Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan
- Thread starter haviZsultan
- Start date
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Mr stop attacking Hadees Mr if you problem with HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW Mr their are several people HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW told things to do so it depended on what people he dealt and what he told them and what he asked them go and study hadees before talking **** which enemies of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW often to do and than also attack Quran
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
I am not brainwashed I follow Islam and follow ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW but enemies of Islam and HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW first attack saying of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and than him and than come to Quran and tafseer on their master pervaiz is proof of it in whole Tafseer he has attacked all concepts of Islam and his pets are also doing the same job
Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Yes go ahead talk bullshit shows you background and you reality
Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Enough of your bullsh!t - No need to go on personal attack and no need to become sole protector of Islam when you don't know abc of Islam. Be happy with your bloodthirsty mullahism and enjoy electric dance or bhangra on bollynaats
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Sir I know Islam and I study Islam Sir on daily bases you need to study Islam and stop attacking Islam and its concepts because you master will attack Quran in fact he did his whole Tafseer and concepts start from attacking Hadees and end up in attack Quran and his paid do.. are doing same
Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
This is the last time i am warning you - no need to go on personal, What do you know about me? If your mullah can't stand against simple question - does it mean you start calling other qadiani. Pity on your daily base study on Islam & your idiot teacher.
somebozo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 18,872
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
One can spend their entire life studying Islam and accomplish nothing but also end up dumber.
For 1400 years we cannot agree which sect is right and still fighting about the rights of 7th century Khilafah.
3 Khalifa Rashidun were murdered on duty by disgruntled populace.
Commander of Believers and Mother of Believers went to war with each other - 10,000 innocent Muslims died.
Nothing has killed Muslims in scores as big as Islam itself.
The advent of Islam created a massive exodus of Semitic tribes, Persian traders and Assyrian Christians from Arabia who traditionally dominated the spheres of science, arts, engineering, metallurgy, warfare etc. This pushed Arabia into 1400 years of backwardness and a dependency on talent import which continues to this day. While the displaced people moved towards Europe and flourished well.
Violence is the easiest tool to silence critical minds. This is what all Mullahs follows. Everything which cannot be explained is raised to the status of holy cow!
Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
No doubt in that. Islam is hijacked by barbaric creed who want to control every aspect life. Few days before my marriage, one expert of Islam was telling me the Islamic method & position of sex, I don't think they have spared anything.
Patriots
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 7,200
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
@haviZsultan I would answer to your article point to point … You can see below:
It is never worthwhile to have just the name of “Islamic Republic” without making an “Islamic Republic”.
First question is that Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism. Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi Ulema, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.
The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries like for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.
It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.
Completely disagree with your fact that Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. Actually it has not been tried except Zia era and that was his self – interest he didn’t do for Islamization. If people take bribes & do other sins as per Shari’ah then kindly tell me where is the fault of Islamic ruling system in it? Firstly Islamic ruling system could be imposed here with its full spirit for 60 years. Secondly this is rulers failure who shows to themselves as secular in front of west world except Zia-Ul-Haq because at that west world had need to Islamization against USSR.
If you say that all above mentioned corruptions can be remove from our society. So, check other secular states e.g. All these corruption you can find in India too, might be it would less over there but it can’t be said that has not.
Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected. Islam strongly emphasizes faith in Allah. Islam emphasizes life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.
Is Islam really incompatible with secularism? Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.
The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic Ulema and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The Ulema were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.
At the time of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal unfortunately Moatazilah had forgot above mentioned Ayat. The Caliph Mamoon Ur Rasheed had accepted their beliefs & mostly fawning Ulemas had also accepted too, in his pressure but some righteous Ulema did not so, and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was one of them. They punished to him and he was imprisoned with chains. He had pressurized that accept their beliefs that Allah has created the Quran instead his it is word of Allah, but insisted against them. Afterwards he had been died in the prison. Their secularism was slept somewhere at that time.
I would thank to you that you accepted that how the justice have been done at the time of 4th Caliph. This could be possible in an Islamic state. On the one side was the Jew (A non-Muslim) and other side was the ruler of the time. But court ruled the favor of Jew.
This is the fault of people & rulers not the Islamic governing system.
But don’t forget that Pakistan had been built on the name of Islam. You quoted to Quaid – e – Azam. That was he who had presented two nation theory. If Pakistan was not going to be theocratic state. Then why we had separated from India. If we were create a secular state then Why did we put the slogan for separate Muslim state? Why united secular India was bad for us? Why did we sacrifice millions of lives? It means at same time Maulan Abul Kalam Azad (according to you Wahabi) was right that Pakistan should not be built.
Anyhow, it is pleasant thing that you consider to quoting example of 4th Caliph that all people can get same privileges in Islamic state.
Kindly explain. Is law faulted or implementation could not occur in righteous way?
How do we blame to law? Why do we not condemn to rulers that they failed to enforce in right way.
Answer is “NO”
Wouldn’t it be the hypocrisy..??? If you agree that in Islamic system all people whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim can get all privileges then why do we need secular constitution? And for you information our constitution is secular at this time except some articles which were Zia Ul Haq included by amendment.
Same thing you mentioned again n again.
You have repeated same type of arguments again n again.
Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Quranic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Madina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Madina.
There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Quran's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) used to consult his companions in secular matters.
In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state. Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.
First thing is this you have accepted that many Pakistani has failed to follow to tenets of Islam, no other argument is there. But kindly tell me who is the main responsible to this failure. Isn’t it the government who didn’t try to make the state an Islamic state?
It is never worthwhile to have just the name of “Islamic Republic” without making an “Islamic Republic”.
First question is that Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism. Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi Ulema, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.
The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries like for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.
It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.
Completely disagree with your fact that Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. Actually it has not been tried except Zia era and that was his self – interest he didn’t do for Islamization. If people take bribes & do other sins as per Shari’ah then kindly tell me where is the fault of Islamic ruling system in it? Firstly Islamic ruling system could be imposed here with its full spirit for 60 years. Secondly this is rulers failure who shows to themselves as secular in front of west world except Zia-Ul-Haq because at that west world had need to Islamization against USSR.
If you say that all above mentioned corruptions can be remove from our society. So, check other secular states e.g. All these corruption you can find in India too, might be it would less over there but it can’t be said that has not.
Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected. Islam strongly emphasizes faith in Allah. Islam emphasizes life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.
Is Islam really incompatible with secularism? Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.
The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic Ulema and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The Ulema were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.
At the time of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal unfortunately Moatazilah had forgot above mentioned Ayat. The Caliph Mamoon Ur Rasheed had accepted their beliefs & mostly fawning Ulemas had also accepted too, in his pressure but some righteous Ulema did not so, and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was one of them. They punished to him and he was imprisoned with chains. He had pressurized that accept their beliefs that Allah has created the Quran instead his it is word of Allah, but insisted against them. Afterwards he had been died in the prison. Their secularism was slept somewhere at that time.
I would thank to you that you accepted that how the justice have been done at the time of 4th Caliph. This could be possible in an Islamic state. On the one side was the Jew (A non-Muslim) and other side was the ruler of the time. But court ruled the favor of Jew.
This is the fault of people & rulers not the Islamic governing system.
But don’t forget that Pakistan had been built on the name of Islam. You quoted to Quaid – e – Azam. That was he who had presented two nation theory. If Pakistan was not going to be theocratic state. Then why we had separated from India. If we were create a secular state then Why did we put the slogan for separate Muslim state? Why united secular India was bad for us? Why did we sacrifice millions of lives? It means at same time Maulan Abul Kalam Azad (according to you Wahabi) was right that Pakistan should not be built.
Anyhow, it is pleasant thing that you consider to quoting example of 4th Caliph that all people can get same privileges in Islamic state.
Who would guarantee that sectarian separation could be remove to being a secular state? Give any example from present world.
Again same question will raise that why did we need for independence for Muslims? What was the bad in united India?
Kindly explain. Is law faulted or implementation could not occur in righteous way?
How do we blame to law? Why do we not condemn to rulers that they failed to enforce in right way.
Answer is “NO”
Wouldn’t it be the hypocrisy..??? If you agree that in Islamic system all people whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim can get all privileges then why do we need secular constitution? And for you information our constitution is secular at this time except some articles which were Zia Ul Haq included by amendment.
Same thing you mentioned again n again.
Again same question raises in mind that where is the fault of Islamic system? This is the lack of implementation and this can be done by rulers & law enforcement agencies.
You have repeated same type of arguments again n again.
Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Quranic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Madina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Madina.
There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Quran's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Rasoolullah (Sallah O Alaihe Wa Alaihi Wa Sallam) used to consult his companions in secular matters.
In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state. Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.
Last edited by a moderator:
livingdead
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2011
- Messages
- 22,952
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
ha ha. did he say missionary is haram?
Sugarcane
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 21,105
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Ab tum mazay laina chahtay ho???
Allah would see that in Narak (or Jannat?)
On the Earth, You need to come up in front of the Foot Soldiers!
Similar threads
