# Zaid Hamid speech related to Pakistan



## Zarvan

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=318421824882974

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## scorpionx

Video Unavailable it says.


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DaRk WaVe

ohh I am trembling already... ohh God, i feel the blood rage, lets go kill some Hindus... *ridiculous*

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=575686909139456

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Roybot

Damn we are doomed, he is not going to take any prisoners even, gonna finish us all Baniyas 

So I have a question, if this hadith doesn't turn out to be true, Ghazwa Hind that is, would that mean all Hadiths are nothing by lies?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## livingdead

Roybot said:


> Damn we are doomed, he is not going to take any prisoners even, gonna finish us all Baniyas
> 
> So I have a question, if this hadith doesn't turn out to be true, Ghazwa Hind that is, would that mean all Hadiths are nothing by lies?



the good thing about gazwa thing is, you have infinite time ..so it can never be incorrect... for example one can say mughals did it....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Roybot

hinduguy said:


> the good thing about gazwa thing is, *you have infinite time ..*so it can never be incorrect... for example one can say mughals did it....



lmao oh I see, clever move. So no time frame for Ghazwa Hind, @Zarvan shed some light plox.


----------



## Foo_Fighter

Zahid Hamid trolling Pakistan for a change???


----------



## PWFI

ma cha ALLAH keep it up Zarvan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gentle Typhoon

Pakistan's gabru naujawan Zaid Hamid will conquer India. Zarvan will be brigadier in his gazwa-e-hind army.


----------



## t_for_talli

Zarvan said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=318421824882974



Where the F**K is video

I am ready with beer and chakana


----------



## KingMamba

Roybot said:


> Damn we are doomed, he is not going to take any prisoners even, gonna finish us all Baniyas
> 
> So I have a question, if this hadith doesn't turn out to be true, Ghazwa Hind that is, would that mean all Hadiths are nothing by lies?





Unfortunately all prediction hadiths have been coming true one after the other, the gazwa hadith probably won't occur in any of our lifetimes though because a lot has to happen before that.



hinduguy said:


> the good thing about gazwa thing is, you have infinite time ..so it can never be incorrect... for example one can say mughals did it....



No mughals did not because something has to happen afterwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## acid rain

We have something called Gazwa E Pakistan which seems to be more successful and achieveable atm. If one is to believe than we have practically started to put everything in motion already - right upto Radio Pakistan playing bollywood numbers.


----------



## RazPaK

Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## karan.1970




----------



## KingMamba

Zarvan said:


>



Zarvan is that Medina?


----------



## Aka123

Zaid Hamid should be invited by Times now for a debate with Arnab Goswami!


----------



## JohnyBoy

Zaid Hamid - Well known Pakistani comedian...

Some popcorn plz...


----------



## Roybot

Mamba said:


> Unfortunately all prediction hadiths have been coming true one after the other, the gazwa hadith probably won't occur in any of our lifetimes though because a lot has to happen before that.



Oh it has? Like which ones?


----------



## naveen mishra




----------



## RazPaK

The Indians will be ruled like the docile creatures they are for another thousand years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Roybot said:


> Oh it has? Like which ones?



I will give you a few examples, the conquest of Constantinople by Muslims, the Tigris being turned red with Muslim blood (referring to a mass slaughter aka mongol invasion of Baghdad), A fire in Medina (654 AD), Islam being broken down with people referring by their sects instead of just Muslim (occurring now), and the capture of Jerusalem by Jews (must have seemed absurd to the Muslims who heard of it a millennium ago ).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## acid rain

RazPaK said:


> Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.



The conquering was a sequel to the prelude that was Indian warlords conquering huge tracts of Asia...that will happen first...India first will spread its empire as far and wide that it did in the past, 

As far as the past conquerers of India are concerned, lets see how the Persians(Iranians), Turks, Mongols(lol), Mughals(dead as a dodo), Central Asians(vassals and no competition), British(NRI Indians rule there...including the East India company) fare atm....come up with one country/region that even possess a remotest chance of doing it....we will fry their @sses before they even put a boat or qafila out for conquering India.....as for Pakistan.....hehehehehe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Roybot

Mamba said:


> I will give you a few examples, the conquest of Constantinople by Muslims, the Tigris being turned red with Muslim blood (referring to a mass slaughter aka mongol invasion of Baghdad), A fire in Medina (654 AD), Islam being broken down with people referring by their sects instead of just Muslim (occurring now), and the capture of Jerusalem by Jews (must have seemed absurd to the Muslims who heard of it a millennium ago ).



Are you sure these hadiths weren't written retrospectively?


----------



## RazPaK

acid rain said:


> The conquering was a sequel to the prelude that was Indian warlords conquering huge tracts of Asia...that will happen first...India first will spread its empire as far and wide that it did in the past,
> 
> As far as the past conquerers of India are concerned, lets see how the Persians(Iranians), Turks, Mongols(lol), Mughals(dead as a dodo), Central Asians(vassals and no competition), British(NRI Indians rule there...including the East India company) fare atm....come up with one country/region that even possess a remotest chance of doing it....we will fry their @sses before they even put a boat or qafila out for conquering India.....as for Pakistan.....hehehehehe.



  

The worst you bhartees can do is make a nuclear bum from your Indian food.


Like I said, docile creatures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Roybot said:


> Are you sure these hadiths weren't written retrospectively?



Yes I am sure as some are ongoing and others were being talked about before it even happened. Like the capture of Jerusalem hadith was never taken seriously because people were like seriously the Jews of all people, which is why Muslim leaders always let Jews settle in Jerusalem while Christians would force them out. 

Also the tigris hadith when it was fulfilled people thought they were near the day of judgement and Genghis Khan referred to such hadith as a psychological warfare method and he declared himself the whip sent by Allah because Muslims have gotten out of hand so that there would be no uprising against him. Although that was before his grandson sacked Baghdad but it worked wonders for the Mongols.

The Constantinople hadith was said before any conflict happened between Muslims and Eastern Romans and was the reason why Turks were so adamant on conquering Constantinople even when the city was a shadow of its former self. 

Anyway no more religious talk for forum rules sake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## acid rain

RazPaK said:


> The worst you bhartees can do is make a nuclear bum from your Indian food.
> 
> 
> Like I said, docile creatures.



And the best you can do is get blown up by TTP, LEJ etc etc etc, thank your god that you are safe in a kkafir country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## acid rain

RazPaK said:


> The Indians will be ruled like the docile creatures they are for another thousand years.



By whom?? the dead fking dodos or the rohaani BS.....ROFL.


----------



## illusion8

Zaid Hamid....iis f@rt kii subah nahin , send him to India..for a comedy show.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

Sir Zaid Hamid has promised me to give 3 days advance notice before starting the Ghazwa, so that I can get my bunker ready.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hyperion

WUSS.... 



Gautam said:


> Sir Zaid Hamid has promised me to give 3 days advance notice before starting the Ghazwa, so that I can get my bunker ready.


----------



## deepak.chauhan2312

RazPaK said:


> Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.



ha ha ha ha....you got into history again and i will say it again that your were get conquered too....iss baat ka always dhayan rkho when it comes to history before 1947 if you are insulting India about it you are insulting Pakistan too


----------



## deepak.chauhan2312

saala comedian.....he don't have respect even in pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chak Bamu

@Zarvan, brother in my younger years I was fascinated with Hadith relating to the signs of last days. Over the years, I have realized that it is quite wrong to build a political / strategic action plan based on these Hadith.

I believe in Hadith just as a believer ought to. However, my realization was based on the question of anyone mortal being in a position to influence Allah's plan. Assuming that we ought to do abc because Allah would do xyz is inappropriate. It assumes knowledge of events that only Allah has. It also points to an assumption that perhaps someone can actually influence Allah's plan. More likely such programs are really a product of an obsession with plight of Muslims and a failure to see how the situation can be changed advantageously. While the sentiments are noble, the actual outcome of this thinking is disastrous. There is a word in English language that does justice to such thinking. It is called Millennialism. Millennial thinking is not unique to Islam. Such thinking exists in Judaism and Christianity. I will touch upon this at the end of this post.

1. Look at Al-Qaeda. It has not made an iota of positive difference for Muslims. It has in fact caused a great deal of deterioration and confusion. But their thinking has a germ of Millennialism. And that sits atop a deep-seated frustration with World and suspicion of anything that does not fit into their mind-set. They totally fail to realize that we need Jihad with ourselves and improve our educational, economic, and governance systems. Only then we can be in a position to positively improve our (Ummah's) fotune.

2. The TTP have a millennial mind-set too. And this sits atop a great deal of tribalism mixed with classical learning very much out of tune with today's world. The want to make this world of ours conform with their vision derived from classical texts. There is hardly any precedent and this approach is likely impractical. But still they use Millennial thinking as an inspiration and recruitment tool. Read their literature and you would find the truth of what I am saying.

3. Many activist people with a link to spirituality in Pakistan (like Zaid Hamid) are also in thrall of Millennial thinking. Of all, Sufis ought to understand the nature of pitfalls most well, since most Auliya-Allah have warned against a lust for political power. But nevertheless, I have seen and read grains of this thinking in the works of people aware of spiritual dimension of Islam. It has led to errors and outlandish claims in the past and will do so again in the present. And we can well see this happening today too. Zaid Hamid's Pir made an outlandish claim that has earned the ire of Ulema and given rise to controversy. I shall not say anymore and leave it at that. But Ummah's history of colonial times and since has given us some examples of the weaknesses inherent in this course of action, and any one who has interest in this subject should know and realize its pitfalls.

4. Common people like myself who wish to do something for Ummah, starting from Pakistan often read things about Khilafat, Imam Mehdi, Ghazwa-e-Hind, Dajjal etc... The material out there ought to warn the readers that these works are mostly speculations. But of course anyone who starts writing about their Millennial vision are so convinced and confident, that they are pretty emphatic about their proclamations. This of course takes a commoner on a joyride which is very addictive. I have taken a couple of these and found that nothing actually changes. The basic mistake of course is that anyone who writes about Millennialism forgets that it is Allah's decision, and nobody else's. We have Hadith, but Hadith is not a definite program of when anything would actually happen. It only provides an approximate sequence of some events. But we have no way of knowing WHEN these events might unfold. Since we ourselves are so desperate of something to happen, we (and generations before us) have been focused on an imminent DHAMAKA that would change everything. If Allah so wishes, it shall happen, when Allah wishes it to happen - but not before. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can wish these events into existence. We are nobodies, and our wishes are irrelevant.

So my friend, if you want to do something productive with your time, focus on improvements in our social, educational, economic, & political systems. Little by little we can raise ourselves to achieve all we wish for. It would take a few decades, but if Chinese could change their status within one generation, so can we. My support for Democracy is not based on some blind faith. I have proper reasons for doing so. If we wish for Pakistan to be a source of strength to Ummah and bulwark against Kufr, then we need to build it. Nobody will drop out of the sky just like that to make Pakistan great. We have to do it ourselves. Leaving it to Allah is the way of the Jews. We are not Jews. The great teachings that we follow point to positive thinking, systematic Mashawarat, struggle, and hard work. A Muslim must not underestimate the importance of sweat. But for some reason we have a strange fascination with Blood, unfortunately. Our Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has taught us importance of Hikmat, and has cautioned us against war. But we keep thinking of it as though it would solve our problems.

The best victory is achieved without expenditure of physical resources. This is Sunnah but we forget.

I have found that moving away from Millennial thinking as an imperative action plan for near future frees up one's mind. One sees things differently and notices important opportunities. I find nothing wrong with working for peace with India because Ghazwa-e-Hind has nothing to do with my actions, unless it happens in my life time. In any case, I have to work as though it is not about to happen. I can therefore see the importance of working with Hindus on improving the situation of South Asia, since it is important to both of us. If I were to focus on the idea of imminent Ghazwa-e-Hind, I would be opposed to any accommodation, any negotiation, any effort towards improvement. I am glad our leaders today are not Millennialists, but pragmatic politicians who know the importance of making a deal for the sake of peace.

Lastly, let me provide examples of busted Millennial thinking. First is of some nutty Christian group who planned a series of bombings in Israel to start (in their view) World War in December 1999, so that they may hasten second coming of Jesus Christ in 2000. Luckily Israelis caught them before they could do something. A couple of years ago, someone came up with a looney plan to somehow strike big oil in Israel (under the Dead Sea) and cause a war from (supposedly) angry Arabs. This too was just a money minting ploy. American public is awfully dumb at times. Another nutter had an hour of program on a TV channel in USA in the 90's focused on getting Jesus Christ on Earth quickly, in time for the new Millenium. This too was a money thing. For Jews, the last big thing that happened was Shebbatai Zevi (1626-1676) during Ottoman reign. Sabbatai Zevi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Armstrong, you may find something of value in this post. @haviZsultan, you too may find that this attempt at explaining impact of Millennial programs valuable. @RazPaK - I think most of all, you need to read this. Who knows, your hatred for India may have Millennial roots.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Armstrong

@Chak Bamu *Bhai* - I'm still sticking to my Argument of treating Hadith as something that has less to do with Religion & more to do with History so I'm not a big believer the Ahadith in an actively religious manner !


----------



## Chak Bamu

Armstrong said:


> @Chak Bamu *Bhai* - I'm still sticking to my Argument of treating Hadith as something that has less to do with Religion & more to do with History so I'm not a big believer the Ahadith in an actively religious manner !



I was just giving my perspective. BTW, it is a bit of a slippery slope when one starts doubting Hadith. If you find something difficult to understand or square with your view of things, it is best to suspend judgement rather than suspend belief. Slowly things work in the back of your mind and one day you find the key that opens the solution to a conundrum. Take this as an advice from a self-described sufi.

In any case, I am just waiting for completing 1000 posts so that I can start using DMs. I would like to send you my mobile number and talk to you, if you could be willing that is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## livingdead

Armstrong said:


> @Chak Bamu *Bhai* - I'm still sticking to my Argument of treating Hadith as something that has less to do with Religion & more to do with History so I'm not a big believer the Ahadith in an actively religious manner !



same can be said about quran too .. no?


----------



## Armstrong

hinduguy said:


> same can be said about quran too .. no?



No ! Historical Continuity, Uniformity & Preservation in the form of thousands to hundreds of thousands & later millions of Memorizers with not even a diphthong different between them puts it beyond reasonable doubt, in my humble opinion !


----------



## livingdead

Armstrong said:


> No ! Historical Continuity, Uniformity & Preservation in the form of thousands to hundreds of thousands & later millions of Memorizers with not even a diphthong different between them puts it beyond reasonable doubt, in my humble opinion !


its possible to do so with hadith too .. besides you just see current scripture, you have no idea what people were memorizing earlier.
beyond resonable doubt? you should have said 'I believe' ..


----------



## Chak Bamu

hinduguy said:


> same can be said about quran too .. no?



OH Bhai, Janay do. Let it go....



hinduguy said:


> its possible to do so with hadith too .. besides you just see current scripture, you have no idea what people were memorizing earlier.
> beyond resonable doubt? you should have said 'I believe' ..



You do not seem to put much FAITH in BELIEF? Why then describe yourself in religious terms?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

hinduguy said:


> its possible to do so with hadith too .. besides you just see current scripture, you have no idea what people were memorizing earlier.
> beyond resonable doubt? you should have said 'I believe' ..



No it isn't possible with hadith because there is enough evidence to suggest to the contrary ! Even the Hadith where the context & the gist is the same, the wordings are different - Nothing of the sort exists in the Koran ! 

Historical Continuity - Of course we do know what other people were memorizing earlier because there is a consensus on its content throughout the ages & extreme care was taken towards its preservation ! And because of the sheer scale of those who memorized it & many who then took it to the far corners of the known world without any variance between the words of the Koran anywhere as far back as recorded history ! 

I maintain 'beyond reasonable doubt' because 'unreasonable doubts' can be obtained aplenty but there is no reasonable doubt to suggest that the copy of the Koran today is any different than the copy that was there 1400 years ago.


----------



## acid rain

@chuk bamu, the zaid hamid aaka issue you are talking about is that he claimed to be the present day Allah or prophet wasnt it?

As for the muslim prophesies that you see and hope will happen....be advised that there are numerous such prophesies that are present for every country, religion etc...and some circumstantial events tend to match up to what someone would prophesise....even for the present moment there are scores of people who prophesize what changes will happen to environment, economy, geo politics, earth and space, human beings, oceans, mountains, living beings etc for 20, 50...even 100 years and some them have been coming true or are on the verge of coming true.

As for Muslims doing a Gazwa Hind - best of luck to you lot - you will be a spent force by the time the west, China, Russia, Israel or India go through you....and this is my prediction/prophecy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## livingdead

Black Wolf said:


> Pakistan is bound to be bombed through Taliban...



abey vishal bhardwaj.. tu phir agaya ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

hinduguy said:


> its possible to do so with hadith too .. besides you just see current scripture, you have no idea what people were memorizing earlier.
> beyond resonable doubt? you should have said 'I believe' ..



No the Quran was written down in parchments during the time of the Prophet and was then assmbled into one book not soon after. Hadith were compiled 230+ years later.


----------



## Itachi

If ANYONE has nothing better to say then AT LEAST not include Zarvan in their absurd replies. He (Zarvan) is doing what he is supposed to do, unlike MANY on this thread, who are trolling where there is no need to.

I said MANY for a reason, not saying ALL excludes the ppl who know they are not trolling.


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> @Zarvan, brother in my younger years I was fascinated with Hadith relating to the signs of last days. Over the years, I have realized that it is quite wrong to build a political / strategic action plan based on these Hadith.
> 
> I believe in Hadith just as a believer ought to. However, my realization was based on the question of anyone mortal being in a position to influence Allah's plan. Assuming that we ought to do abc because Allah would do xyz is inappropriate. It assumes knowledge of events that only Allah has. It also points to an assumption that perhaps someone can actually influence Allah's plan. More likely such programs are really a product of an obsession with plight of Muslims and a failure to see how the situation can be changed advantageously. While the sentiments are noble, the actual outcome of this thinking is disastrous. There is a word in English language that does justice to such thinking. It is called Millennialism. Millennial thinking is not unique to Islam. Such thinking exists in Judaism and Christianity. I will touch upon this at the end of this post.
> 
> 1. Look at Al-Qaeda. It has not made an iota of positive difference for Muslims. It has in fact caused a great deal of deterioration and confusion. But their thinking has a germ of Millennialism. And that sits atop a deep-seated frustration with World and suspicion of anything that does not fit into their mind-set. They totally fail to realize that we need Jihad with ourselves and improve our educational, economic, and governance systems. Only then we can be in a position to positively improve our (Ummah's) fotune.
> 
> 2. The TTP have a millennial mind-set too. And this sits atop a great deal of tribalism mixed with classical learning very much out of tune with today's world. The want to make this world of ours conform with their vision derived from classical texts. There is hardly any precedent and this approach is likely impractical. But still they use Millennial thinking as an inspiration and recruitment tool. Read their literature and you would find the truth of what I am saying.
> 
> 3. Many activist people with a link to spirituality in Pakistan (like Zaid Hamid) are also in thrall of Millennial thinking. Of all, Sufis ought to understand the nature of pitfalls most well, since most Auliya-Allah have warned against a lust for political power. But nevertheless, I have seen and read grains of this thinking in the works of people aware of spiritual dimension of Islam. It has led to errors and outlandish claims in the past and will do so again in the present. And we can well see this happening today too. Zaid Hamid's Pir made an outlandish claim that has earned the ire of Ulema and given rise to controversy. I shall not say anymore and leave it at that. But Ummah's history of colonial times and since has given us some examples of the weaknesses inherent in this course of action, and any one who has interest in this subject should know and realize its pitfalls.
> 
> 4. Common people like myself who wish to do something for Ummah, starting from Pakistan often read things about Khilafat, Imam Mehdi, Ghazwa-e-Hind, Dajjal etc... The material out there ought to warn the readers that these works are mostly speculations. But of course anyone who starts writing about their Millennial vision are so convinced and confident, that they are pretty emphatic about their proclamations. This of course takes a commoner on a joyride which is very addictive. I have taken a couple of these and found that nothing actually changes. The basic mistake of course is that anyone who writes about Millennialism forgets that it is Allah's decision, and nobody else's. We have Hadith, but Hadith is not a definite program of when anything would actually happen. It only provides an approximate sequence of some events. But we have no way of knowing WHEN these events might unfold. Since we ourselves are so desperate of something to happen, we (and generations before us) have been focused on an imminent DHAMAKA that would change everything. If Allah so wishes, it shall happen, when Allah wishes it to happen - but not before. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can wish these events into existence. We are nobodies, and our wishes are irrelevant.
> 
> So my friend, if you want to do something productive with your time, focus on improvements in our social, educational, economic, & political systems. Little by little we can raise ourselves to achieve all we wish for. It would take a few decades, but if Chinese could change their status within one generation, so can we. My support for Democracy is not based on some blind faith. I have proper reasons for doing so. If we wish for Pakistan to be a source of strength to Ummah and bulwark against Kufr, then we need to build it. Nobody will drop out of the sky just like that to make Pakistan great. We have to do it ourselves. Leaving it to Allah is the way of the Jews. We are not Jews. The great teachings that we follow point to positive thinking, systematic Mashawarat, struggle, and hard work. A Muslim must not underestimate the importance of sweat. But for some reason we have a strange fascination with Blood, unfortunately. Our Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has taught us importance of Hikmat, and has cautioned us against war. But we keep thinking of it as though it would solve our problems.
> 
> The best victory is achieved without expenditure of physical resources. This is Sunnah but we forget.
> 
> I have found that moving away from Millennial thinking as an imperative action plan for near future frees up one's mind. One sees things differently and notices important opportunities. I find nothing wrong with working for peace with India because Ghazwa-e-Hind has nothing to do with my actions, unless it happens in my life time. In any case, I have to work as though it is not about to happen. I can therefore see the importance of working with Hindus on improving the situation of South Asia, since it is important to both of us. If I were to focus on the idea of imminent Ghazwa-e-Hind, I would be opposed to any accommodation, any negotiation, any effort towards improvement. I am glad our leaders today are not Millennialists, but pragmatic politicians who know the importance of making a deal for the sake of peace.
> 
> Lastly, let me provide examples of busted Millennial thinking. First is of some nutty Christian group who planned a series of bombings in Israel to start (in their view) World War in December 1999, so that they may hasten second coming of Jesus Christ in 2000. Luckily Israelis caught them before they could do something. A couple of years ago, someone came up with a looney plan to somehow strike big oil in Israel (under the Dead Sea) and cause a war from (supposedly) angry Arabs. This too was just a money minting ploy. American public is awfully dumb at times. Another nutter had an hour of program on a TV channel in USA in the 90's focused on getting Jesus Christ on Earth quickly, in time for the new Millenium. This too was a money thing. For Jews, the last big thing that happened was Shebbatai Zevi (1626-1676) during Ottoman reign. Sabbatai Zevi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> @Armstrong, you may find something of value in this post. @haviZsultan, you too may find that this attempt at explaining impact of Millennial programs valuable. @RazPaK - I think most of all, you need to read this. Who knows, your hatred for India may have Millennial roots.



Mr Muslims have build their whole plans on those hadees Sahabas launched wars against two super powers basing their actions on Hadees Muslims if can't follow HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and his orders and than they are worse than pi*** MR and democracy is nothing but bullshit complete haram system and time has proved it again and again Sir their can be no peace with India they have to be taken out other wise they would make you history @Armstrong if you don't believe in hadees than you also deny Quran because in the end those who deny Hadees they deny all the concepts of Quran too you can't follow most orders of Quran without following Hadees Mr



Armstrong said:


> No it isn't possible with hadith because there is enough evidence to suggest to the contrary ! Even the Hadith where the context & the gist is the same, the wordings are different - Nothing of the sort exists in the Koran !
> 
> Historical Continuity - Of course we do know what other people were memorizing earlier because there is a consensus on its content throughout the ages & extreme care was taken towards its preservation ! And because of the sheer scale of those who memorized it & many who then took it to the far corners of the known world without any variance between the words of the Koran anywhere as far back as recorded history !
> 
> I maintain 'beyond reasonable doubt' because 'unreasonable doubts' can be obtained aplenty but there is no reasonable doubt to suggest that the copy of the Koran today is any different than the copy that was there 1400 years ago.



Mr Hazrat Muhammad SAW told many people many things Mr words can differ but many times order would be the same Mr if you follow Quran only than unfortunately in Quran the allmighty ALLAH just forgot to give details of most orders which it gave like salah like Zakat Like Roza Like Hajj like other orders so now you want to tell me ALLAH really forgot to give those orders Mr no Sir he didn't gave those details because he asked you in the same Quran to follow HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and following him is following his sayings and actions MR those are Hadees and Sunnah and he HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW have given the details of all the orders

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

RazPaK said:


> Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.



Pakistan bound to loose as it always been.


----------



## naveen mishra

*Secular Pakistan*

*The Myth of Ghazwa-tul-Hind*

By Ale Natiq
Cross-Posted from Ale&#8217;s blog (Thanks to Pakistani intelligence agencies for their illegal Denial of Service (DOS) attacks on Ale&#8217;s blog)
Religion has quite frequently been used as an excuse for military motives. Talking specifically about Islam, hadees has been used as a tool to invent excuses for political motivations and military interventions/attacks as and when required.
There has been enormous hue and cry over Ghazwa-tul-Hind for years. This was probably first used by self-styled ****** activists in Pakistan for getting public support in Pakistan and raising funds to be used in their attacks in Kashmir with the aim of conquering India and creating what they call dar-ul-Islam. It is very interesting to note that neither Arabs nor the Mujahideen of Afghanistan made use of these ahadees to wage a war against India. Pakistan Army, ISI and the local Jihadis have a monopoly over Ghazwa-tul-Hind for now, although they don&#8217;t talk specifically about Green Pakistani Jihadis waging the war.








Islamists and right-wing-military-apologists have fallen to the propaganda of Pakistan Army and ISI when they propagate waging a war against the neighboring country India, finding excuses for ding so through hadees. Zaid Hamid, the mouth-piece of ISI and Pakistan Army has been making use of Ghazwa-tul-Hind (6 hadees in total), promoting hatred against Hindus and war hysteria. These hadees are available here.
Are they authentic ?
Just a brief look at these will make it clear that none of these five ahadees are found in Sihah-e-Sitta. Two of these appear to be in the collections of ahadees by Imam Nisai but not in Sunan an-Nisai al Sughra, the book considered to be among the Sihah-e-Sitta, the six books considered most reliable by main-stream Muslims.
The others are not even found in the reliable collections of respected muhadiseen.
Note that Imam Nisai died in 915. The years of death of other respected muhadiseen to whom Sihah-e-Sitta are attributed to: Imam Bukhari in 870, Imam Muslim in 875, Abu Daud in 888, al-Tirmizi in 892, Imam Malik in 796, Ibn Maja in 886. All of them died before Imam Nisai. It does not make much sense that we have these ahadees being narrated through Imam Nisai but not through any of the other respected muhadiseen who lived before him.
They are narrated through a single chain. Reported only once through one companion of the Prophet.
Considering the reward for participating in this war and the importance of it, as these ahadees tell, they should have been narrated by more companions of the Prophet and should have been there in more books of ahadees.
It is very important to note that none of these are found in any of the collections of ahadees which the Shia Muslims consider authentic. This raises the question if they were invented by the Ummayads/Abbasids considering their expansionist designs? This is also to be noted that Ummayads did reach Sindh, a part of Hind back then.
One must also note the fact that we don&#8217;t have any history report telling us about the use of these ahadees in the past by Muslim rulers or conquerors, even those who did invade India or waged a war on it. If they were respected and authentic ahadees, we should have such history reports.
Fourthly, it must be remembered that it would have been very easy for Muslim conquerors of India in the past, men like Mahmud of Ghazni, Shihabuddin Ghori, Timur, Nadir Shah and so on, to present the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind and wield it as a weapon to justify their attacks on the country. The corrupt ulema associated with their courts could well have suggested this to them had they wished. However, no such mention is made about this in history books. In the eighteenth century, the well-known Islamic scholar Shah Waliullah of Delhi invited the Afghan warlord Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and dispel the Marathas, which he accepted, but yet Shah Waliullah, too, did not use this hadith as a pretext for this. [1]
What if they are authentic ?
It is also pertinent to examine how some well-known contemporary Indian ulema look at this hadith report.
Maulana Abdul Hamid Numani, a leading figure of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind, opines that this hadith was fulfilled at the time of the &#8216;Four Righteous Caliphs&#8217; of the Sunnis, soon after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad, when several companions of the Prophet came to India, mainly in order to spread Islam. [1]
Mufti Sajid Qasmi, who teaches at the Dar ul-Uloom in Deoband, is also of the same opinion, although he believes that it might also refer to the invasion of Sindh by the Arabs under Muhammad bin Qasim in the eighth century. [1]
On the other hand, Maulana Mufti Mushtaq Tijarvi of the Jamaat-i Islami Hind believes that it is possible that this hadith report is not genuine at all and that it might have been fabricated at the time of Muhammad bin Qasim&#8217;s invasion of Sindh in order to justify it. [1]
Scholars and historians argue that even if they are considered as authentic, it might be the case that they talk about an event which has already happened.
On the other hand, if this hadith report is indeed genuine&#8212;which it might well be&#8212;in my view, the battle against India that it predicted was fulfilled in the early Islamic period itself, and is not something that will happen in the future. This, in fact, is the opinion of the majority of the ulema, qualified Islamic scholars. And this view accords with reason as well. [1]
It is quite likely that the ghazwat ul-hind that this report predicted took the form of the attack by an Arab Muslim force on Thana and Bharuch, in coastal western India , in the 15th year or the Islamic calendar in the reign of the Caliph Umar. [1]
Equally possibly, it could have been fulfilled in the form of the missionary efforts of some of the Prophet&#8217;s companions soon after, in the reign of the Caliphs Uthman and Ali, in Sindh and Gujarat .[1]
Some other ulema consider this hadith to have been fulfilled in the form of the attack and occupation of Sindh by Arab Muslims led by Muhammad bin Qasim in the 93rd year of the Islamic calendar, which then facilitated the spread of Islam in the country. [1]
This might well be the case, for the hadith report about the ghazwat ul-hind contained in the Masnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a well-known collection of Hadith narratives attributed to the Prophet, mentions that the Muslim army that would attack India would be sent in the direction of Sindh and Hind. [1]
Opinion of the religious scholars
I inquired about the authenticity of these ahadees from a few religious scholars and would like to share their opinion in this regard:
Ayotullah Fadlallah, Lebanon
Such things exist in the hadith collections, which are often either placed or mounted on a symbolic meaning, or they talk about something historic which has happened in the context of what we believe in self-defense. Further, the hadith in question can be doubted about their autenticity as they are not found in any reliable and agreed upon source. The chain of narrators is weak to be considered authentic.
In this day and age what would govern the relations of Muslims and followers of other religions, are the international treaties and covenants that ensure the state security, peace and freedom of belief for all human beings.
These treaties are binding on Muslims, especially as they are consistent with the approach of Islam declared in the Qur&#8217;an about the obligation to respect the religions and the freedom and security of other peoples.
Hence, the use of such hadith for political or military motives is discouraged.
The Office of the referenda for Religious Authority
Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah
Research Wing, Al-Mawrid Institue
assalaam o alaykum
I have tried to find out the sources of these traditions. None of these traditions is found in reliable soruces like Bukhari, Muslim, Mu&#8217;atta etc. If we suppose them to be reliable they talk about an even that has happened already. They do not talk about Pakistanis fighting Indians. They talk about Arabs on an expedition to India and conquering it.
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi
Associate Editor
Khalid Zaheer, Al-Mawrid, Lahore, Pakistan
SalaamAll these ahadith refer to troops going from Palestine and Syria and returning to those regions. Even if these ahadith were authentic, and they are indeed found in reliable books, they have nothing to do with any possibility of an Indo-Pak war.The other important thing to note is that Abu Huraira, the companion-narrator is suggesting that it was something that was about to happen during his lifetime. it is quite likely that Muhammad Bin Qasim&#8217;s conquest of Sind was being prophesied in these ahadith.
The third important matter to note is that a message as important as the one mentioned in these narratives is described in all different versions through only one companion. Clearly, if the message was important, there should have been several narrators mentioning it.
This message therefore cannot be employed as an excuse to fight against India. We can fight against India or any other nation only if conditions of Jihad are satisfied, which are: it should be declared by a Muslim ruler, Muslims should be at least half as militarily strong as their enemies, and the enemy should be guilty of blatant injustice against a group of people. Any individual or group of people cannot declare Jihad on their own against anyone; if they do, they will be guilty of creating fasaad fil &#8216;ard (mischief on earth). [2]
Information on the ahadees available at Ghazw-e-Hind intro (English & Urdu)
Hadees No. 1
Important References Provided : Masnad of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Sunan al-Mujtababa and Sunana al-Kubra of Imam Nisai
Hadees No. 2
Important References Provided : Masnad of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Sunan-al-Kubra of Imam Nisai
Hadees No. 3
Important References Provided : Naeem bin Hammad in Kitab-al-Fattan
Hadees No. 4
Important References Provided : Naeem bin Hammad in Kitab-al-Fattan
(The name of one of the ravi is missing from the chain of narrators, hence this is to be ignored technically)
Hadees No. 5
Important References Provided : Naeem bin Hammad in Kitab-al-Fattan
Sources:
[1] http://madrasareforms.blogspot.com/2009/01/maulana-waris-mazhari-countering.html
Maulana Waris Mazhari, a graduate of the Dar ul-Uloom at Deoband, is the editor of the Delhi-based &#8216;Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom&#8217;, the official organ of the Deoband Graduates&#8217; Association. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@**********
[2] Khalid Zaheer: Have Muslims been asked to conquer India?
Dr Khalid Zaheer is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of University of Central Punjab since July 1, 2009. Prior to joining UCP, he was the Director Education, Al-Mawrid, which is an NGO established to promote research and education on Islam. Prior to joining Al-Mawrid in September 2006, he was an Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Ethics at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). He has a teaching experience of more than 20 years.


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jetti

I think 1.6 billion have been taken for a ride by 1 guy who said God ordered everyone to follow that one guy's path. there is no proof it ever happened. wake up people and revert back to your native lifestyle.


----------



## Slav Defence

acid rain said:


> We have something called Gazwa E Pakistan which seems to be more successful and achieveable atm. If one is to believe than we have practically started to put everything in motion already - right upto Radio Pakistan playing bollywood numbers.



Operation Pakistan-India TV calls it.


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1384472898448505

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## defender_of_humanity

RazPaK said:


> The Indians will be ruled like the docile creatures they are for another thousand years.




Now I understand why you are so fond of Zaid Hamid. He is soooooooooooo fair.

Many people in Pakistan think that Zaid Hamid was gangraped in his younger days (around 1993) by Taliban as the Taliban are very fond of fair skinned, cute, sweet voiced young boys like Zaid Hamid.


there was an expose about this very old tradition in a newspaper. It read

A former militant commander-turned-fruit seller in Pakistan confirmed the abuse but told Central Asia Online that the majority of cases go unreported because of "cultural taboos." 

"Due to social fear, [the victim] keeps it secret  because in our society, the victim boy is always accused of the act," said the former commander, who identified himself only as Mohmand. "It doesn't matter whether he is forced or if he consented.  Once used, he is then vulnerable to blackmailing and exploitation by others  including commanders or colleagues  for their pleasure." 

Some of the abusing commanders would often "proudly share" the act and encourage their peers and colleagues also to "use" the victim, he said.




we all agree with you when you say,

ZAID HAMID IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FAIR.


----------



## Chak Bamu

Zarvan said:


> Mr Muslims have build their whole plans on those hadees Sahabas launched wars against two super powers basing their actions on Hadees Muslims if can't follow HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and his orders and than they are worse than pi*** MR and democracy is nothing but bullshit complete haram system and time has proved it again and again Sir their can be no peace with India they have to be taken out other wise they would make you history



Calm down @Zarvan, calm down. I do not understand what is your problem? Why do you get so emotional all of a sudden? 

1. Sahaba build their plans? Not really. The rapid expansion into Al-Sham and Iraq/Persia was put in place by Hazrat Muhammad (Sallallhu Alaihi Wasallam). It was understood that Roomis and Persians would not allow Muslims to exist peacefully and they had to be conquered. It was foretold and Sahaba did not need to read books of Hadith to know that. The only 'plan' thought up by Sahaba were campaigns against Constantinople. And even that was used for political leverage to benefit Yazid, the wine-lover who caused Karbala and ordered massacre in Madinah Munawwara.

2. I would like you to explain how Hadith actually provides a viable action plan after more than 14 centuries? Can you tell for sure WHEN Ghazwa-e-Hind is supposed to take place? Can you give a time frame: this year, next year, ten years from now, or a hundred years from now? Can you do that? If anyone is going to PLAN to do something, they need to have a time-line in place. So can you provide a timeline? I know you can not do anything about it because only Allah knows. And this is exactly what I was saying in my post. You are talking about Sahaba working on a plan and that we should do the same. But really you have absolutely no idea as to how, what, and when should anything be done. Your reference to Sahaba is only to spread confusion; as I explained, Sahaba did not really need to plan, it was already done for them. Their execution was very well done and with great deal of insight. Can we claim the same? I do not think so, please feel free to convince me with references and logic.

3. Show me ONE valid reference that shows that we should follow an action plan described in Hadith. Just ONE. When you make sweeping generalizations and delve in sanctimonious pontification, you become unbearable. What do you mean by 'they are worse than pi***'? I would very much like to know what orders are you talking about and how do those orders should mould our thinking about Ghazwa-e-Hind? I want you to reply to my post and specifically answer this point, point #3. I would not let you walk away from this.

4. Your rabid views about Democracy are well noted. There is nothing new in this. People like you certainly have their minds well made up and sure can not deign to consult others. I would like to know why you disregard Hadith about Mashawarat? Why do you not give it ANY importance. If Muslims have Mashwara to elect an Ameer, why do people like you have problem with that? You think common Muslims are Cattle? They are there to be compelled to pay taxes, made to act like cannon fodder, to be cheated by high-vaulting Mullah types like yourself and must not ever ask WHY? You sure have no idea about politics. Your teachers have failed you when you know nothing about politics, or constitutionalism, or establishment of social contract between the rulers and the people. You purposely keep yourself in the dark because it suits your mindset. You purposely keep yourself from learning something new, and to think for yourself. All I ever hear from you about Democracy is that it is Haram, it is BS, it is failed system. You provide NO valid arguments, you provide no reference to Quran and Hadith, you just keep repeating your dumb opinion without understanding that you are actually helping spread Fitna and Fasad-fil-Urd (mischief on the Earth). You are clearly against the constitution of Pakistan. Why do you help spread Fitna and Fasad-fil-Ard? Why?

5. Here is some food for thought! How do you plan on tackling sectarianism? Do you plan on bringing in a Khalifah belonging to your Sect and forcefully 'converting' all others to your line of thought? Do you have any idea what this thinking has done in the past and would continue to do in the future? Tell me how your system (if it is indeed a system because I have never come across anything from you that would explain it) would deal with Sectarianism in Pakistan? Let us hear it......

6. Last, but not least, I made an important point about how can anyone claim to know what Allah's plan is? Really this was the crux of my argument. How would someone like YOU know what Allah has in store for us and the world? I do not expect an adequate answer from you because you are a prisoner of your ego. Your opinions live your life for you and you react extremely negatively to anyone who does not agree with you. This is the unfortunate result of today's Madrassah education. While great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ahmad, Shafi (R.A. - may Allah be pleased with their efforts) did not consider their opinions to be final, Madrassah graduates today mostly are convinced that they know all there needs to be known, and they are always automatically right.



Zarvan said:


> @Armstrong if you don't believe in hadees than you also deny Quran because in the end those who deny Hadees they deny all the concepts of Quran too you can't follow most orders of Quran without following Hadees Mr



Please notice that he is not denying Hadith. He just is not sure how he should use them in his frame of reference. I am not surprised at this. Plenty of young people are like that. Simply because those who should teach and show the way and very busy thinking about money, power grabs, dirty politics, and killing in the name of Allah, and using devices like Ghazwa-e-Hind to confuse others without actually knowing anything themselves for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n

Roybot said:


> Damn we are doomed, he is not going to take any prisoners even, gonna finish us all Baniyas
> 
> So I have a question, if this hadith doesn't turn out to be true, Ghazwa Hind that is, would that mean all Hadiths are nothing by lies?



you fool ! Do not ever challenge the hadees of our Prophet Muhammad [s.a.w.w.]
it is bound to happen ...


----------



## Roybot

MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n;4732896 said:


> you fool ! Do not ever challenge the hadees of our Prophet Muhammad [s.a.w.w.]
> it is bound to happen ...


----------



## PWFI

@Zarvan
Syed Zaid Hamid - Our Strategy and Duty of Pakistani Youth on Vimeo


----------



## jetti

MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n;4732896 said:


> you fool ! Do not ever challenge the hadees of our Prophet Muhammad [s.a.w.w.]
> it is bound to happen ...



I think the whole concept is a lie to non muslims


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> Calm down @Zarvan, calm down. I do not understand what is your problem? Why do you get so emotional all of a sudden?
> 
> 1. Sahaba build their plans? Not really. The rapid expansion into Al-Sham and Iraq/Persia was put in place by Hazrat Muhammad (Sallallhu Alaihi Wasallam). It was understood that Roomis and Persians would not allow Muslims to exist peacefully and they had to be conquered. It was foretold and Sahaba did not need to read books of Hadith to know that. The only 'plan' thought up by Sahaba were campaigns against Constantinople. And even that was used for political leverage to benefit Yazid, the wine-lover who caused Karbala and ordered massacre in Madinah Munawwara.
> 
> 2. I would like you to explain how Hadith actually provides a viable action plan after more than 14 centuries? Can you tell for sure WHEN Ghazwa-e-Hind is supposed to take place? Can you give a time frame: this year, next year, ten years from now, or a hundred years from now? Can you do that? If anyone is going to PLAN to do something, they need to have a time-line in place. So can you provide a timeline? I know you can not do anything about it because only Allah knows. And this is exactly what I was saying in my post. You are talking about Sahaba working on a plan and that we should do the same. But really you have absolutely no idea as to how, what, and when should anything be done. Your reference to Sahaba is only to spread confusion; as I explained, Sahaba did not really need to plan, it was already done for them. Their execution was very well done and with great deal of insight. Can we claim the same? I do not think so, please feel free to convince me with references and logic.
> 
> 3. Show me ONE valid reference that shows that we should follow an action plan described in Hadith. Just ONE. When you make sweeping generalizations and delve in sanctimonious pontification, you become unbearable. What do you mean by 'they are worse than pi***'? I would very much like to know what orders are you talking about and how do those orders should mould our thinking about Ghazwa-e-Hind? I want you to reply to my post and specifically answer this point, point #3. I would not let you walk away from this.
> 
> 4. Your rabid views about Democracy are well noted. There is nothing new in this. People like you certainly have their minds well made up and sure can not deign to consult others. I would like to know why you disregard Hadith about Mashawarat? Why do you not give it ANY importance. If Muslims have Mashwara to elect an Ameer, why do people like you have problem with that? You think common Muslims are Cattle? They are there to be compelled to pay taxes, made to act like cannon fodder, to be cheated by high-vaulting Mullah types like yourself and must not ever ask WHY? You sure have no idea about politics. Your teachers have failed you when you know nothing about politics, or constitutionalism, or establishment of social contract between the rulers and the people. You purposely keep yourself in the dark because it suits your mindset. You purposely keep yourself from learning something new, and to think for yourself. All I ever hear from you about Democracy is that it is Haram, it is BS, it is failed system. You provide NO valid arguments, you provide no reference to Quran and Hadith, you just keep repeating your dumb opinion without understanding that you are actually helping spread Fitna and Fasad-fil-Urd (mischief on the Earth). You are clearly against the constitution of Pakistan. Why do you help spread Fitna and Fasad-fil-Ard? Why?
> 
> 5. Here is some food for thought! How do you plan on tackling sectarianism? Do you plan on bringing in a Khalifah belonging to your Sect and forcefully 'converting' all others to your line of thought? Do you have any idea what this thinking has done in the past and would continue to do in the future? Tell me how your system (if it is indeed a system because I have never come across anything from you that would explain it) would deal with Sectarianism in Pakistan? Let us hear it......
> 
> 6. Last, but not least, I made an important point about how can anyone claim to know what Allah's plan is? Really this was the crux of my argument. How would someone like YOU know what Allah has in store for us and the world? I do not expect an adequate answer from you because you are a prisoner of your ego. Your opinions live your life for you and you react extremely negatively to anyone who does not agree with you. This is the unfortunate result of today's Madrassah education. While great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ahmad, Shafi (R.A. - may Allah be pleased with their efforts) did not consider their opinions to be final, Madrassah graduates today mostly are convinced that they know all there needs to be known, and they are always automatically right.
> 
> 
> 
> Please notice that he is not denying Hadith. He just is not sure how he should use them in his frame of reference. I am not surprised at this. Plenty of young people are like that. Simply because those who should teach and show the way and very busy thinking about money, power grabs, dirty politics, and killing in the name of Allah, and using devices like Ghazwa-e-Hind to confuse others without actually knowing anything themselves for sure.



Mr the things they were told were hadees Sir the words which came out of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW other than the Quran are called hadees by Muslims Sir and just to conquer Constantinople Muslims attacked for 900 years just to fulfill one hadees Mr what HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told us is from ALLAH HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW doesn't speak from himself what ever he speaks is from ALLAH Mr first of all the western democracies is completely haram Sir their can be no political parties in Islam that is completely against Islam and to tackle sectarianism first we would have to implement those 90 % common things which all sects have common in them nothing can be said for sure but to fulfill one hadees war can be fought again and again no problem in that MR just calling hadees historical reference and nothing more is denying hadees and I have talked to those in detail who deny Hadees they basically deny all the orders of Quran so they don't have to do any work they are nothing but traitors of RASOOL SAW Democracy divides people and that mushwarat thing read in contest



PWFI said:


> @Zarvan
> Syed Zaid Hamid - Our Strategy and Duty of Pakistani Youth on Vimeo



Thanks for sharing


----------



## Saleem

he needs a haircut...


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

Zarvan said:


> Mr the things they were told were hadees Sir the words which came out of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW other than the Quran are called hadees by Muslims Sir and just to conquer Constantinople Muslims attacked for 900 years just to fulfill one hadees Mr what HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told us is from ALLAH HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW doesn't speak from himself what ever he speaks is from ALLAH Mr first of all the western democracies is completely haram Sir their can be no political parties in Islam that is completely against Islam and to tackle sectarianism first we would have to implement those 90 % common things which all sects have common in them nothing can be said for sure but to fulfill one hadees war can be fought again and again no problem in that MR just calling hadees historical reference and nothing more is denying hadees and I have talked to those in detail who deny Hadees they basically deny all the orders of Quran so they don't have to do any work they are nothing but traitors of RASOOL SAW Democracy divides people and that mushwarat thing read in contest
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing



Zarvan, I will keep asking you specific questions and you would keep giving me vague answers; and this can go on because you can not back up your bold statements with any thing solid or specific. When you you entangle your opinions with your ego, this happens.

1. I, and most others know what is Hadith. You need not tell us. Muslims all believe in Hadith, you do not need to convince me or others. What you do need to tell me (and others) is how you intend to use SPECIFIC Hadith to make a case for action plan. This you can not do and this is why you are running in circles with vague statements that you are making with a lot of emotion.

2. You seem to be saying that we need to be in a war for hundreds of years for the sake of satisfying YOUR interpretation of one Hadith, about which many other & more learned Muslims have a different opinion. So in effect you wish for Pakistan to be in perpetual war for sake of a Hasith which has a controversial interpretation. Let me be clear, you are willing to have many thousands, even millions be killed just so that YOUR idea of Hadith interpretation can be brought about. Notice that I am not taking a position on interpretation of Ghazwa-e-Hind. I am just pointing out the logical outcome of your obsession with it. You are OK that countless people should be sacrificed, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, just for the sake of your interpretation. I suppose you are intentionally ignoring Hadith that tells us Muslims to be wary of war? You think that Hadith is irrelevant in matter of war?

3. Connected to #2 above is the crucial difference in the nature of Hadith itself and your interpretation of it. The Hadith foretells an event that is yet to take place. This is called prophesy. All Ahadith relating to End times are prophesies. They merely point to future events and shall help Muslims who actually live through those times. Your interpretation of this and other Ahadith takes them not as prophesies, but as a Ahkam, or firm directions. Clearly your approach is not only wrong, but actually disastrous. This is sole reason why I want to confront you as to how you can take a prophesy and use it to make an action plan, when you can have NO idea as to when that prophesy might come to be fulfilled. 

4. Your rejection of Democracy is in line with your war-mongering. Democracy is a system of government that ensures the centrality of wishes, expectations, hopes of the people (the tax-payers) in matters of governance. You reject these notions, because your FASCIST ideas about conquering other people can not accommodate them. You wish for Muslims to rule OVER other people. That is FASCISM. The time for that has passed along with slavery, serfdom, and Dodo. Just as we can not contemplate slavery as a social/economic practice - people like me can not understand the role of Fascism in this day and age. There was a time when most everybody accepted fascist practices just as they accepted role of slavery, but that time passed away two centuries ago. Fascism died with colonialism at the end of WW2. Why do you wan to resurrect it?

5. Jihad today is first and foremost with one's own self. You seem to be in dire need of that, since your ego rules your head. Jihad with actual weapons comes much later and with conditions. You can not use prophesies as an excuse for Jihad. Period. It is intellectually dishonest to do so. If Muslims are occupied and suppressed then Jihad can be declared after talks and negotiations fail, not otherwise. I shall be all for Jihad against India, if we are attacked. But I can not support call to Jihad by Nutcases for an aggressive war. This is how you are using Hadith and I can not agree with you in using Hadith of prophesy as an excuse for an aggressive war.

6. Before you blame others for not giving importance to Hadith, check your attitude about Hadith first. While you are using Hadith to support a war, you should not expect to be taken seriously. You should not find fault with others either. At least not with people like @Armstrong.

Now I am awaiting another gibberish post from you that repeats the same idiocy that has given rise to 90% of your 8000+ posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> Zarvan, I will keep asking you specific questions and you would keep giving me vague answers; and this can go on because you can not back up your bold statements with any thing solid or specific. When you you entangle your opinions with your ego, this happens.
> 
> 1. I, and most others know what is Hadith. You need not tell us. Muslims all believe in Hadith, you do not need to convince me or others. What you do need to tell me (and others) is how you intend to use SPECIFIC Hadith to make a case for action plan. This you can not do and this is why you are running in circles with vague statements that you are making with a lot of emotion.
> 
> 2. You seem to be saying that we need to be in a war for hundreds of years for the sake of satisfying YOUR interpretation of one Hadith, about which many other & more learned Muslims have a different opinion. So in effect you wish for Pakistan to be in perpetual war for sake of a Hasith which has a controversial interpretation. Let me be clear, you are willing to have many thousands, even millions be killed just so that YOUR idea of Hadith interpretation can be brought about. Notice that I am not taking a position on interpretation of Ghazwa-e-Hind. I am just pointing out the logical outcome of your obsession with it. You are OK that countless people should be sacrificed, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, just for the sake of your interpretation. I suppose you are intentionally ignoring Hadith that tells us Muslims to be wary of war? You think that Hadith is irrelevant in matter of war?
> 
> 3. Connected to #2 above is the crucial difference in the nature of Hadith itself and your interpretation of it. The Hadith foretells an event that is yet to take place. This is called prophesy. All Ahadith relating to End times are prophesies. They merely point to future events and shall help Muslims who actually live through those times. Your interpretation of this and other Ahadith takes them not as prophesies, but as a Ahkam, or firm directions. Clearly your approach is not only wrong, but actually disastrous. This is sole reason why I want to confront you as to how you can take a prophesy and use it to make an action plan, when you can have NO idea as to when that prophesy might come to be fulfilled.
> 
> 4. Your rejection of Democracy is in line with your war-mongering. Democracy is a system of government that ensures the centrality of wishes, expectations, hopes of the people (the tax-payers) in matters of governance. You reject these notions, because your FASCIST ideas about conquering other people can not accommodate them. You wish for Muslims to rule OVER other people. That is FASCISM. The time for that has passed along with slavery, serfdom, and Dodo. Just as we can not contemplate slavery as a social/economic practice - people like me can not understand the role of Fascism in this day and age. There was a time when most everybody accepted fascist practices just as they accepted role of slavery, but that time passed away two centuries ago. Fascism died with colonialism at the end of WW2. Why do you wan to resurrect it?
> 
> 5. Jihad today is first and foremost with one's own self. You seem to be in dire need of that, since your ego rules your head. Jihad with actual weapons comes much later and with conditions. You can not use prophesies as an excuse for Jihad. Period. It is intellectually dishonest to do so. If Muslims are occupied and suppressed then Jihad can be declared after talks and negotiations fail, not otherwise. I shall be all for Jihad against India, if we are attacked. But I can not support call to Jihad by Nutcases for an aggressive war. This is how you are using Hadith and I can not agree with you in using Hadith of prophesy as an excuse for an aggressive war.
> 
> 6. Before you blame others for not giving importance to Hadith, check your attitude about Hadith first. While you are using Hadith to support a war, you should not expect to be taken seriously. You should not find fault with others either. At least not with people like @Armstrong.
> 
> Now I am awaiting another gibberish post from you that repeats the same idiocy that has given rise to 90% of your 8000+ posts.


Just look what Muslims did when they were told by RASOOL SAW about Constantinople they kept on attacking the city for next 900 years I repeat the same things because Quran and Sunnah have the same things because they are perfect and nothing needs to be changed Mr Muslims fought 900 years for Constantinople if you have problem following orders of RASOOL SAW than be open about it Mr we give a dam about how much we loose when an order is given that order would be fulfilled if that is over my dead body than I would love to give my life for it and I am ready Democracy is a system that make sures it divides people follow people nafs not what ALLAH says and it turn humans into animals and if you want to run away from Jihad than don't make funny excuses Jihad of all kind is compulsory every time not just one so if you have problem with Jihad just like Abdullah Bin Ubai and his followers had than say it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jungibaaz

Everyone stay on topic. No need to discuss religion or debate it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpion666

RazPaK said:


> Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.



LOLzz dude u guys were too a part of India 60+ years ago ...so does it mean we are in the same boat ? or History changes for you guys ... I mean enlighten me ? .....
and about the joker with red head gear ...sigh !! I would recommend some Prozak to come out of his dementia.


----------



## PWFI

Zarvan said:


> Mr the things they were told were hadees Sir the words which came out of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW other than the Quran are called hadees by Muslims Sir and* just to conquer Constantinople Muslims attacked for 900 years just to fulfill *one hadees Mr what HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told us is from ALLAH HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW doesn't speak from himself what ever he speaks is from ALLAH Mr first of all the western democracies is completely haram Sir their can be no political parties in Islam that is completely against Islam and to tackle sectarianism first we would have to implement those 90 % common things which all sects have common in them nothing can be said for sure but to fulfill one hadees war can be fought again and again no problem in that MR just calling hadees historical reference and nothing more is denying hadees and I have talked to those in detail who deny Hadees they basically deny all the orders of Quran so they don't have to do any work they are nothing but traitors of RASOOL SAW Democracy divides people and that mushwarat thing read in contest
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing



This hadiths had not yet fulfill, but fulfill very soon:
Sheikh Imran Hosein - The conquest of Constantinople in Akhirulzaman. - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=426940954088965




Zarb e Momin"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

Zarvan said:


> Just look what Muslims did when they were told by RASOOL SAW about Constantinople they kept on attacking the city for next 900 years I repeat the same things because Quran and Sunnah have the same things because they are perfect and nothing needs to be changed Mr Muslims fought 900 years for Constantinople if you have problem following orders of RASOOL SAW than be open about it Mr we give a dam about how much we loose when an order is given that order would be fulfilled if that is over my dead body than I would love to give my life for it and I am ready Democracy is a system that make sures it divides people follow people nafs not what ALLAH says and it turn humans into animals and if you want to run away from Jihad than don't make funny excuses Jihad of all kind is compulsory every time not just one so if you have problem with Jihad just like Abdullah Bin Ubai and his followers had than say it



1. Another reminder for you: Prophesy is not an order. Stop mixing these two.

2. It is against Hadith for Muslims to be in perpetual war with others. Your mistake above assures that Muslims would be in perpetual war. For you 900 years of war means nothing. Is that really how you value Human life? How good a Human are you? Is this what your interpretation of Islam makes you? Can Muslims like you ever bring peace and tranquility to this world? Can people like you ever deserve to lead this world?

3. BTW look at relevant Hadith - The chronology of Conquest of Constantinople does not make sense. Can you explain this anamoly?

4. Your views about democracy are a result of willful ignorance. If democracy were really such a divisive system as you say, then it would be reasonable to expect democracies to periodically into Civil War. When was the last time a mature democracy fell into Civil war? Once you find an answer, I would like to ask you another question. Among Muslim countries, what is the frequency of Civil Wars? Your beloved Kings, whether Mughal or Ottoman, had periodical and bloody civil wars. Every few years the whole county would be plunged into disorder and confusion with partisans ready to kill one another. Mercifully, mature democracies do not lapse into civil wars. By just being anti-Fitna, democracy qualifies as a good system, certainly good enough for Muslims. I hope you have read Ahadith about Fitna and Fasad-fil-Ard? Or do you intend to ignore them, just like you ignore any other Hadith that does not fit your mind-set. I believe in Hadith. Do you?

5. Mature democratic systems tend to reward merit, not Nafs. For following Nafs, your beloved kingship is the best and most indulgent system. Do you know how many slave girls Sultans (and so-called Caliphs among Ottomans, Umayyads, Abbasids, etc...) owned? You keep making nonsense claims just because you can not argue on merit. You are alleging that democracy turns people into animals. Let me ask you, do you like the law of jungle with the King sitting on top? Or would you rather have a democratic leader who must go back to the electorate to ask for votes? I would pick a democratic leader, because I can help replace him every few years. But your King could only be removed via intrigue or Civil war - both being the worst political devices.

6. Paksitan's constitution has necessary safeguards and provisions to keep our democracy from aping Western countries' systems where Man has effectively supplanted God. But you would not know or appreciate that, because your formula thinking has no space for critical thought and analysis.

7. It is better to focus on our own shortcomings, since there are too many of them, than finding fault with others. Pakistanis can hardly govern themselves, and you wish for us to govern others, who are doing a better job of it themselves. You desperately need to study History and Political Science, and probably Development Economics too.

Lastly, the reference to Ibn Ubai is more appropriately applied to people who follow their nafs and ego, not someone who is questioning a program for perpetual war-mongering based on Ego. This becomes even more relevant when viewed in the backdrop of misusing Hadith prophesizing possible future events. Moreover, you are assuming the responsibility of Allah's work upon yourself. It is Allah's job to do what he will. Not yours, or anybody else's. You come across as incredibly arrogant when you claim that we (Pakistanis) need to do something to bring about Allah's plan. I am not averse to Jihad, but I certainly see no point in senseless war-mongering. 

An example may illustrate my point: Hazrat Umar was angry at a self-motivated army of Muslims who attacked Faras without his approval. He is reported to have said "I wish there were a wall of fire between us and Faras" (Mention in book Al-Farooq By Allama Shibli Naumani?)

@Jungibaaz, I am tired of Zarvan's two bit formulaic statements that he makes so very often. I think he needs to be shown the inadequacy of his mind-set. So please bear with me here. Moreover, the mind-set that anti-India Jihadists carry is made up of the elements that Zarvan clearly displays. One needs to address the theoretical basis of this mind-set. It is very relevant in my view. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## my2cents

RazPaK said:


> Indians are bound to be conquered like they always have been.



Just like erstwhile East pakistan. Keep dreaming


----------



## jetti

Zarvan said:


> Zarb e Momin"



unfortunately you guys have become dard e momin


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> 1. Another reminder for you: Prophesy is not an order. Stop mixing these two.
> 
> 2. It is against Hadith for Muslims to be in perpetual war with others. Your mistake above assures that Muslims would be in perpetual war. For you 900 years of war means nothing. Is that really how you value Human life? How good a Human are you? Is this what your interpretation of Islam makes you? Can Muslims like you ever bring peace and tranquility to this world? Can people like you ever deserve to lead this world?
> 
> 3. BTW look at relevant Hadith - The chronology of Conquest of Constantinople does not make sense. Can you explain this anamoly?
> 
> 4. Your views about democracy are a result of willful ignorance. If democracy were really such a divisive system as you say, then it would be reasonable to expect democracies to periodically into Civil War. When was the last time a mature democracy fell into Civil war? Once you find an answer, I would like to ask you another question. Among Muslim countries, what is the frequency of Civil Wars? Your beloved Kings, whether Mughal or Ottoman, had periodical and bloody civil wars. Every few years the whole county would be plunged into disorder and confusion with partisans ready to kill one another. Mercifully, mature democracies do not lapse into civil wars. By just being anti-Fitna, democracy qualifies as a good system, certainly good enough for Muslims. I hope you have read Ahadith about Fitna and Fasad-fil-Ard? Or do you intend to ignore them, just like you ignore any other Hadith that does not fit your mind-set. I believe in Hadith. Do you?
> 
> 5. Mature democratic systems tend to reward merit, not Nafs. For following Nafs, your beloved kingship is the best and most indulgent system. Do you know how many slave girls Sultans (and so-called Caliphs among Ottomans, Umayyads, Abbasids, etc...) owned? You keep making nonsense claims just because you can not argue on merit. You are alleging that democracy turns people into animals. Let me ask you, do you like the law of jungle with the King sitting on top? Or would you rather have a democratic leader who must go back to the electorate to ask for votes? I would pick a democratic leader, because I can help replace him every few years. But your King could only be removed via intrigue or Civil war - both being the worst political devices.
> 
> 6. Paksitan's constitution has necessary safeguards and provisions to keep our democracy from aping Western countries' systems where Man has effectively supplanted God. But you would not know or appreciate that, because your formula thinking has no space for critical thought and analysis.
> 
> 7. It is better to focus on our own shortcomings, since there are too many of them, than finding fault with others. Pakistanis can hardly govern themselves, and you wish for us to govern others, who are doing a better job of it themselves. You desperately need to study History and Political Science, and probably Development Economics too.
> 
> Lastly, the reference to Ibn Ubai is more appropriately applied to people who follow their nafs and ego, not someone who is questioning a program for perpetual war-mongering based on Ego. This becomes even more relevant when viewed in the backdrop of misusing Hadith prophesizing possible future events. Moreover, you are assuming the responsibility of Allah's work upon yourself. It is Allah's job to do what he will. Not yours, or anybody else's. You come across as incredibly arrogant when you claim that we (Pakistanis) need to do something to bring about Allah's plan. I am not averse to Jihad, but I certainly see no point in senseless war-mongering.
> 
> An example may illustrate my point: Hazrat Umar was angry at a self-motivated army of Muslims who attacked Faras without his approval. He is reported to have said "I wish there were a wall of fire between us and Faras" (Mention in book Al-Farooq By Allama Shibli Naumani?)
> 
> @Jungibaaz, I am tired of Zarvan's two bit formulaic statements that he makes so very often. I think he needs to be shown the inadequacy of his mind-set. So please bear with me here. Moreover, the mind-set that anti-India Jihadists carry is made up of the elements that Zarvan clearly displays. One needs to address the theoretical basis of this mind-set. It is very relevant in my view. Thanks.


Mr when order is of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW to fulfill it if everything is lost its worth it that is why ALLAH has said in the Quran if you love other things more than ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW and doing Jihad in ALLAH's way than be ready for his wrath Mr you are talking about 900 years even if it is 9000 years to fulfill HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW its worth too fight it the so called mature democracy is are the ones who have mass murdered millions world wide in their wars and by the way did you forgot IRA and and what was done to Red Indians and Blacks in USA and to aborginis in Australia mature democracies don't reward merit what they reward is bullshit and just writing that ALLAH is the supreme authority is not enough mr when all your laws and actions are against Quran and Sunnah

One of the main excuses some people use today in attempt to justify the evil act of voting for a person to make law on one&#8217;s behalf is that the majority of Muslim scholars say it is allowed to vote, and some even go further saying it is a religious duty
One of the main excuses some people use today in attempt to justify the evil act of voting for a person to make law on one&#8217;s behalf is that the majority of Muslim scholars say it is allowed to vote, and some even go further saying it is a religious duty.
This, like every other so-called argument used to justify voting for man to play the role of God and make law, is entirely flawed and can never be used as an excuse to associate partners with Allah by choosing a lawmaker besides Him. There are many places in the Qur&#8217;aan in which Allah (SWT) informs us of individuals in the past who were favoured by Him and were given knowledge, yet they abused the knowledge they were given, started to follow their own desires and misled the people.
For example, the Jews and Christians (People of the Book) were accused by Allah of worshipping their rabbis and priests by obeying and following their religious edicts which clearly went against the commands of Allah. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur&#8217;aan:
&#8220;They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah).&#8221; (EMQ at-Tawbah, 9:31)
&#8216;Uday bin Haatim used to be a Christian. When he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) recite the above verse he tried to deny this and responded: &#8220;We did not worship them (rabbis and priests).&#8221; The Prophet (SAW) replied: &#8220;Did they (rabbis and priests) not forbid what Allah permitted and hence you forbade it; and they permitted what Allah forbade and thus you permitted it?&#8221; &#8216;Uday replied &#8220;Yes.&#8221; The Prophet (SAW) said, &#8220;That is how you worshipped them.&#8221; After this incident &#8216;Uday (RA) embraced Islam.
So it can be argued that any Muslim who blindly follows a scholar when he permits what Allah forbids has taken him as a lord and false god besides Allah. Any matter which is clearly forbidden by Allah &#8211; such as alcohol, committing shirk (in this case, voting for man to make law), adultery, interest (ribaa), and so forth &#8211; cannot be made lawful by scholars. Moreover, one cannot claim on the Day of Judgement that they were merely following their scholars or the majority of people and therefore cannot be blamed for their actions. Allah (SWT) says:
&#8220;And those who followed (blindly) will say: &#8220;If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us.&#8221; Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.&#8221; (EMQ al-Baqarah, 2:167)
Furthermore, it is reported in the Sunan of Ibn Maajah that Allah&#8217;s Messenger (SAW) said: &#8220;Verily, what I fear most for my Ummah is misguided Imaams.&#8221; There can be no doubt that the misguided Imaams (or scholars) of today are those who allow voting for man-made law by twisting the verses of Allah and Shari&#8217;ah principles in order to achieve popularity, maintain their career and please the masses, tyrannical governments and disbelievers.
What makes someone an &#8216;aalim?
What makes someone an &#8216;aalim is not the level of knowledge they have, the length of their beard or their credentials. The Sahaabah, for example, did not study at a &#8220;renowned&#8221; institution and nor did they achieve any certificates, credentials, degrees, PhDs, and so forth. Despite this, they were the greatest &#8216;ulamaa (scholars) the Ummah has ever seen.
What makes someone an &#8216;aalim, besides having knowledge, is when they engage in the duties of the Anbiyaa (Prophets). Allah&#8217;s Messenger (SAW) said, &#8220;The &#8216;ulamaa are the inheritors of the Prophets.&#8221; Therefore, in order for one to be considered an &#8216;aalim, they must engage in the duties of the Prophets. The mission of the previous Prophets was to call people away from shirk (associating partners with Allah) and taaghout (false gods, such as lawmakers or MPs). They called society to Tawheed and to reject man-made laws as well as kufr (un-Islamic) ideals, ways of life and values such as freedom, democracy, liberalism and so forth.
It is for the above reasons that the previous Messengers and Prophets were attacked by the disbelievers, vilified, ridiculed, boycotted, imprisoned and some were even murdered or assassinated. This is how we recognise the people of truth: they are tested by Allah and vilified by the disbelievers. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was labelled a lunatic; Ibraaheem (or Abraham) was thrown into fire; Yoosuf (Joseph) was incarcerated for a crime he did not commit; the disbelievers plotted to crucify &#8216;Eesa (Jesus); Shu&#8217;aib (AS) was threatened with extradition; Nooh (Noah) was ridiculed; and the list goes on.
Allah (SWT) has destined, as part of His Almighty Traditions (Sunnatullah), that any person who desires to be with the Prophets, Messengers and their Companions in the Hereafter must struggle in this life the way they did and endure the tests they were made to endure. Allah (SWT) says:
&#8220;Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with severe poverty and ailments and were so shaken that even the Messenger and those who believed along with him said, &#8220;When (will come) the Help of Allah?&#8221; Yes! Certainly, the Help of Allah is near!&#8221; (EMQ al-Baqarah, 2:214)
In what way have those so-called scholars (who try to justify voting for kufr law) suffered for the sake of Allah and the Deen of Islam? Rather than calling people away from shirk and to shun taaghout (false gods), we find them calling us to commit shirk for their personal interests and benefit (maslahah) and to obey taaghout (those who rule by other than what Allah has revealed). What excuse do these sad individuals (particularly in the UK) have for not speaking out against this great evil? Unlike scholars in the Middle East, they are not being threatened with torture, imprisonment or death yet they are still afraid of upsetting the masses, gaining notoriety or being labelled an extremist.
There is a famous principle in Islam: &#8220;The haq (truth) is known by the daleel (divine evidence), not by men.&#8221; Therefore, the haq is not established by the number of people that agree with it or the number of &#8220;renowned&#8221; or celebrity-like scholars who state it. Rather, the haq is known by the daleel (Qur&#8217;aan and Sunnah, by the understanding of the Sahaabah). But if it is names you are after and not daleel, below is a brief list (in no particular order) of scholars from across the world that say democracy opposes Islam and that voting and participating in democratic elections is forbidden (haraam):
Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (Jordan), Sheikh Feiz Mohammad (lived in Australia, originally Lebanon), Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki (lived in USA, originally Yemen), Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Misri (UK, originally Egypt), Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (USA, originally Egypt), Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal (lived in UK, originally Jamaica), Sheikh Abdul-Qaadir bin Abdil-Azeez (Egypt), Sheikh Naasir al-Fahd (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ahmad Fadeel an-Nazal al-Khalayleh (Jordan), Sheikh Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ayman Muhammad Rabee&#8217; al-Zawaahiri (Egypt), Sheikh Sayyid Qutb (Egypt), Sheikh Humood bin Uqla Ash-Shu&#8217;aibi (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ali bin al-Khudayr (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaani (Saudi Arabia, originally Albania), Sheikh Muhammad Ameen al-Shanqeeti (Saudi Arabia, originally Mauritania), Sheikh Ahmad Hamood al-Khaalidi (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Yusuf al-Uyayri (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Abdullah al-Ghunaymaan (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Muhammad al-Fazaazy (Morocco), Sheikh Hani al-Siba&#8217;i (UK, originally Egypt), Sheikh Saalih al-Awfi (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Ziyaad Qattaan (UAE), Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad (lived in UK, Lebanon), Sheikh Abu Qataadah al-Filasteeni (UK, originally Palestine). @Chak Bamu

This is a brief review which explains some of the destructive and dangerous effects resulting from plunging into the quagmire of democracy by which many people have been deceived due to putting on their hopes on it even though it is clearly against the methodology of Allah, just as what we are going to explain in this brief study, especially that there have been a lot of bitter experiences encountered by those people who have been deceived by this game and where its diversion and debauchery aspects were shown.
1. The system of Democracy makes us forgetful towards the confrontation in behavior between jahiliyah and Islam, which is the haqq and batil. Due to the fact that the existence of either one of them allows the extinction of the other, it is not ever possible for the two to mix together. Anyone who thinks that through the general election, the jahil fractions will submit all the institutions to Islam is mistaken, as this is clearly in contrast to the rationality, nash and sunan (decision of Allah) which had taken place to the earlier ummahs.
&#8220;On account of their arrogance in the land and their plotting of Evil, but the plotting of Evil will hem in only the authors thereof. Now are they but looking for the way the ancients were dealt with? But no change wilt thou find in Allah&#8217;s way (of dealing): no turning off wilt thou find in Allah&#8217;s way (of dealing)&#8221; (Surat Faathir: 43)
2. The system of democracy will cause the decay in the values of true aqeedah which was believed and practiced by Rasulullahsaaws.gif and the noble Sahabahs. It will cause the spread of bid&#8217;ah, of not studying and teaching the true aqeedah to mankind because its teachings cause divisions amongst the party members. In fact, it could make someone to be excluded from the party that it can reduce the total number of votes and voters.
3. The system of democracy does not differentiate between the &#8216;alim and the jahil, between the mu&#8217;meen and the kafir, and between the male and the female, because they all have the same right to speak, without looking at the advantages from the shar&#8217;i point of view, whereas Allah swt.gif says:
&#8220;&#8230;Say: &#8220;Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? &#8230;&#8221; (Surat Az-Zumar: 9)
And:
&#8220;Is then the man who believes no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked? Not equal are they&#8221; (Surat As-Sajdah: 18)
And also:
&#8220;Shall We then treat the People of Faith like the People of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge ye?&#8221; (Surat Al-Qalam: 35-36)
4. This system causes divisions amongst the da&#8217;wah activists and Islamic jamaah, because a section of them plunge and move within this system (whether they want it or not) that would make them support and defend as well as endeavor to make a good name and in turn they would be against anyone who is opposed by this system, while at the same time they support as well as defend anyone who is supported and defended by this system. Therefore, in the end fatwas would be twisted without any certainty between those who allow and forbid, between those who praise and criticize.
5. Under the shade of democratic system the issue of wala&#8217; and bara&#8217; becomes unclear and vague and because of this there are people who embrace and are involved in this system trying to justify by stating that their discords with the socialist party, ba&#8217;athist party and other secular parties are only limited to discords in the subject of program only, not a discord in the subject of manhaj and that it is not much different from the discords that happen between the four madzhabs. And they conducted the bond of agreement and confederation so as not to takfeer each other and not to betray amongst themselves, due to that they say that let there be discords but don&#8217;t let it spoil the love and affection between us!!
6. This system aims at the establishment of an illusive confederation with the secular parties, as what is happening today.
7. It&#8217;s very dominant that for the people who move in the quagmire of democracy, their intention is flawed, as every party strives and aims to defend its party as well as (abusing) making the most of all available facilities and tools to assemble and influence the masses in its surroundings, especially the tools and mediums which have the religious tones such as talks, giving of advices, ta&#8217;lim, shadaqah and others.
8. Plunging into the quandary of democracy will also result in the impairment of the noble akhlaq values such as honesty, transparency, the fulfillment of promises and the prevention of lies, pretension and the breaking of promises.
9. Therefore, democracy would also generate a haughty character while belittling others, as well as being proud of each of their own view because what turns into the concern is the defending of it (the view). And Allah says:
&#8220;But people have cut off their affair (of unity), between them, into sects: each party rejoices in that which is with itself&#8221; (Surat Al-Mu&#8217;minun: 53)
10. If we pay a close attention and thorough analyzation, acknowledging and pledging to democracy means &#8220;stabbing&#8221; (blaspheming) the Prophets and their discourse (missions of Prophethood), because if al-haq (the truth) is to be deduced from the voice of the people&#8217;s majority there is no point for the Messengers to be sent and the books to be revealed, especially that it&#8217;s normal for the teachings brought by the Messengers to dispute the majority of the mankind who profess to the misguided aqeedah, deviate and have the jahilliyah traditions. @Chak Bamu

With the elections around the corner, Muslims are being bombarded with &#8220;Islamic&#8221; reasons to support the elections and vote. For the sincere Muslims, who seek the pleasure of Allah Azzawajal in all things, this article will assist in clearing up some of the confusion by presenting the issue with strong evidences from the Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah insha Allah. We are available for comment, questions or naseeha.
The Purpose of Muslims
We have been created for the worship of Allah Azzawajal alone: &#8220;And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.&#8221; (TMQ Adh Dhariyaat:56) This &#8216;ibadah (worship) is achieved through complete submission to Allah Azzawajal (Qur&#8217;an) and His Messenger sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam (Sunnah): &#8220;It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.&#8221; (TMQ Al Ahzab:36)
The root word of Islam is al-silm which means &#8220;submission&#8221; or &#8220;surrender.&#8221; It is understood to mean submission to Allah Azzawajal. This submission includes the ahkaam (Laws) of Allah Azzawajal &#8211; that which is declared to be halaalor haraam: &#8220;Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him.&#8221;(TMQ Yusuf: 40)
&#8220;He shares not His legislation with anyone&#8221; (TMQ Al Kahf: 26)
Pre-Islam
In the period of jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic Makkah), the liberalism of the society was very similar to today. The sexual promiscuity, capitalist exploitation of the masses, power dominance of the affluent, tolerance of religions (paganism, Christianity, Judaism and fire worship) and extremely strong tribal/nationalistic bonds are all characteristics that are very much predominant in the &#8220;civilised and liberal&#8221; world today.
In was only when the message of Tawheed, (Absolute Oneness of Allah Azzawajal) was proclaimed, that the leadership of Makkah felt their power bases threatened. Various avenues (offers of wealth, prestige, women, power sharing, character assassination and murder) were then employed to silence the Messenger sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam, the Message and the followers of the Message.
The reason for wanting to silence Rasulullah sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam was because his message of Tawheed, meant a major change in the ruling system. It meant a submission to the Laws of Allah Azzawajal and not to the laws of man. It meant that the ruling elite were to be stripped of their self-assumed legislative authority.
Despite being a minority in a position of weakness and in need of all forms of assistance, when Rasulullah sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam was offered a power share in Makkah, he refused and Allah Azzawajal revealed Surah Al Kaafirun.
Post-Islam
The first ever Islamic State was established by Rasulullah sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam in Madinah and it&#8217;s constitution was the Shari&#8217;ah. During lifetime of Rasulullah sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam, the Shari&#8217;ah was being formulated via Qur&#8217;anic revelation under his guidance (Sunnah). Upon the death of Rasulullah sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam, the Shari&#8217;ah was defined either in clear text or in principle: &#8220;This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion&#8221; (TMQ Al Ma&#8217;idah:3). This Islamic Legal System was closely implemented by the Khulafah (Caliphs) thereafter, as the Shari&#8217;ah firmly became system of governance for Muslims. This system continued, albeit with a few hiccups over time, at state level until the abolishment of the Uthmaani (Ottoman) Khilafah in 1924 by the Jew-Turk, Kemal Ataturk.
Subsequently, the Muslim Khilafah was carved into nation states by the imperial west and today we have more than fifty deeply divided states with a majority Muslim population in addition to many Muslims who are currently resident in the West.
Foremost in our activities, the guiding mission should be to fulfil the obligation of the restoration of Allah Azzawajal&#8217;s Law on the earth by all means insha Allah.

The Muslim Situation Today
All of these 50+ nation states are governed by despots, tyrants, imperialists and/or slaves of the west. None of these secular states implement the Shari&#8217;ah except for a sprinkling of a few Islamic practices to fool the Muslims, upon whom they&#8217;ve enforced their dictatorial rule. Due to our weakness, every man-made system has appealed to us over the years and all attempts to govern ourselves by these Divinely-opposed systems (communism, socialism, arab socialism, liberalism and the system of today: democracy) has compounded our misery.
But a new beast has reared its head: Muslims living in the West aren&#8217;t just being asked to support the un-Islamic system of democracy but are being given Islamic reasons to do so!
Naturally this is confusing the sincere Muslims, who in trying to please Allah Azzawajal, are influenced by one of the following:
1) Those who strongly encourage voting/democracy saying that it is an Islamic duty;
2) Those who neither encourage or discourage voting/democracy; or
3) Those who strongly discourage Muslims from participation in any man-made system of governance.
It is absolutely crucial that we examine and measure the evidences that each of these bring forth for their claims against the established texts of Qur&#8217;an and authenticated Ahadeeth. In the presence of clear established texts, other principles and opinions should take a back seat: &#8220;If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day&#8221; (TMQ Surah an Nisaa: 59)Attachments to certain celebrity figures or organisations among the Muslims is not and should not be the basis of our individual decisions. This article strongly argues that option three is the safest for the Muslims as the arguments presented by option one are not valid . Option two is invalidated by Allah Azzawajal&#8217;s Command to enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
A Brief Description of Democracy
Democracy is a term of Greek origin meaning the &#8216;rule of the people&#8217;. In such a system, the population is given the chance over four or five years to choose which political party, they feel is best to govern them in a process known as voting. Those who obtain the majority of votes are then ushered in as the ruling party of the country (in this case, South Africa). These elected people gain seats in the Parliament, where new laws are discussed, accepted, removed or amended (legislation).
Therefore, those who voted for these politicians are ultimately accountable for the final decisions made by their elected candidates. If these ministers formulate and accept, by their majority opinion, that any Divinely-forbidden acts (abortion, sodomite and lesbian marriages, gambling, prostitution etc) are deemed &#8216;beneficial&#8217; for the people, then through majority voting, these would be accepted and implemented as law, such that the people will have to live and judge by them. Those who oppose/disobey these laws are regarded as intolerant and opposed to the Constitution.
Are Islam and Democracy Compatible?
Based on the evidences presented earlier, it is clearly established that legislation is reserved solely for the Creator Azzawajal. One of His Attributes is Al Haakim (The Legislator). Within a democracy, legislation takes place according to the whims and desires of the creation. This man-made authority of istihlaal (determining halaal and haraam) is in total opposition to the Shari&#8217;ah and thus renders democracy a system of shirk (association of partners with Allah Azzawajal). Support for such a system ranges from being sinful (best case scenario) to being a mushrik (worst case scenario), depending on the extent/degree of one&#8217;s belief in the system.
Glaring examples of the intolerance of democracy for Islam (and thus incompatibility) were evident in Algeria in the 90&#8217;s and currently in Palestine. The F.I.S. and Hamas both won their respective elections overwhelmingly according to the democratic process but at the mere mention of Shari&#8217;ah they were forced out of power.
A Reminder to Those who will choose to vote despite the evidences presented
The call for voting is a call for further subjugation of the will and identity of Muslims. It is a call to integrate into Muslims the values of secularism and the &#8216;equality&#8217; of Tawheed (Islam) and shirk (all other religions). The drive towards secularising the Muslims has already led to many Muslims suffering the consequences of &#8216;freedom&#8217;, clearly apparent in the lifestyles and values of the disbelieving society around them that many Muslims have proudly adopted. Hayaa (modesty) is disappearing at a rapid rate. Our youth (our future) have become submerged into thekufr (disbelief) culture around them. Rampant illicit sex, drug abuse, HIV and even sodomy have found their way into the Muslim community. Our once-treasured Muslim elders are disrespected with some even being dumped off at &#8216;old age homes&#8217;.
Do we as an Ummah really want to continue down this road?
There are many options available if we want to make a difference. The majority of the people of the land are crying out for the honour and justice that Islam provides. Can we rise to the challenge and honourably invite to Islam? Or will we fool ourselves into believing that an &#8216;X&#8217; on a piece of paper will bring about the required changes?
Allah Azzawajal and His Messenger sallallaahu &#8216;alayhi wa sallam have shown us the path.
Will we choose another?

Britain is set for another general election and the controversy surrounding the &#8216;Muslim vote&#8217; is as contentious as ever. There are many motives and incentives to tempt a Muslim to vote and many in the community feel that it is a civil duty. MPs promote voting to Muslims as &#8216;a means to an end&#8217;: whether to protest against the war, keep the BNP at bay, or just to hope that the least evil government reaches power. But is this really what democracy is all about?
Whether you are a secular democrat, a concerned Muslim or just an apathetic citizen, all of these strategic schemes and political posturing cloud the reality of what voting really is. What are MPs really asking us to do by voting for them?
The truth is, MPs are not asking us to protest against the occupation of Afghanistan, they are not asking us to join hands in support of Palestine, they are not asking us to send a message to Labour or to help keep the BNP out of government and they are not calling us to make Shura (consultation).
Whatever we might personally think about it, the Houses of Parliament describes itself on its website as a place of legislation and supreme sovereignty. &#8220;Parliament is where new laws are debated and agreed.&#8221; It also says, &#8220;Parliamentary
sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority
in the UK, which can create or end any law.&#8221; And that &#8220;
A Member of Parliament (MP) is elected by a particular area or constituency in Britain to represent them in the House of Commons.&#8221; [www.parliament.uk]
There is no doubt that MPs are campaigning so vigorously in the community for one thing and one thing only. They are asking you to select them to be the ones who will legislate on your behalf.
So the question for Muslims is: what is the Islamic ruling on making laws and what is the ruling on asking others to legislate on your behalf? It is also important to discuss the ruling on doing these things with the intention of benefitting the community.
Legislation (Al-Tashree&#8217
It is a basic belief of all Muslims that the Shari&#8217;ah of Islam is the revealed law of Allah and that it abrogates all other laws and guidance, including those revealed before the Qur&#8217;an such as the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel. Seeking guidance from any other law or constitution is condemned to failure. Allah (SWT) says,
&#8220;With Allah rests all power of decision, from before and after all else.&#8221; [EMQ 30:4]
And the Prophet (SAW) said to Umar (RA) when he found him reading only a page from the Torah, &#8220;Are you in doubt O Ibn al Khattab? Have I not brought you something shining and
pure? If my brother Musa were alive, he would have no choice but to follow me.&#8221; [Musnad Imam Ahmed and Sunan Al Darimi]
Indeed it is agreed among all sects and schools of thought in Islam that the Shari&#8217;ah of Islam has been completed and is perfect; nothing has been forgotten and nothing can be surpassed, Allah (SWT) says, &#8220;Today, I have perfected your Deen (way of life) and completed My favour upon you all and I have chosen Al-Islam to be
your Deen.&#8221; [EMQ 5:3]
The Shari&#8217;ah of Allah is perfect and better than any alternative, including democracy. Moreover, the right to legislate and decide what is lawful and unlawful is exclusive to Allah, Who says,
&#8220;The right of legislation is for none but Allah.&#8221; [EMQ 12:40]
And He (SWT) also says, &#8220;He does not share His right of legislation with anybody.&#8221; [EMQ 18:26]
There are many other verses like these. It is also agreed upon and known by necessity that people are obliged to seek the judgement of Islam in all matters and forbidden from seeking judgement from any other legislator. Allah (SWT) says, &#8220;On whatever you may differ; theHukm (decision and law) is for Allah.&#8221; [EMQ 42:10]
&#8220;No by your Lord! They are not believers until they seek your judgement (O Muhammad) in all of their disputes without feeling any hardship in your decision and until they submit to it completely.&#8221; [EMQ 4:65]
&#8220;
[Say:] &#8216;Am I, then, to look to anyone but Allah for judgment [as to what is lawful and unlawful], when it is He who has revealed to you this Book, clearly clarifying the truth?&#8217;&#8221; [EMQ 6:114]
&#8220;Are you seeking the law of Jahiliyyah (i.e. man made law)? And who is better than Allah in legislation for people of certainty [the believers]?&#8221; [EMQ 5:50]
In fact, ruling, legislating and debating what is lawful or not according to our own opinions and wishes, as is what happens in Parliament, is described as lying about and abandoning the Revelation, Allah (SWT) says, &#8220;And rule and judge between them according to what Allah has
revealed and do not follow their desires. And beware of them lest they turn you away from even a part of what Allah has revealed to you.&#8221; [EMQ 5:49] &#8220;And do not say for any lie your tongue may utter, &#8216;this is lawful and this is unlawful&#8217; so as to attribute a lie to Allah. For those who attribute lies to Allah will never succeed.&#8221; [EMQ 6:116]
Representation (Al-Wikaalah) So there is no doubt that the job of an MP as a
legislator is prohibited in Islam and is a form of associating partners with Allah (major shirk). But what about the one who votes and delegates the job of legislation to someone else, such as an MP? In Islam, the responsibility and sin arising from representation (Al-Wikaalah) is shared by the agent and the one on whose behalf he is acting upon. In other words, whether you ask someone to buy, sell or pour alcohol for you; or if you pay someone to commit murder, order someone to steal for you or delegate an MP to legislate law on your behalf, you will share the sin and punishment with your representative. For example, the Prophet (SAW) said, &#8220;Truly, Allah
has cursed Khamr (alcoholic beverages) and has cursed the one who produces it, the one for whom it is produced, the one who drinks it, the one who serves it, the one who carries it, the one for whom it is carried, the one who sells it, the one who earns from the sale of it, the one who buys it, and the one for whom it is bought.&#8221; [Reported by At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah)
Regarding legislation specifically, particularly when it contradicts Islamic laws, Allah (SWT) has described this type of representation as taking and worshipping others as lords and partners with Allah (i.e. al-shirk), &#8220;Or do they
have partners that legislate for them in the way of life what they had no permission from Allah?&#8221; [EMQ 42:21]
And, &#8220;They took their rabbis and priests as lords besides Allah.&#8221; [EMQ 9:31]
Uday bin Haatim (RA) was passing by while the Messenger (SAW) recited the above verse and said,
&#8220;We did not worship them (rabbis and priests).&#8221; The Prophet (SAW) replied: &#8220;Did they (rabbis and priests) not forbid what Allah permitted and hence you forbade it; and they permitted what Allah forbade and thus you permitted it?&#8221; &#8220;Yes,&#8221; replied &#8216;Uday. The Prophet (SAW) said, &#8220;That is how you worshipped them.&#8221; Public Interest and Benefit (Al-Maslahah) Despite the clear prohibition of voting for a legislator besides Allah, there is still much talk
about the benefit to the community that could be lost by abstaining from the ballot boxes. Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: &#8220;Verily, the Shirk and to attribute to Allah
without knowledge and all forms of unlawful sexual acts, sayings and transactions, whether hidden or apparent, and oppression cannot contain any form of interest or benefit. Whatever is forbidden upon every person in every situation, such as Shirk, Kufr, oppression, unlawful sexual acts or to attribute Ahkam (laws) to Allah that He never legislated, nothing is permissible from it under the pretexts of interest and benefit. That is because Allah (SWT) says, &#8220;Verily, Allah forbade the unlawful sexual transactions, whatever was hidden or apparent, and any form of rebellion without Haq and to associate with Allah that which He never revealed, or to attribute to Allah what you do not have knowledge, all of this is forbidden.&#8221; [EMQ 7: 33] All these are forbidden amongst all people, in all religions and all Anbiyaa (prophets) have been sent with its prohibition. Nothing is permissible from it ever, whether before Islam or after Islam, and none of these can be taken by permit for any interest or benefit for the Deen or for the Dunyaa.&#8221; [Majmoo&#8217; al Fattawaa v18 p476]
@Chak Bamu Read all the above


----------



## humanfirst

@Zarvan
If jihad is compulsory for Muslims as you say then why are you not leaving your home for jihad..?Why dont you go to fata or Afghanistan and fight anti muslim forces..?what is your justification for not doing jihad...?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

humanfirst said:


> @Zarvan
> If jihad is compulsory for Muslims as you say then why are you not leaving your home for jihad..?Why dont you go to fata or Afghanistan and fight anti muslim forces..?what is your justification for not doing jihad...?



May be I am some where you really don't want to know Mr yes Jihad is compulsory and I would do it and I am doing my part and have done in past and will do it in near future

Democracy is NOT an Islamic System

The western system of democracy is in total conflict with the Islamic system of government. In the Islamic system of Khilaafat, the ruler is o*ne man whose function it is to govern in accordance with the Qur&#8217;aan and the Sunnah, i.e. the Shariah. The duty of the Islamic government headed by a pious, benign autocrat, is to enforce the laws which have already been divinely promulgated.


SHURAA

Shuraa or consultation is a Sunnah practice which the Khalifah adopts. But he is not constrained to succumb to the advices and decisions of those with whom he consults. In the ultimate end, the decision is made by o*nly him.


Some misguided Muslims enamoured by westernism, are at pains to find Shar&#8217;i accommodation for western democracy in the Qur&#8217;aanic aayat which orders Shuraa. They fallaciously cite the Shuraa verse in substantiation of their belief that Islam accepts the western system of democracy. In this aayat, Allah Ta&#8217;ala says: "And, consult with them in affairs. Then when you (the Khalifah) have resolved (to adopt a particular course), repose trust o*n Allah."



The resolution and final decision are the prerogatives of the Khalifah. The Islamic system precludes any parliament or legislative body from enforcing its decisions by majority vote o*n the Khalifah. He is fully empowered by the Qur&#8217;aan and Sunnah to act in accordance with his own determination.

The purpose of consultation is to discuss and explore all angles of an issue. By mutual consultation with men of experience, knowledge and piety, all angles and aspects of a matter are highlighted. This allows the Khalifah to form a balanced and the correct decision.

Those with whom the Khalifah consults act in o*nly an advisory capacity. They have absolutely no legislative power. If the Khalifa&#8217;s view is in conflict with the unanimous opinion of all his advisors, the Shariah does not bind him to accept such consensus. The Qur&#8217;aan vests him with all the authority to make decisions alone and to adopt his own view even if in opposition to what the entire nation believes is right.

THE FORUM

For acting in accordance with the Qur&#8217;aanic order of consultation, the Khalifah is not required to establish a formal forum or a formal body of counsellors. The obligation of Shuraa is discharged by the Khalifah consulting o*n an informal basis with whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and wherever he wishes.


The concept of Shuraa does not envisage the establishment of a forum like a parliament or any other legislative body. The Khalifah discussing with o*ne or two persons at his home, at the Musjid, outside the Musjid or anywhere else, satisfies the requirement of Shuraa.


It is also not a requirement that there be particular and permanent members whom the Khalifah has to consult. He is free to consult with anyone.


Commenting o*n the un-Islamic system of democracy, Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said:


"As evidence for their idea of the validity of democracy, they (its votaries) present the aayat, "Consult with them in affairs". But, I refute their contention with this very same aayat. While this aayat orders mashwarah (consultation), it should be understood that consultation does not mean democracy. You (i.e. the votaries of democracy) regard yourselves to be wise men while in reality you are bereft of understanding.


You should first prove that even o*ne of the four righteous Khulafa or the government of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) was a democracy (in the western concept). The Khulafa were never bound and subservient to the advices/decisions of their advisors (with whom they would consult). According to the Shariah, the government of the individual is the rule.


When the supporters of democracy cite the aayat of Shuraa, they stop midway, without reciting the whole aayat. They conveniently omit: "Then, when you (the Ruler) have finally decided (a matter), repose your trust in Allah (and act accordingly)."


They either conveniently overlook this decisive portion of the aayat or they lack the ability to understand it."


Thus, the concept of democracy or majority rule has absolutely no validity in the Shariah. @Chak Bamu

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

@Zarvan you are quite a crude & dishonest copy-paste artist. Why can you not have the decency of crediting an article when clearly you DID NOT write it?

You had asked me to read your very very lengthy reply. It is interesting to note that you do not have the intellectual or educational capacity to write something like this yourself. You picked it up from something like:

Muslims Against Voting

And you did not have the decency to link the source. How is that for honesty?

I have scanned through it, and the following are my observations:

1. If this is the extent of your knowledge about political science, then indeed you are in a sorry state. In my last post, I suggested that you get a little bit of an education in Political Science, precisely because I had guessed that the absence of any argument from you to support your POV was because of your lack of basic knowledge in Political Science. I had also guessed you mind-set, but I wanted you to come up with something a bit more reasoned so that I could shred through it. Your two-bit proclamations were getting over-repetitive and absence of any arguments or references just showed the shallowness of your understanding.

2. I have indeed scanned through the references provided in the article - Both Quranic Verses, and Ahadith. I believe in them whole-heartedly, completely, unequivocally. I need to say this so that you may be able to understand what I am going to say next.

I can assure you that the case made is flimsy and the references from Quran and Hadith are mis-applied. Whoever wrote the article has a motivation for mis-representation and that is why he has stretched the meaning of Quran and Hadith and still not able to do a job that he set out to do. So, I can state without any fear of contradiction that the case made by the article is NOT proven.... The arguments are specious, sort of like A is equal to B, therefore A is also equal to Z! This is intellectual laziness at best and outright dishonesty at worst. 

3. The author clearly does not have any proper idea of the impact of what he is saying. It is typical fatalist tendency of Salafist 'revolutionaries' to decry everything, without actually offering anything concrete - quite similar to what you have been doing. This is Fitna, Haraj, Fasad. When a group of people set out to dismantle an order (even an imperfect order), without having the capacity (intellectual, educational, moral) to replace it, they are guilty of Zulm. Yes that is right. You are preaching Zulm, because you know what you are told and taught to hate, but you are not able to say anything with certainty as to what must replace it. Throwing around words like Sahaba, Khilafah, Sunnah, does not cut it. Imagine that you abolish a system and when everything is thrown into chaos, muttering vague terms will not recreate order. This is AlQaeda's way of doing (or rather messing up) things. Only incredibly angry, naive, and reactionary people can subscribe to such stuff. One has to be blind to not see the logical result of such thinking.

4. There are indeed FALSE PREMISES in the article quoted by you, such as: 
A)_ Legislation is Shirk (?????)_. ummm, not really. If Sahaba could legislate for their time, why can't we? We clearly live in a different age and era which is much different from the time of Sahaba. If they could legislate even within a year or two into establishment of Caliphate about things like the term of service in Army, or punishment for theft in times of famine, or ways and means of preserving Quran, then why can't we legislate about concerns of OUR time? Why can we not discuss and legislate about electronic crimes, value of DNA, misuse of Internet, etc...? Clearly the author lives in West or looks only at West to not bother about checking the self-imposed limits to legislation in an Islamic country. He has neither the brains, nor the inclination to learn about Constitutional government in MUSLIM countries. Because if he does, he can not make a White-and-Black case of Islam-against-Kufr, or Haq-against-Batil, or Deen-against-Taghoot. That is also why you have no time for details. You must brush them aside so that you can keep your focus on Zulm, without acknowledging Zulm as it is.
B)_ Many scholars have decided that voting is haram_: And what scholars does the idiot author quote? Not some one respectable or really learned, but AlQaeda operatives like OBL and AlZwahiri. Also thrown into the mix is the one named Albanee - I particularly dislike his half-baked theories based on shoddy faux-scholarship. Do you want me to mention some of his outlandish 'fatwas'? None of these 'scholars' had much in the way of scholarship. No achievement, but they did spread a lot of confusion by their crooked political projects.
C) _By Voting, people assume ultimate responsibility for wrong-doings of their rulers_: Really??? Politicians are not robots you know. People do not actually hold a collective remote control to make politicians do their bidding. British public was against Iraq war, and yet Tony Blair jumped into it. Vietnam is another example. Come to Pakistan, we had worst leaders like Yahya and Musharraf as bloody dictators. Show one politician worse than them? Trouble with you and the writer of the article is that you both know that voting usually keeps extremists out of power, and therefore you must find fault with it.

5. There are a number of IMPLIED premises:
A)_ Caliphate continued til end of Ottoman rule_: NO - Caliphate ended with Hazrat Ali (R.A). Some may include Amir Muavia, since Hazrat Hassan (R.A.) yielded his right. But no matter how you look at it, Amir Muavia turned it into Kingship, and that was the end of Caliphate. Calling a power-grabbing King by the name of Caliph does not make him a Caliph. You have purposely avoided discussing the difference between Caliphate and Kingship because you knew that you could not defend this label.
B)_ A scholar does not need to learn, but needs to agree with the notions of the Writer_: I am not even going to comment on this foolishness.
C) _A Daleel is only valid if it agrees with certain notions of the Writer, and ordinary Muslims are irrelevant_: I need to quote two Hadith in this regard. First one has mafhoom like My Ummah shall not agree on an error. Second one has mafhoom Obey majority. Clearly these two Hadith contradict your POV, or atleast puncture it pretty badly. Besides this, you ignore the fact that it is the common people who pay taxes and must therefore have a say in how these taxes are spent. But this is novel notion for people who tend to view people as tax-payers who are good as cannon fodder for wars. To you such a notion is Bidah because it gets in way of your political projects of world conquest. Only that you do not know that even if you somehow assume the right to farm people and grab their money, you can never conquer the world. Islam is not about 'conquering' the world. It is about out-competing other man-made models and presenting people with a choice. But these notions require scholarship and thinking, both of which are beyond people like you.
There are others, but I would stop here.

6. Your 'superiors' are those who happen to divide world into 'Dar-ul-Islam' & 'Dar-ul-Kufr' / 'Dar-ul-Harb'. These notions lost their meaning a few centuries ago. Colonialism ensured that. But still insisting on these notions - as implied by the posted Article - is somehow key to 'correct' version of Islam? The world is a whole lot greyer and mixed up than the days gone by. Even if one were to accept the validity of such views in ancient times, they no longer hold valid today. There are reasons for it, like a great number of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, etc... but I would not go into it just yet.

7. Your interest in Pakistan is unmistakable. You are over-concerned about weapons systems of Army, Navy, Air Force, etc... You are also interested in number of troops and their training. If Indian planes violate Pakistani Air Space for a couple of minutes, you loose your sleep and apatite over it. Does it ever occur to you that Pakistan was created by Voting process? If Pakistan is a result of Haram, then please leave this Haram place. You have quoted OBL, AlZawahiri, and others like them, all of them Arabs, and mostly belonging to Saudi Arabia. Why do you not go to Saudi Arabia and be rid of us? Please your logic should not support you being in Pakistan, a Haram country made by a Haram process of Evil voting, Right? So please then, go live in an Arab country, where dictators and Kings rule, notions of freedom and rights are conditional and uncertain - constitutionalism is not found there in a recognizable form.

8. In view of all the above, when you present your views as being 'Islamic' or rather 'more Islamic' then really you are presenting your lack of knowledge and asking us to believe in you. Sorry, it is not possible. It is also interesting to note that people of TTP and AQ have the exact same mind-set. I am surprised that you profess interest in Pakistan's Army, Air Force, and Navy. Your views are exactly those of the people who have attacked our Airbases, our personnel, and our civilian population. How does it make you feel to use language and rhetoric of terrorists?

9. Lastly, @Zarvan, read all of my reply and respond with civility and without wild accusations like an AlQaeda operative.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> @Zarvan you are quite a crude & dishonest copy-paste artist. Why can you not have the decency of crediting an article when clearly you DID NOT write it?
> 
> You had asked me to read your very very lengthy reply. It is interesting to note that you do not have the intellectual or educational capacity to write something like this yourself. You picked it up from something like:
> 
> Muslims Against Voting
> 
> And you did not have the decency to link the source. How is that for honesty?
> 
> I have scanned through it, and the following are my observations:
> 
> 1. If this is the extent of your knowledge about political science, then indeed you are in a sorry state. In my last post, I suggested that you get a little bit of an education in Political Science, precisely because I had guessed that the absence of any argument from you to support your POV was because of your lack of basic knowledge in Political Science. I had also guessed you mind-set, but I wanted you to come up with something a bit more reasoned so that I could shred through it. Your two-bit proclamations were getting over-repetitive and absence of any arguments or references just showed the shallowness of your understanding.
> 
> 2. I have indeed scanned through the references provided in the article - Both Quranic Verses, and Ahadith. I believe in them whole-heartedly, completely, unequivocally. I need to say this so that you may be able to understand what I am going to say next.
> 
> I can assure you that the case made is flimsy and the references from Quran and Hadith are mis-applied. Whoever wrote the article has a motivation for mis-representation and that is why he has stretched the meaning of Quran and Hadith and still not able to do a job that he set out to do. So, I can state without any fear of contradiction that the case made by the article is NOT proven.... The arguments are specious, sort of like A is equal to B, therefore A is also equal to Z! This is intellectual laziness at best and outright dishonesty at worst.
> 
> 3. The author clearly does not have any proper idea of the impact of what he is saying. It is typical fatalist tendency of Salafist 'revolutionaries' to decry everything, without actually offering anything concrete - quite similar to what you have been doing. This is Fitna, Haraj, Fasad. When a group of people set out to dismantle an order (even an imperfect order), without having the capacity (intellectual, educational, moral) to replace it, they are guilty of Zulm. Yes that is right. You are preaching Zulm, because you know what you are told and taught to hate, but you are not able to say anything with certainty as to what must replace it. Throwing around words like Sahaba, Khilafah, Sunnah, does not cut it. Imagine that you abolish a system and when everything is thrown into chaos, muttering vague terms will not recreate order. This is AlQaeda's way of doing (or rather messing up) things. Only incredibly angry, naive, and reactionary people can subscribe to such stuff. One has to be blind to not see the logical result of such thinking.
> 
> 4. There are indeed FALSE PREMISES in the article quoted by you, such as:
> A)_ Legislation is Shirk (?????)_. ummm, not really. If Sahaba could legislate for their time, why can't we? We clearly live in a different age and era which is much different from the time of Sahaba. If they could legislate even within a year or two into establishment of Caliphate about things like the term of service in Army, or punishment for theft in times of famine, or ways and means of preserving Quran, then why can't we legislate about concerns of OUR time? Why can we not discuss and legislate about electronic crimes, value of DNA, misuse of Internet, etc...? Clearly the author lives in West or looks only at West to not bother about checking the self-imposed limits to legislation in an Islamic country. He has neither the brains, nor the inclination to learn about Constitutional government in MUSLIM countries. Because if he does, he can not make a White-and-Black case of Islam-against-Kufr, or Haq-against-Batil, or Deen-against-Taghoot. That is also why you have no time for details. You must brush them aside so that you can keep your focus on Zulm, without acknowledging Zulm as it is.
> B)_ Many scholars have decided that voting is haram_: And what scholars does the idiot author quote? Not some one respectable or really learned, but AlQaeda operatives like OBL and AlZwahiri. Also thrown into the mix is the one named Albanee - I particularly dislike his half-baked theories based on shoddy faux-scholarship. Do you want me to mention some of his outlandish 'fatwas'? None of these 'scholars' had much in the way of scholarship. No achievement, but they did spread a lot of confusion by their crooked political projects.
> C) _By Voting, people assume ultimate responsibility for wrong-doings of their rulers_: Really??? Politicians are not robots you know. People do not actually hold a collective remote control to make politicians do their bidding. British public was against Iraq war, and yet Tony Blair jumped into it. Vietnam is another example. Come to Pakistan, we had worst leaders like Yahya and Musharraf as bloody dictators. Show one politician worse than them? Trouble with you and the writer of the article is that you both know that voting usually keeps extremists out of power, and therefore you must find fault with it.
> 
> 5. There are a number of IMPLIED premises:
> A)_ Caliphate continued til end of Ottoman rule_: NO - Caliphate ended with Hazrat Ali (R.A). Some may include Amir Muavia, since Hazrat Hassan (R.A.) yielded his right. But no matter how you look at it, Amir Muavia turned it into Kingship, and that was the end of Caliphate. Calling a power-grabbing King by the name of Caliph does not make him a Caliph. You have purposely avoided discussing the difference between Caliphate and Kingship because you knew that you could not defend this label.
> B)_ A scholar does not need to learn, but needs to agree with the notions of the Writer_: I am not even going to comment on this foolishness.
> C) _A Daleel is only valid if it agrees with certain notions of the Writer, and ordinary Muslims are irrelevant_: I need to quote two Hadith in this regard. First one has mafhoom like My Ummah shall not agree on an error. Second one has mafhoom Obey majority. Clearly these two Hadith contradict your POV, or atleast puncture it pretty badly. Besides this, you ignore the fact that it is the common people who pay taxes and must therefore have a say in how these taxes are spent. But this is novel notion for people who tend to view people as tax-payers who are good as cannon fodder for wars. To you such a notion is Bidah because it gets in way of your political projects of world conquest. Only that you do not know that even if you somehow assume the right to farm people and grab their money, you can never conquer the world. Islam is not about 'conquering' the world. It is about out-competing other man-made models and presenting people with a choice. But these notions require scholarship and thinking, both of which are beyond people like you.
> There are others, but I would stop here.
> 
> 6. Your 'superiors' are those who happen to divide world into 'Dar-ul-Islam' & 'Dar-ul-Kufr' / 'Dar-ul-Harb'. These notions lost their meaning a few centuries ago. Colonialism ensured that. But still insisting on these notions - as implied by the posted Article - is somehow key to 'correct' version of Islam? The world is a whole lot greyer and mixed up than the days gone by. Even if one were to accept the validity of such views in ancient times, they no longer hold valid today. There are reasons for it, like a great number of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, etc... but I would not go into it just yet.
> 
> 7. Your interest in Pakistan is unmistakable. You are over-concerned about weapons systems of Army, Navy, Air Force, etc... You are also interested in number of troops and their training. If Indian planes violate Pakistani Air Space for a couple of minutes, you loose your sleep and apatite over it. Does it ever occur to you that Pakistan was created by Voting process? If Pakistan is a result of Haram, then please leave this Haram place. You have quoted OBL, AlZawahiri, and others like them, all of them Arabs, and mostly belonging to Saudi Arabia. Why do you not go to Saudi Arabia and be rid of us? Please your logic should not support you being in Pakistan, a Haram country made by a Haram process of Evil voting, Right? So please then, go live in an Arab country, where dictators and Kings rule, notions of freedom and rights are conditional and uncertain - constitutionalism is not found there in a recognizable form.
> 
> 8. In view of all the above, when you present your views as being 'Islamic' or rather 'more Islamic' then really you are presenting your lack of knowledge and asking us to believe in you. Sorry, it is not possible. It is also interesting to note that people of TTP and AQ have the exact same mind-set. I am surprised that you profess interest in Pakistan's Army, Air Force, and Navy. Your views are exactly those of the people who have attacked our Airbases, our personnel, and our civilian population. How does it make you feel to use language and rhetoric of terrorists?
> 
> 9. Lastly, @Zarvan, read all of my reply and respond with civility and without wild accusations like an AlQaeda operative.



Pakistan was not created through voting process if WORLD WAR 2 wouldn't have taken place their would have been no Pakistan UK face so much losses in World War II that they couldn't afford to maintain south Asia and If voting would have taken place Pakistan wouldn't have been created this funny voting or referendums only took place in Muslim areas that is why we won other wise it would have been blunder 
Islam against Democracy | Muslims Against Voting
Mr I would not leave this place I would change this system even if I had to go thorough blood bath it would be changed this kufr system of democracy would not survive for long now the change is near it may be the most bloodiest one but it would come

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; Pakistan to be remodeled on the sacred template of Khilafat e Rashida in all spheres of life &#8211; Political, Economical, Judicial, Social and Military; Pakistan would neither be western democracy nor totalitarian dictatorship but an enacted model of Khilafat e Rashida in all spheres of life. The institutions, norms and statutes of this land must be informed solely by the Holy Qur&#8217;an, Sunnah, Ijma&#8217; and Qiyas (in order of validity).

&#8226; Wherein the state shall exercise its powers of authority through the truly chosen representatives of the people; The chosen leader and representatives must conform to the highest and noblest standards set by the Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah and elected through a party-less political process as demonstrated and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida.



&#8226; Wherein the principles of Islamic democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed as demonstrated and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida.

&#8226; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah; Riba and paper currency based haram economic model to be replaced with riba free gold-based economic model as ordained in the Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida.

&#8226; Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; Rights of the minorities to be protected and respected as demonstrated in Khilafat e Rashida.

&#8226; Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a strong Federation; Being the strongest Muslim nation Pakistan should work towards creation of and then lead an ideological, economical, political and military block with the Muslim world as a collective security doctrine.

&#8226; Wherein the units within the Pakistan led security block will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed.

&#8226; Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; Justice will be provided immediately and free at the doorsteps without fear of favor; Pakistan will be a welfare state as manifested in Khilafat e Rashida.

&#8226; Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes as demonstrated in Khilafat e Rashida.

&#8226; Wherein the independence of Judiciary shall be fully secured; Judicial system will be remodeled on the template of Khilafat e Rashida with justice being free, fair, impartial, immediate and at doorsteps.

&#8226; Wherein So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the Ummah and in nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity. So that Pakistan may achieve its rightful place as the natural born leader of the Muslim Ummah to unite the Ummah under one ideological banner.

&#8226; Integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded; Pakistan&#8217;s foreign policy, national security policy and military doctrines would be geared towards honorable peaceful co-existence in the world, protecting the honor, integrity and ideology of Pakistan and the Muslim world and friendly nations.

With this resolution we vow to work selflessly and tirelessly to carve out this amazing manifest destiny for Pakistan. May Allah be our witness, our guide and protector and accept our humble contribution for the Ummat e Rasul SAW. Ameen. Pakistan Zinda baad.

For an urdu translation of the above Takmeel-e-Pakistan resolution, please visit: takmeel.pk

- See more at: http://www.pakreviews.com/forums/democracy-or-khilafat-e-rashida#sthash.p4KI66Bz.dpuf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jetti

Muslims against voting, hence referendum on Kashmir is unislamic. That means the people who ask for referendums are Kafirs , mshriks and have a lakh lanat on them.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

@Chak Bamu
you little beauty
where you been hiding?

praise to Allah for giving me the chance to read something so refreshing and coherent. 
I pray to Al Mighty that it gives all "Pakistani Muslim" viewers the capacity to absorb what you just said and not just quote the entire post with a two liner rant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

Zaid hamid has cats. All his rants and arguments and scholarly works are invalid and null.


----------



## Chak Bamu

Zarvan said:


> Pakistan was not created through voting process if WORLD WAR 2 wouldn't have taken place their would have been no Pakistan UK face so much losses in World War II that they couldn't afford to maintain south Asia and If voting would have taken place Pakistan wouldn't have been created this funny voting or referendums only took place in Muslim areas that is why we won other wise it would have been blunder
> Islam against Democracy | Muslims Against Voting
> Mr I would not leave this place I would change this system even if I had to go thorough blood bath it would be changed this kufr system of democracy would not survive for long now the change is near it may be the most bloodiest one but it would come



It was the 1946 elections that determined Muslim League as the sole representative party of Muslims. Mullahs of Deoband had tried very hard to fight this outcome, but such was Allah's will that these people lost. 

KPK was included in Pakistan as a result of referendum. Khan of Kalat was persuaded to cede to Pakistan by prominent Baloch Sardars.

WWII just meant that Britain was unable to continue its colonial project. It did not mean that Pakistan would come into being. OUR political leadership ensured that the voice of Muslims would not be suppressed. They ensured that everybody in the World knew that the Muslims of British India were united behind their leadership as demonstrated by clean sweep of Muslim electorate by Muslim League. 

There has been an enduring debate about the meaning and purpose of Pakistan. But nobody like you has ever been allowed to cast doubt upon the process and its result. Why do military dictatorships never stick in Pakistan? Why would people like you never ever be able to get your way? Simple! Pakistan is the result of democratic process as determined by our votes and no Tom, Dick, or Harry can tell us otherwise. 

Who told you that voting process took place only in some 'Muslim' areas? Your lack of education gets in your way again. Learn History and stop making stupid mistakes that are obvious to anyone with even a little education. 1946 elections took place all over British India on basis of a system of separate electorate. It is exasperating that I have to teach you obvious facts. Are you THAT dumb? You come with a set of bloody arrogant and self-righteous proclamations to debate an issue about which you know nothing, absolutely Nothing. Are you for real?

I do not want you to leave Pakistan. I do not want you to leave PDF even. I just want you to give up your mind-set that advocates a nonstop cycle of violence and war. If you live long enough, you will come to regret the foolishness that you support. I used to be a bit like you, though certainly not as hardcore. But I learned and gradually come to accept that Muslims HAVE to co-exist with other people of the world. We can not go on killing others in name of Allah. That is not Islam. That is terrorism. We have to struggle to establish an order in our lands according you our ideals. That much is certain. We need to show the World how and why Islam is a better way of living. We can not teach dead people anything.

Your apocalyptic vision keeps you from seeing reality as it is. You want to make the World fit your view. Why can you not learn to view the World as it is and change it for better according to our ideals, by convincing people of the truth of our ideals, and not by guns and bullets?

You can go on braying for blood. But dude if it happens, it would be Allah's will, and not the result of your stupidity on PDF. You can not make plans for Allah. He makes plans for us. So, you go on preaching the good things about blood baths, and I shall go on preaching about convincing people without violence. La Ikraha FidDeen. You do what you think is right, and I shall do what I think is right. You are not answerable for what I do, and I am not answerable for what you do. Lakum Deenukum, Wa Liya Deen.

But if you think that you can use violence to change my mind. You have another thing coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chak Bamu

Zarvan said:


> Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; Pakistan to be remodeled on the sacred template of Khilafat e Rashida in all spheres of life &#8211; Political, Economical, Judicial, Social and Military; Pakistan would neither be western democracy nor totalitarian dictatorship but an enacted model of Khilafat e Rashida in all spheres of life. The institutions, norms and statutes of this land must be informed solely by the Holy Qur&#8217;an, Sunnah, Ijma&#8217; and Qiyas (in order of validity).
> 
> &#8226; Wherein the state shall exercise its powers of authority through the truly chosen representatives of the people; The chosen leader and representatives must conform to the highest and noblest standards set by the Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah and elected through a party-less political process as demonstrated and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida.
> 
> 
> 
> &#8226; Wherein the principles of Islamic democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed as demonstrated and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah; Riba and paper currency based haram economic model to be replaced with riba free gold-based economic model as ordained in the Qur&#8217;an and Sunnah and practiced in Khilafat e Rashida.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; Rights of the minorities to be protected and respected as demonstrated in Khilafat e Rashida.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a strong Federation; Being the strongest Muslim nation Pakistan should work towards creation of and then lead an ideological, economical, political and military block with the Muslim world as a collective security doctrine.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein the units within the Pakistan led security block will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; Justice will be provided immediately and free at the doorsteps without fear of favor; Pakistan will be a welfare state as manifested in Khilafat e Rashida.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes as demonstrated in Khilafat e Rashida.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein the independence of Judiciary shall be fully secured; Judicial system will be remodeled on the template of Khilafat e Rashida with justice being free, fair, impartial, immediate and at doorsteps.
> 
> &#8226; Wherein So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the Ummah and in nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity. So that Pakistan may achieve its rightful place as the natural born leader of the Muslim Ummah to unite the Ummah under one ideological banner.
> 
> &#8226; Integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded; Pakistan&#8217;s foreign policy, national security policy and military doctrines would be geared towards honorable peaceful co-existence in the world, protecting the honor, integrity and ideology of Pakistan and the Muslim world and friendly nations.
> 
> With this resolution we vow to work selflessly and tirelessly to carve out this amazing manifest destiny for Pakistan. May Allah be our witness, our guide and protector and accept our humble contribution for the Ummat e Rasul SAW. Ameen. Pakistan Zinda baad.
> 
> For an urdu translation of the above Takmeel-e-Pakistan resolution, please visit: takmeel.pk
> 
> - See more at: Democracy or Khilafat-e-Rashida



Pay close attention to what you have posted. It contradicts your hardline and hardcore violence-preaching stance.

1. The Urdu article talks about 'Islamic Democracy'. It notes two or three currents of thought, without being judgmental like yourself. It does not advocate violence either, like yourself. All of what it says contradicts your views as expressed over the past few pages. It in fact bears a lot of what I have said. For example it talks about not having to accept Western democracy. It also talks about the value of semantics in a discourse about democracy. Here is an important question: Can you read? If so, can you comprehend what you read?

2. The manifesto for Khilafat as posted by you is again contradictory to your professed views. Why bother posting it when you have already shown yourself to be in opposition to some of its proclamations such as establishing tolerance, justice, & Freedom of expression etc...?

3. When you post various different sources that do not agree among themselves, you are telling the world how confused and inconsistent you are in your approach. You seem to be a harmless talkative sofa revolutionary with an internet connection and a lot of bravado. Good for you.

4. Good luck implementing your plan. I am not against Khilafat, nor am I against a Riba-free economic system. I just do not see how you can implement this thing. It is well-intentioned for sure, but quite impractical. I could enumerate and explain a number of reasons for my saying so, but it is rather late at night. Plus you do not seem to merit much attention from me henceforth by virtue of your being a confused talkative sofa revolutionary with an internet connection and what-not who posts contradictory sources taken from AQ-inspired idiots and other sofa revolutionaries with internet connections etc...


----------



## Sugarcane

Chak Bamu said:


> Pay close attention to what you have posted. It contradicts your hardline and hardcore violence-preaching stance.



You seriously think he reads/understand what he post? Anyway don't be harsh with him, tumhari baradari ka banda hai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> It was the 1946 elections that determined Muslim League as the sole representative party of Muslims. Mullahs of Deoband had tried very hard to fight this outcome, but such was Allah's will that these people lost.
> 
> KPK was included in Pakistan as a result of referendum. Khan of Kalat was persuaded to cede to Pakistan by prominent Baloch Sardars.
> 
> WWII just meant that Britain was unable to continue its colonial project. It did not mean that Pakistan would come into being. OUR political leadership ensured that the voice of Muslims would not be suppressed. They ensured that everybody in the World knew that the Muslims of British India were united behind their leadership as demonstrated by clean sweep of Muslim electorate by Muslim League.
> 
> There has been an enduring debate about the meaning and purpose of Pakistan. But nobody like you has ever been allowed to cast doubt upon the process and its result. Why do military dictatorships never stick in Pakistan? Why would people like you never ever be able to get your way? Simple! Pakistan is the result of democratic process as determined by our votes and no Tom, Dick, or Harry can tell us otherwise.
> 
> Who told you that voting process took place only in some 'Muslim' areas? Your lack of education gets in your way again. Learn History and stop making stupid mistakes that are obvious to anyone with even a little education. 1946 elections took place all over British India on basis of a system of separate electorate. It is exasperating that I have to teach you obvious facts. Are you THAT dumb? You come with a set of bloody arrogant and self-righteous proclamations to debate an issue about which you know nothing, absolutely Nothing. Are you for real?
> 
> I do not want you to leave Pakistan. I do not want you to leave PDF even. I just want you to give up your mind-set that advocates a nonstop cycle of violence and war. If you live long enough, you will come to regret the foolishness that you support. I used to be a bit like you, though certainly not as hardcore. But I learned and gradually come to accept that Muslims HAVE to co-exist with other people of the world. We can not go on killing others in name of Allah. That is not Islam. That is terrorism. We have to struggle to establish an order in our lands according you our ideals. That much is certain. We need to show the World how and why Islam is a better way of living. We can not teach dead people anything.
> 
> Your apocalyptic vision keeps you from seeing reality as it is. You want to make the World fit your view. Why can you not learn to view the World as it is and change it for better according to our ideals, by convincing people of the truth of our ideals, and not by guns and bullets?
> 
> You can go on braying for blood. But dude if it happens, it would be Allah's will, and not the result of your stupidity on PDF. You can not make plans for Allah. He makes plans for us. So, you go on preaching the good things about blood baths, and I shall go on preaching about convincing people without violence. La Ikraha FidDeen. You do what you think is right, and I shall do what I think is right. You are not answerable for what I do, and I am not answerable for what you do. Lakum Deenukum, Wa Liya Deen.
> 
> But if you think that you can use violence to change my mind. You have another thing coming.



Mr first to bring the revolution it would blood has to be given Sir secondly those elections were conducted in specific areas if elections would have taken place in whole India and or referendum about that should Pakistan be allowed or it should remained united India Pakistan would have never appeared on the map that specific voting is not democracy Mr



Irfan Baloch said:


> @Chak Bamu
> you little beauty
> where you been hiding?
> 
> praise to Allah for giving me the chance to read something so refreshing and coherent.
> I pray to Al Mighty that it gives all "Pakistani Muslim" viewers the capacity to absorb what you just said and not just quote the entire post with a two liner rant.


Mr prove me wrong from Quran and Sunnah I am allergic to your personal opinion and @Pakistani Exile please don't talk crap other wise the every lie which Mirza told would be exposed here in fact he only told lies and nothing else


----------



## OrionHunter

I'm so scared I'm heading for them hills!!





Oh wait! I'm already in the hills. Now I need to find a cave to hide!


----------



## Zarvan

Concept Of Khilafat And Its Features In Islam

Khilafat and its role in history has been widely discussing today. According to some intelligentsia it&#8217;s a theocratic institution and Islamic thinkers say as Islamic political system. Nevertheless, in history, khilafat has big role and it had golden memories of justice, tolerance and fraternity etc.

But today Khilafat is misunderstood by its inheritors as well as opponents. What was the influence of khilafat and the fundamental elements which were illustrated in the society? Several questions are rose as remarked above.

Quran says that Khilafat is trusteeship man which must have to implement through obeying his sovereignty. The rulers as well as the ruled are to act in accordance with Islamic Shari&#8217;ah, they cannot behave as independent and sovereign legislators with freedom to make and enact any laws they wish to. All their actions must correspond to the will of Allah who alone is the sovereign and the law maker.


Basis of Islamic Concept of Khilafat:

It means the western philosophy of democracy (not the democracy as form of governance) is not acceptable in Islam. Because it vests absolute power of legislation or sovereignty in the hands of people and their representatives. And Khilafat is based on Islamic concept of Tawhid (the belief in the oneness of Allah)

Islam aims at subjecting the whole earth to the will of 0ne and the creator, and to spread as possible as to obtain the grass root influence through receiving its messages and demands by the people from all walks of life.

Prophet Muhammad has illustrated the criteria and regulations of Khilafat. In Islamic perceptive the role of khalifa is vital issue.

Firstly, he must have to be aware that he is a slave of Allah. Equality of citizenship is significant in Islam. there is no division between ruler and the ruled. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the exemplar who established the Islamic state in Arabia which would always act as a guiding light for all times to come. Sir Thomas Arnold remarks as no one similar to him in the world: the prophet had been at pane and thaw same time head of the state and head of the church. The paramount control of political policy was in his hands; he received the ambassadors who brought the submission of the various Arab tribes, and he exercised supreme authority in military expeditions. He was at the same time supreme legislator and not only promulgated legal statutes but sat in judgment to decide cases, and against his decision there was no appeal. In addition to the performance of these offices of the administrative and political order as ruler, general, and judge, he was also revered as the inspired prophet of god and the religious dogmas he enunciated were accepted by his followers as revelations of divine truth , in regard to which there could be no doubt or dispute. At the same time he performed the highest ecclesiastical functions, and as imam led the prayer in public worship at the canonical hours in the mosque of Medina. Then it is meaning of Khalifa and this responsibility which should have to implement is called Khilafat.

Some refused the totality of Islam and questioned the evident of Khilafat. To them khilafatis not a political order of Islam, and the Quran has indicates about the rule of Suleiman and Davud (as), moreover Allah appreciated Bilqees the queen.

But they were certainly prophets and ruled by orders of Allah. We interpret their rules through our contemporary reading. But we have to criticize them who were not similar to other empires and it was given by Allah. There is no actually a certain type of governance which narrated by Islamic fundamental sources. Governance is In Islamic perceptive to have tolerated and just that citizens live in equality and safety.

The Holy Quran says human beings abilities, governance, and other qualities are divine gifts .those prophets agreed the sovereignty of Allah. It means the label of kingdom is not the criteria for implication of Khilafat. And we should not read their regiments as the monarchies in the modern concept .The Quran and the traditions are silent about any specific method for selecting/electing Khilafat the companions of the prophet (PBUH) seem to have been guided by the concept of Shurah the as enshrined in the book of Allah (42:38)Shurah or consultative council is therefore an important principle of the political theory of Islam . The prophet (PBUH) and the rightly guided khulafah followed this principle though none of them ever tried to give any specific shape to it.


Features of The Islamic State/Khilafat:

The crucial features of the Islamic state/khilafat had been discussing by prominent Islamic philosophers .Abul a&#8217;la Moududi who is founder of Jama&#8217;te Islami and the guiding light of 20th century, has explained the framework of Islamic state:
1. The Islamic state is set up consciously by an independent people who surrender, by free will and pleasure, to the will of Allah and accept to be his vicegerent as well as act in accordance with his guidelines and principles as enshrined in the Quran and the Sunnah.
2. It is a theocracy in that t rests sovereignty in the hand of Allah but differs from it in its application. In theocracy the priestly class grabs all powers whereas in Islamic state all the believers have the right to govern as vicegerents of Allah.
3. Islam agrees with democracy&#8217;s principle: government by the people. However, it is against the western concept of people&#8217;s sovereignty. The western philosophy of democracy gives people the right to legislate and regulate their lives as they want. But in &#8216;Islamic democracy&#8217; if one as permitted to use this terminology, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary by the Shariah and can never go against it.
4. The Islamic state is an ideological state; hence it can be run only by the people who believe in its ideology. However, a people who do not believe in its ideology but are willing to live in its boundary and accept its laws, will be entitled to all the civic rights which the believers enjoy.
5. The Islamic state will provide equality to all its citizens regardless of their color, race language and their regional identity. Anybody wherever he/she lives is entitled to its citizenship if he/ she believes in its ideology and abides by its laws and principles. A government or state established on these principles in any part of the world would be an Islamic state. This Islamic state can become a universal Islamic state or there can be more than one Islamic state. However, they ought to cooperate with each other without seeking confrontation, and if possible, they can establish a confederation of the Islamic states
6. the polity in such an Islamic state would be moral and selfless wherein people would not seek to lobby for or advance one&#8217;s personal interests or the cause f the groups they belong to faithfulness, honesty , justice , love of peace and keeping one&#8217;s words in all national and international matters will be its hallmark 
7. The Islamic state will not be a police state in that it focuses only on law and order, or border security and other such matters. In fact, it will be a state with a purpose; it will be committed to enjoin good and forbid evil .every body will be before law and the welfare of people will be ensured.
8. The Islamic state will maintain a fine balance between the individual and the state by binding the both with rights and duties and thus preventing them from indulging in excesses against one another.

This framework of Islam gives the citizens to live peacefully and communicate with freedom. In fact, the Islamic concept of Khilafat which submitted was the pioneer of the human rights .but the Islamic state has its own rules and regulations. No one can reject them. Hence, the Islamic state considers the non-believers as its own citizens and implements their own laws. Isolation and discrimination should be avoided in the Islamic state .Islamic culture had taught the entire world how to behave to the citizens and tolerate the inheritants of other religions and ideologies. Muhammad Marduke Picktall writes:

"In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people&#8230;. It was not until the western nation&#8217;s brakes away from their religious law that they become more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam its tolerance had never been preaches as an essential part of religion. If Europe had known as much as of Islam , as Muslims knew of Christendom , in those days, those days , those mad ,adventurous , occasionally chivalrous and heroic , but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the crusades could not have taken place , for they were based on a complete misapprehension&#8230;&#8230;. Innumerable monasteries, with a wealth of treasure of which the worth has been calculated at not less than a hundred millions sterling, enjoyed the benefit of the holy prophet&#8217;s Muhammad charter to he monks of Sinai and were religiously respected by the Muslims . The various sects of Christians were represented in the council of the empire by the patriarchs, on the provincial and district council by the their bishops, in the village council by their priests, whose word was always taken without question on things which were the sole concern of their community&#8230; the tolerance within the body of Islam was, and is, something without parallel in history; class and race and color casing altogether to be barriers.



Covenant of Medina for Jews and Christians:

In history, we can read several human rights&#8217; slogans as were in Magna Carta which the west argued loudly and vociferously that world got the concept of basic rights from it. Butbefore centuries ago Islam had proclaimed what the rights and its practical proofs. In covenants of Medina &#8211; the great example of Islam&#8217;s pluralistic perception- Muhammad (PBUH) could put the corner stones of social justice and cooperation. Summery of this covenant is given below:
&#8226;	The Muslims of Muraish, Yathrib and those who followed them, joined them, or fought with them, constitute one Ummah (people, nation, community) to the exultation of all others.
&#8226;	Whosoever among the Jews follows us shall have help and equality; they shall not be injured or shall any enemy be aided against them.
&#8226;	No separate peace will be made when the believers are fighting in the way Allah
&#8226;	The Jews are one Ummah with the Muslims. The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.
&#8226;	The Jews shall be responsible for their expenses and the believers for theirs. Each if attacked shall come to assistance of the other.
&#8226;	The valley of Yathrib shall be sacred and inviolable for all that join treaty. Strangers under protection shall be treated on the same ground as their protectors; but no stranger shall be taken under protection except with the consent of his tribe&#8230; no woman shall be taken under protection without difference the consent of her family.
&#8226;	Whatever difference or dispute between the parties to this covenant remains shall be referred to Allah and to Muhammad. Allah is the guarantor of the piety and goodness that is embodied in this covenant. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib . If they are called to cease hostilities and to enter into peace, they shall be bound to do so in the interest of peace; and they make a similar demand o Muslims it must be carried out except when the war is against their religion.
&#8226;	Allah approves the truth and good will of this covenant. This treaty shall not protect the unjust and the criminal
&#8226;	There was no separation between Muslims and non- believers except in the matter of tax. They had to give for exemption from military service. The prophet recognized the Zoroastrians as people of book. And the treaty with the Christians was potential. In 628 CE the prophet bestowed them a charter of privileges to the monks of St.. Catherine monastery in Mount Sinai. The nutshell of the charter for the Christians:
&#8226;	This is a message from Muhammad bin Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity. Near and far, we are with them.
&#8226;	Verily, I, the servants and helpers, and my followers defend them. Because Christians are my citizens and by Allah! I hold out against any thing that displeases them.
&#8226;	No compulsion is to be on them
&#8226;	Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries
&#8226;	No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslim&#8217;s houses.
&#8226;	Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil god&#8217;s covenant and disobey his prophet.
&#8226;	Verily they are my allies and have my secure charter against all they hate.
&#8226;	No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight; the Muslims are to fight for them.
&#8226;	If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval .She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
&#8226;	Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
&#8226;	No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the last day (end of the world)


State and Human Rights:

The western states never can indicate a simple example of this sort of tolerance in their history. The Jews had been expelled from these Christian countries and they tried to invade the Muslim states for the centuries. They could not consider other believers. But the Muslims welcomed the Jews who expelled and give them the sole and soil to live without fear. Can a democratic state be a state of tolerance and peace and can their citizens live in safety? But on looking at history, neither the democratic state keeps their slogans nor should their citizens be considered .India is its great instant. We argue that we are the great democratic country, we have a good constitution but the continuity of riots and existence of classification between citizens are the paradoxical matters in our country. But Islam had established a pure Islamic state and announced the democratic values before the west and others did. Some basic principles of Islam had announced are given below:
1) The security of life and property
2) The protection of honor
3) The sanctity and security of private life
4) The security of personal freedom
5) The right to protest against tyranny
6) Freedom of expression
7) Freedom of association
8) Freedom of conscience and conviction
9) Protection of religious sentiments
10) Protection from arbitrary imprisonment
11) The right to basic necessities of life
12) Equality before law
13) Rulers not above the law
14) The right to avoid sin
15) The right to participate in the affairs of state


Democratic Spirit of Islam:

Islam refuses the democracy of west which includes nihilism and a Muslim who believes the sovereignty of god never can accept these socio-political ideologies. Because democracy of west claims sovereignty of people. in democratic country the riots, genocides and other cruelties are common happenings .we could not see the practical proofs of our great constitution yet and domestic affairs are not be protected in proper way. But the domestic policy of Islam which the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there is no even a minute fault. The laws- would be implemented on all those the state&#8217;s citizenship whether they were Muslims or non-Muslims as follows:
1) All Islamic laws would be implemented upon the Muslims
2) Non-Muslims would be interfered with regarding their beliefs and worship.
3) The non-Muslims would treat according to their beliefs in matters related to diet and adornment within the general frame work of the law.
4) Disputes relate to marriage and according for divorce for non-Muslims would be dealt with by appointing judges from themselves in courts set up by the state and not in private courts; similar disputes between them and the Muslims would be dealt with according to Islamic law by Muslim judges.
5) The state will enforce all other Shari&#8217;ah matters related to economic social and legal transactions on every citizen Muslims and non-Muslim alike without prejudice.
6) All those who hold the Islamic citizenship is subjects of the state, their guardianship and the management of there are the duty of the state, without any discrimination.

Ali Abd al-Raziq(1888-1966)in his controversial reinterpretation of Islamic political thought was actually first step of separation between religion and politics .he argued n his book &#8216;Al-Islam Wa Usul Hukum (Islam and the foundations of government) that Islam did not specify a particular form of political system; nor did it require the caliphate . The prophet was purely a spiritual leader, and Muslims had long suffered under the tyranny of a government that was supposedly ordained by either god&#8217;s law or the will of the community of believers&#8217; .Islamic world had not heard about the separation between the religion and politics before that argument.

Democratic concept of Islam is very clear. Modern Islamic philosophers like Rashid al-Ghannoushi and Yusuful Qaradawi discuss the capability of Islam to include the democratic values. He says that &#8220;Islamic rule is by nature democratic&#8221;. Allama Yousul alQaradawi says:&#8221;the fear of some people here that democracy makes the people a source of power and even legislation (although legislation is Allah&#8217;s alone) should not be heeded here, because we are supposed to be speaking of a people that in Islam as its religion .such a people would not be excepted to pass a legislation that contradicts Islam and its incontestable principles and conclusive rules. anyway , these fears can be overcome by one article stipulating that any legislation contradicting the incontestable provisions of Islam shall be null and void because Islam is the religion of the state and the source of legitimacy of all its institutions and therefore may no be contradicted , as branch may not run against the main stream..&#8221;

And other scholars like Muhammad Asad describes the leadership of state must be of an elective nature and the consultative assembly must be both representative of the entire community, men, women, and the result of free and general election based on universal suffrage. Muhammad Iqbal and Moulana Maududi are guiding lights of modern Islamic era, narrated the flexibility of Islam. Moulana Maududi in his book &#8220;political theory of Islam&#8221; used the term &#8220;Theo- democracy&#8221; for Islamic state. He accepted the democracy while this system will work under the sovereignty of god.


Conclusion:

Islam is not against the values of democracy and its acceptance among people. Islam takes care of entire development of human beings .it is main significant message of Islam. It is better to conclude with words of Sir George Bernard Shaw from his &#8220;the genuine Islam&#8221;:

&#8220;If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years it could be Islam&#8230;I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him &#8211;the wonderful man in my opinion far from being an anti- Christ , he must be called the savior of humanity&#8230;I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world be would in succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad hat it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today&#8221;


----------



## Zarvan



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

Zarvan said:


> Mr first to bring the revolution it would blood has to be given Sir secondly those elections were conducted in specific areas if elections would have taken place in whole India and or referendum about that should Pakistan be allowed or it should remained united India Pakistan would have never appeared on the map that specific voting is not democracy Mr



Islam does not like revolutions per se because of the bloodshed of innocents. You are trying to weld together your contradictory notions. You keep tripping over yourself without admitting your mistakes. You keep making stupid claims and keep invoking Quran and Sunnah as though you own them. You have not tried to refute anything I have said in a logical manner using credible sources.

Take this latest idiocy for example. You keep saying that elections in British India were conducted in specific areas and that is why Pakistan came into being, otherwise if there were a referendum, there would be no Pakistan.

1. I assume that you are talking about 1946 general elections in British India. If not let me know and do quote a credible source.

2. You need to show that the said election was conducted in 'specific areas'. You are using vague terminology and it could be twisted to mean anything. Please provide a credible source that indeed such was the case. It would also clear what you mean by 'specific areas'. BTW, by credible source I mean a reference book, such as a syllabus book, an article that quotes original sources, etc... and not a blog written by an AQ-inspired idiot like the one you quoted a few posts back.

You are likely mixing up the system of separate electorate with your notions of democratic process and that is why you feel the need to fall back on 'specific areas' as your defense in your confusion. But I would let you clarify your position with references. Let us have them.


3. Your contention has been that Election and voting is Haram. You have admitted that Pakistan was the result of voting - even though you claim that it was somehow not quite right because of being in 'specific areas' (whatever that means). But the admitted fact remains that Pakistan is the result of a democratic electoral process, which is something you call 'Haram'. Having admitted that you think of Pakistan a product of 'Haram' process, how do you feel about living here?


----------



## Zarvan

Chak Bamu said:


> Islam does not like revolutions per se because of the bloodshed of innocents. You are trying to weld together your contradictory notions. You keep tripping over yourself without admitting your mistakes. You keep making stupid claims and keep invoking Quran and Sunnah as though you own them. You have not tried to refute anything I have said in a logical manner using credible sources.
> 
> Take this latest idiocy for example. You keep saying that elections in British India were conducted in specific areas and that is why Pakistan came into being, otherwise if there were a referendum, there would be no Pakistan.
> 
> 1. I assume that you are talking about 1946 general elections in British India. If not let me know and do quote a credible source.
> 
> 2. You need to show that the said election was conducted in 'specific areas'. You are using vague terminology and it could be twisted to mean anything. Please provide a credible source that indeed such was the case. It would also clear what you mean by 'specific areas'. BTW, by credible source I mean a reference book, such as a syllabus book, an article that quotes original sources, etc... and not a blog written by an AQ-inspired idiot like the one you quoted a few posts back.
> 
> You are likely mixing up the system of separate electorate with your notions of democratic process and that is why you feel the need to fall back on 'specific areas' as your defense in your confusion. But I would let you clarify your position with references. Let us have them.
> 
> 
> 3. Your contention has been that Election and voting is Haram. You have admitted that Pakistan was the result of voting - even though you claim that it was somehow not quite right because of being in 'specific areas' (whatever that means). But the admitted fact remains that Pakistan is the result of a democratic electoral process, which is something you call 'Haram'. Having admitted that you think of Pakistan a product of 'Haram' process, how do you feel about living here?



No democratic electoral process a electoral process in specific area is not democracy Mr britian pretty much agreed to leave south asia and that two in form of two different countries so they did this drama of selective elections Mr and I would die and bring revolution in this haram place even if it had to be through blood bath Mr and Islam has no problem with revolutions the problem some people have is because they want to remain stuck with this haram system Mr why didn't they asked whole of India that should South Asia be divided into two countries with Hindu in Majority do you think you would have won election


----------

