that the rest of us should be forced to accept their self-definition - just that they should be free to do so without fear of persecution.

By the way, Messianic Jews accept Jesus as Messiah. Unfortunately Israel, another state which arbitrates over who is or is not a member of a particular religion, does not accept them as Jewish. However they are still free to call themselves Jews.

 

[Zlatattack]

That someone would live in a city/country and be willing to swap/compromise on democracy for religion there. Anyway, I don't want to go deeper into this conversation, I just wanted to know whether you resided in the country where you were advocating this.

I'm a Pakistani passport holder and a voter (albeit by proxy). I'm not telling you my personal opinion, but my opinion of the political climate based on the history of Pakistan and its society.

Don't try to pretend that what I'm telling you isn't relevant. This is a country where the supremity of the Islamic faith is built into the constitution.

This is a country that has had sweets distributed on the sweets to welcome military dictators, and blood shed to expel them. People have marched for religious freedom and for bigotry. People have marched in the support of Islam time and time again and people have fought and died against Islamic extremism. We fought communism whilst embracing communists and having communist political parties.

Attempts to paint us all as either coconuts or Al queda are not going to fly. We have a vibrant political diversity.

If people are going to comment on our politics at least research it. People are genuinely shocked that Pakistan puts religion ahead of a type of governance.

 

[Zlatattack]

Nobody is arguing that the rest of us should be forced to accept their self-definition - just that they should be free to do so without fear of persecution.

By the way, Messianic Jews accept Jesus as Messiah. Unfortunately Israel, another state which arbitrates over who is or is not a member of a particular religion, does not accept them as Jewish. However they are still free to call themselves Jews.

I agree, they should be free from any persecution. If the state cannot stop law being manipulated to persecute minorities it should step down and let someone else take charge, or amend/abandon the laws.

What bothers me is how the conversation between the definition of who is a Muslim and persecution intertwine.

 

[Sultan]

Nobody is arguing that the rest of us should be forced to accept their self-definition - just that they should be free to do so without fear of persecution.

By the way, Messianic Jews accept Jesus as Messiah. Unfortunately Israel, another state which arbitrates over who is or is not a member of a particular religion, does not accept them as Jewish. However they are still free to call themselves Jews.

I'm sure besides some fanatics nobody in their right minds would advocate persecution.

Before anyone has a religion they are created human. Religion is intended to serve humanity. Where it takes us away from humanity, we're doing it wrong.

Beautifully said, brother. I'll add, to serve humanity is to serve God and its the ultimate form of worship.