If u look 1400 years back, just the dawah of Islam helped Islam gain a very few Muslims in Makkah in the period of 13 years, the real expansion happened when the Allah's rules (the SHARIA) was implimented. And the Sharia wasn't implimented through agression and fight...
Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ???
- Thread starter RAMPAGE
- Start date
genmirajborgza786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
ISIS
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
Most of the western civilized societies are lawful because of the ruthless & brutal punishemnt they passed onto the criminals in their past history.
The punishments were always examplary---that was the purpose of the punishment---to set an example for the genertions to come----like in good old england--- thieves would be skinned alive----his skin then filled with husk and hung at the city / town entrance till it got eaten by worms / insects---.
The punishments in these european nations and U S for petty crimes were so brutal thta it would shock the day lights out of everyone.
These ruthless punishments build the character of the community & set the solid foundations on which the future of these nations re built upon.
The object was to control the moral compass and character of the majority of the people---it was thru the implementtion of ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.
The foundations of all these western european nations and the U S are built upon the ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE OF ORDER IN THE SOCIETY & NOT THE RULE OF Law----their fundamental pratcise has been that if there is ORDER in the society Rule of L will follow by default.
This concept is foreign to pakistanis----who have been chasing the rule of law---& not knowing that it is ORDER in the society that needs to be maintined for the enforcement of the rule of law.
Pkistnis hev it totlly wrong----it is not Unity Fith Discipline----but it should hve been
DISCIPLINE , FaITH , UNITY-------.
Now if you dig a little deeper into it---look at pakistani military and pakistani civilians---they both are tarined differently----.
a new recruit joins military academy---the first words that are drummed into his mind by the sergent are sir have discipline---have discipline---have discipline---that is all he hears all his life---discipline---discipline ---discipline----he never hears bout faith or unity----becuse the military knows---that if you have discipline---faith and unity will follow by default.
Pakistani civilians otherwise talk all about unity and faith---unity and faith and they got nothing---they got sh-it to show.
Most of the western civilized societies are lawful because of the ruthless & brutal punishemnt they passed onto the criminals in their past history.
The punishments were always examplary---that was the purpose of the punishment---to set an example for the genertions to come----like in good old england--- thieves would be skinned alive----his skin then filled with husk and hung at the city / town entrance till it got eaten by worms / insects---.
The punishments in these european nations and U S for petty crimes were so brutal thta it would shock the day lights out of everyone.
These ruthless punishments build the character of the community & set the solid foundations on which the future of these nations re built upon.
The object was to control the moral compass and character of the majority of the people---it was thru the implementtion of ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.
The foundations of all these western european nations and the U S are built upon the ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE OF ORDER IN THE SOCIETY & NOT THE RULE OF Law----their fundamental pratcise has been that if there is ORDER in the society Rule of L will follow by default.
This concept is foreign to pakistanis----who have been chasing the rule of law---& not knowing that it is ORDER in the society that needs to be maintined for the enforcement of the rule of law.
Pkistnis hev it totlly wrong----it is not Unity Fith Discipline----but it should hve been
DISCIPLINE , FaITH , UNITY-------.
Now if you dig a little deeper into it---look at pakistani military and pakistani civilians---they both are tarined differently----.
a new recruit joins military academy---the first words that are drummed into his mind by the sergent are sir have discipline---have discipline---have discipline---that is all he hears all his life---discipline---discipline ---discipline----he never hears bout faith or unity----becuse the military knows---that if you have discipline---faith and unity will follow by default.
Pakistani civilians otherwise talk all about unity and faith---unity and faith and they got nothing---they got sh-it to show.
p4kistan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 0
problem ?
read my signature & you will get your answer
Indonesia, Bangladesh, turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan ,Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Indian Muslims don't want it, there goes 600 million from your billion now what eh' ?
Your p11ssy NATO ain't jack sh1t now. It barked at Russia for Crimea but couldn't do anything.
As for the countries mentioned, just because they currently don't have it doesn't mean they don't want it. After all those there is still a billion. idiot
Retard have you read any comments I made. ISIS acts contrary to shariah/Islam.ISIS
ajpirzada
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
In one of the letter to Jinnah (dated 28th May 1937), Iqbal wrote, “The atheistic socialism of Jawaharlal is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League’s activity to solve this question.”
So the question arises, have we found the answer to this question? I wrote a piece sometime back on the issue of where we lost our track:
Solving the puzzle: The clue lies with Iqbal, not Jinnah!
Saleena Karim in her book ‘Secular Jinnah’ (2010) attributes the usage of the term ‘Islamic socialism’ to Jinnah himself ‘as well as the early leaders of Pakistan.’ Furthermore, she states: ‘Liaquat Ali Khan considered the abolition of landlordism a necessary step towards establishing this Islamic Socialism.’ However the subsequent social and political developments lead to a constitution which clearly intended to be based in the ‘Islamic ideals’ as understood by Iqbal and Jinnah but was at the same time inconsistent. No wonder, she says, the opposition leaders of the time ‘raised some legitimate criticisms’ on the then proposed constitutional framework so as to promote their notion of ‘modern democratic state’ – the term falsely attributed to Jinnah in Justice Munir’s book ‘From Jinnah to Zia’ (1979).
Why was it then that the intentions could not result in the necessary actions required to innovate a new socio-political and economic system of governance based on the ‘Islamic ideals’ for which Pakistan was created? Part of the answer is the early death of the ideological fathers of Pakistan thus leaving an intellectual gap which was not filled. But this does not do justice with the immense significance of the question and is only a way of avoiding it by pretending to having answered it.
Jinnah had abhorred the ‘modern democratic form of Government’ in his address to the Hostel Parliament of Ismail Yusuf College (dated 1st Feb 1943) while demanding ‘a true democracy inaccordance with Islam and not a Parliamentary Government of the Western or Congress type.’ Later in the same year, Jinnah said in his Presidential address at the Muslim League’s Annual Session (dated 24th April 1943), “I have no doubt that a large body of us visualise Pakistan as a people’s government.… The constitution of Pakistan can only be framed by the millat and the people.”
The using of the words ‘large body of us’ makes it clear that ideology of Pakistan was well understood by the Leaguers’ and the notion of Jinnah’s death leaving behind an intellectual gap is overemphasised. The intellectual clarity of the ‘large body of us’ which Jinnah left behind can be depicted by their debates with the opposition during the first Constituent Assembly and unanimity on drafting of the constitution by the ‘people’s government’ in ‘accordance with Islam.’ This brings us back to the above question to which the answer, in fact, lies not with Jinnah but with Iqbal.
In one of the letter to Jinnah (dated 28th May 1937), Iqbal wrote, “The atheistic socialism of Jawaharlal is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League’s activity to solve this question.” With Iqbal’s death, all the energies of the League shifted towards manoeuvring the realities of the time so as to achieve their political objective. The league’s future was therefore only till what they had managed to answer and was destined to see its end when the time for the next question came.
While the Leaguers’ knew what they did not want for Pakistan – Secular Capitalistic Democracy of the West and Atheistic Socialist Communism of the East – they had not yet answered Iqbal’s crucial question. This is apparent from Jinnah’s address at the Opening Ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan. Jinnah categorically refuted the notion of adopting the ‘economic system of the west’ which ‘created insoluble problems for humanity’ and propagated for ‘evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life’ and hence the term ‘Islamic socialism.’ However, nowhere in the Leaguers’ speeches does one find what these ‘practices’ or principles were except in broader terms of equality, freedom and socio-economic justice as embedded in Islam.
In fact, Jinnah had formed a Planning Committee in 1943 to chart out a five year plan for the socio-economic uplift of Pakistan. The Committee – consisting of economics, engineering and other professionals – held its first meeting in September 1944 and was advised by Jinnah in the following words: ‘Our ideals should not be capitalistic but Islamic.’ However, the Committee could not complete the second phase of its objective of focusing primarily on Pakistan specific areas due to the turn of events in the short span of time.
It is my understanding that the success of Pakistan lies in returning to completing the work initiated by Jinnah so as to find the answer to Iqbal’s question. However, it is highly unlikely to escape the shackles of both ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ in our pursuit towards reaching our destiny without having understood the Islamic socio-economic view. And for this goal of applying ‘Islamic ideals’ to create our distinct socio-economic system promising justice and mutual wellbeing, the starting point is to study their first hand application by the very person who introduced such ‘Ideals.’
Note: Quotations used have been taken from Saleena Karim’s book ‘Secular Jinnah’ (2010).
So the question arises, have we found the answer to this question? I wrote a piece sometime back on the issue of where we lost our track:
Solving the puzzle: The clue lies with Iqbal, not Jinnah!
Saleena Karim in her book ‘Secular Jinnah’ (2010) attributes the usage of the term ‘Islamic socialism’ to Jinnah himself ‘as well as the early leaders of Pakistan.’ Furthermore, she states: ‘Liaquat Ali Khan considered the abolition of landlordism a necessary step towards establishing this Islamic Socialism.’ However the subsequent social and political developments lead to a constitution which clearly intended to be based in the ‘Islamic ideals’ as understood by Iqbal and Jinnah but was at the same time inconsistent. No wonder, she says, the opposition leaders of the time ‘raised some legitimate criticisms’ on the then proposed constitutional framework so as to promote their notion of ‘modern democratic state’ – the term falsely attributed to Jinnah in Justice Munir’s book ‘From Jinnah to Zia’ (1979).
Why was it then that the intentions could not result in the necessary actions required to innovate a new socio-political and economic system of governance based on the ‘Islamic ideals’ for which Pakistan was created? Part of the answer is the early death of the ideological fathers of Pakistan thus leaving an intellectual gap which was not filled. But this does not do justice with the immense significance of the question and is only a way of avoiding it by pretending to having answered it.
Jinnah had abhorred the ‘modern democratic form of Government’ in his address to the Hostel Parliament of Ismail Yusuf College (dated 1st Feb 1943) while demanding ‘a true democracy inaccordance with Islam and not a Parliamentary Government of the Western or Congress type.’ Later in the same year, Jinnah said in his Presidential address at the Muslim League’s Annual Session (dated 24th April 1943), “I have no doubt that a large body of us visualise Pakistan as a people’s government.… The constitution of Pakistan can only be framed by the millat and the people.”
The using of the words ‘large body of us’ makes it clear that ideology of Pakistan was well understood by the Leaguers’ and the notion of Jinnah’s death leaving behind an intellectual gap is overemphasised. The intellectual clarity of the ‘large body of us’ which Jinnah left behind can be depicted by their debates with the opposition during the first Constituent Assembly and unanimity on drafting of the constitution by the ‘people’s government’ in ‘accordance with Islam.’ This brings us back to the above question to which the answer, in fact, lies not with Jinnah but with Iqbal.
In one of the letter to Jinnah (dated 28th May 1937), Iqbal wrote, “The atheistic socialism of Jawaharlal is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League’s activity to solve this question.” With Iqbal’s death, all the energies of the League shifted towards manoeuvring the realities of the time so as to achieve their political objective. The league’s future was therefore only till what they had managed to answer and was destined to see its end when the time for the next question came.
While the Leaguers’ knew what they did not want for Pakistan – Secular Capitalistic Democracy of the West and Atheistic Socialist Communism of the East – they had not yet answered Iqbal’s crucial question. This is apparent from Jinnah’s address at the Opening Ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan. Jinnah categorically refuted the notion of adopting the ‘economic system of the west’ which ‘created insoluble problems for humanity’ and propagated for ‘evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life’ and hence the term ‘Islamic socialism.’ However, nowhere in the Leaguers’ speeches does one find what these ‘practices’ or principles were except in broader terms of equality, freedom and socio-economic justice as embedded in Islam.
In fact, Jinnah had formed a Planning Committee in 1943 to chart out a five year plan for the socio-economic uplift of Pakistan. The Committee – consisting of economics, engineering and other professionals – held its first meeting in September 1944 and was advised by Jinnah in the following words: ‘Our ideals should not be capitalistic but Islamic.’ However, the Committee could not complete the second phase of its objective of focusing primarily on Pakistan specific areas due to the turn of events in the short span of time.
It is my understanding that the success of Pakistan lies in returning to completing the work initiated by Jinnah so as to find the answer to Iqbal’s question. However, it is highly unlikely to escape the shackles of both ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ in our pursuit towards reaching our destiny without having understood the Islamic socio-economic view. And for this goal of applying ‘Islamic ideals’ to create our distinct socio-economic system promising justice and mutual wellbeing, the starting point is to study their first hand application by the very person who introduced such ‘Ideals.’
Note: Quotations used have been taken from Saleena Karim’s book ‘Secular Jinnah’ (2010).
genmirajborgza786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
hey easy there, no name calling ,
look dude if you got the heat , I ain't ice either ok
We need a secular government that protects minorities. Sharia governance does this as well, but the religious mullah fanatics choose to ignore this part. If you're unable to implement sharia properly then adopt a secular system in which these animals can't hide behind the name of religion. Unless you have an educated population mixing religion and politics will always end in tragedy
I'm very well living within my limits, using 'Islam' for moral high ground doesn't make your argument any more impressive.
Go and ask them. They say they are fighting for Shariah Law. Now the debate about whether they are wrong or right depends how majority of Pakistanis respond to Taliban.
You don't believe in civilised world anyway. I'm wasting my time with people who want to take Pakistan back to 12th Century.
No need to ask anyone brother, the situation is pretty clear...
Yes it is. Taliban are nothing but bunch of criminals. Their foot soldiers are brainwashed violent men who think the only way to serve Islam is to kill in its name. Their leadership are corrupt fake so called Islamic scholars. Most of them have no knowledge of Islamic theology nor are anyone of them qualified.
Proudpakistaniguy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,890
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Taliban are not following real sharia..saudia are not following real sharia, Iran are not following real sharia, Sudan are not following real sharia..turkey is not follwing real sharia, Malaysia is not follwing real sharia..Pakistan is not follwing real shria....so where are example of real sharia ? Everyone come up with their own version of sharia and deny the version of sharia following by others so i find it bit funny.
Well, it's the matter of fact !! BTW, Saudi Arab is following Sharia, Their courts make decision according to Quran and Sunnah, for others i cannot say much but Turkey seems to be coming back on track...
Proudpakistaniguy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,890
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
The problem is we don't have one Sharia model which all Muslims will ever agree with it .There will be many Muslims who would not agree with you that Saudia is following sharia in its correct form in everything. Dictatorship or kinship is not part of Islam for many....forbidding women to drive is not sharia for many..controlling even the speeches of imams in mosques that what he cann or cann say and there are double standard for Arabs and non Arabs in many things including punishments.
Similar threads
