Building a new ‘Mandar’ in Riyasat-e-Madina is against the spirit of Islam: Ch Pervaiz Elahi

[YeBeWarned]

by pakistani only i guess not others

hahahahha really ? so what does Arabs call that pre Islamic ear ? Progressive Century ? LOL

 

[BATMAN]

funds can come freely from abroad (Saudi or Qatar)

Really... which mosques were funded by Saudi?

 

[Jungibaaz]

Really... which mosques were funded by Saudi?

I’m not sure what if any presence is there from state funding, I was referring to funds like donations to mosque trusts, they can come from many gulf states or other countries.

 

[BATMAN]

I’m not sure what if any presence is there from state funding, I was referring to funds like donations to mosque trusts, they can come from many gulf states or other countries.

Donations can come from any state into any state, who is paying for Islamabad mandir than?

 

[Psychic]

Further to my earlier comment in support, I have to say as someone living in the UK, I’d be a hypocrite for opposing this construction while I live here. Not only do I enjoy religious freedom here, the mosques built here are funded by the community, funds can come freely from abroad (Saudi or Qatar) and the government allows it, and even the government often pays contributions to some projects and community services. This doesn’t include the numerous cultural and community centres. In times even churches open their doors to our worshippers for prayer.

So I fully support the government in this, nothing wrong with giving Hindu community something, they pay taxes too and are as Pakistani as anyone else.

So, if in the near future, they announce that they will worship Allah as well from now onwards; will you start worshiping Jesus as a reciprocatory gesture?

Clearly, you make no sense.
@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Desert Fox

 

[Joe Shearer]

No it does not helps, actually it proves the term Riyasat Medina was coined for ignorant public, by hypocrites.
Give me reference from any reputed university from Egypt /Saudi Arabia, while all references form your Wikipedia are from UK or referred to some unknown individuals, who's book no one has ever read.

Until today, my impression of the term was that it refer to time period of 8 years, which Mohammad saw spent in Medina, which was a mix religion society, where Mohammad saw was an immigrant /guest of those who had become Muslims. That setup could hardly be called a state. Actually there was no state as long Mohammad saw lived. It's actually an insult to term Mohammad as ruler of state of Medina.
If there was any close resemblance to any state, than it was the Khilafat that was founded after death of Mohammad saw. Where day to day policies were made in harmony with Islamic principles, where in humanity, peace and tranquility were prime factors.
How non Muslims were treated in Khilafat is perhaps not the subject.

No doubt you know best. Why did you ask for information? To insult those who provided it as best as they could?

 

[Desert Fox]

So, if in the near future, they announce that they will worship Allah as well from now onwards; will you start worshiping Jesus as a reciprocatory gesture?

Clearly, you make no sense.
@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Desert Fox

Edit: never mind. Confused him with another member by the name Jaanbaz

But in any case, to address his point; Pakistan is not and never was a Liberal secular state like the UK. Just because one lives in the UK doesn't mean that now one should expect that UK laws will be (or should be) the default for every nation on the earth now.

Secular Liberal countries also have their limits on who can and cannot establish ideological rivalry with the establishment ideology (Liberalism) within these countries. For example would the Liberal establishment allow another secular competing ideology to establish such a presence that would threaten it's own power? We can see how this "freedom of expression" easily goes out the window when it comes to various secular Nationalist movements that are subverted and destroyed by the Liberal elites.

The same applies in an Islamic state; no competing religions will be allowed to flourish.

 

[Jungibaaz]

So, if in the near future, they announce that they will worship Allah as well from now onwards; will you start worshiping Jesus as a reciprocatory gesture?

Clearly, you make no sense.
@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Desert Fox

This in debating terms is called reductio ad absurdum. Taking one’s argument to a logical extreme in order to prove it’s faulty. Nowhere did I advocate abandoning my own religion, so kindly wander back from the limits of absurdity back into the realm of rational analysis and debate. Thanks.

This construction issue was not an issue a few years ago, it was approved in 2017. Right now people are playing politics on it, and others have genuine objections. I don’t think it’s a big ask personally, we already spent way more on kartarpur corridor, this project has the same motivation behind it. And as mentioned before, Hindus pay taxes too.

 

[Psychic]

And as mentioned before, Hindus pay taxes too.

So what?

A Muslim leader is not allowed to construct houses of shirk. There is consensus ruling on that. Are you going to challenge the consensus of Muslims over a period of 1400 years just because it is does not conform to your sensibilities?

we already spent way more on kartarpur corridor

Is it necessary to complement that sin with the construction of mandirs?

What exactly did we achieve apart from getting some brownie points?
Have the Sikh soldiers of the Indian armed forces taken off their belts?

I do not support Kartarpur corridor either; because my stance is based on principle, not bias.

Taking one’s argument to a logical extreme in order to prove it’s faulty.

Those Muslims who are advocating that the mandir should be built have already, knowingly or unknowingly, gone to the extreme.

"Woke" Muslims openly bend and twist Islamic principles in order to fit in; you think that it is something trivial, but it isn't.

 

[Jungibaaz]

So what?

A Muslim leader is not allowed to construct houses of shirk. There is consensus ruling on that. Are you going to challenge the consensus of Muslims over a period of 1400 years just because it is does not conform to your sensibilities?

Is it necessary to complement that sin with the construction of mandirs?

What exactly did we achieve apart from getting some brownie points?
Have the Sikh soldiers of the Indian armed forces taken off their belts?

I do not support Kartarpur corridor either; because my stance is based on principle, not bias.

Those Muslims who are advocating that the mandir should be built have already, knowingly or unknowingly, gone to the extreme.

"Woke" Muslims openly bend and twist Islamic principles in order to fit in; you think that it is something trivial, but it isn't.

About bending and twisting rules of Islam, there are so many rules that the state does bend, twist, ignore and will continue to ignore. There’s no single perfectly Islamic state on earth. Take a look at the monetary system the world over, time value of money and interest rates are in every system. Including ours. Show me your perfect system, I’ll look over it and tell you if it’s worth pursuing if it even exists.

Also, not building a Mandir will not make Hindus go away, nor will it cause you or require you personally to go in there and commit idolatry. I’m for kartarpur, the fact that you’re against it is not surprising either. It’s not there to promote Sikh religion, it’s there to build relations and for state level diplomatic outreach. Same goes for this temple.

Credibility, image, diplomatic standing, these things are built over decades. One project, one temple won’t solve all our problems. Asking why Kartarpur hasn’t caused Sikhs to quit India is silly, who said that was an aim? You?

Also, Hindus paying taxes is a very valid point. If they contribute to the exchequer, if they are citizens in a democracy, they can demand things of their government, or their government can give something to that community.

Please don’t make economic or political arguments. Your one and only argument is that it’s against Islam. And that’s the one area that there can’t be any debate on.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Gurudwara has/will brought much much need positive PR for Pakistan and Islam in General .

LOL PR My Foot. What would PR do to you? We all know what US did, Israel did, India did, China did in Xinjiang, France did in Africa. What happened to them? Did their economies collapse?

 

[Psychic]

About bending and twisting rules of Islam, there are so many rules that the state does bend, twist, ignore and will continue to ignore. There’s no single perfectly Islamic state on earth. Take a look at the monetary system the world over, time value of money and interest rates are in every system. Including ours. Show me your perfect system, I’ll look over it and tell you if it’s worth pursuing if it even exists.

Again, as expected, the same ghissa pitta argument that so and so thing is un Islamic so we must also abandon the few Islamic principles and values we still follow. We are trapped in international monetary system which is un Islamic so let us decriminalize homosexualty as well. We are already committing one sin so lets commit a hundred more. We don't follow Islam 100 percent so lets abandon whatever Islamic values we still revere.

Asking why Kartarpur hasn’t caused Sikhs to quit India is silly, who said that was an aim? You?

I already mentioned very clearly that these are just brownie points. No tangible benefit whatsoever. And those who you are trying to appease in the West will only continue to make more and more demands till we completely disfigure our deen.

Also, Hindus paying taxes is a very valid point. If they contribute to the exchequer, if they are citizens in a democracy, they can demand things of their government, or their government can give something to that community.

From an Islamic perspective, it is completely invalid point. I am sure you are aware of jizya and khiraj.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Again, as expected, the same ghissa pitta argument that so and so thing is un Islamic so we must also abandon the few Islamic principles and values we still follow. We are trapped in international monetary system which is un Islamic so let us decriminalize homosexualty as well.

Strawman. I didn't say we should decriminalise.

We are already committing one sin so lets commit a hundred more.We don't follow Islam 100 percent so lets abandon whatever Islamic values we still revere.

Strawman, reductio ad absurdum again. I can give you an example of what you're doing, taking a reasonable position and taking it to an extreme to disavow the logic: You want to ban mandir construction (reasonable), if that's the case what's next... you also want to ban banks and money too? (extreme).

See how this is attacking a point you never made? It's an invalid way of debating.

I already mentioned very clearly that these are just brownie points. No tangible benefit whatsoever.

That's debatable. If it improves out global image, if it makes headlines and promotes a tolerant view of Pakistani polity. I count that as positive even if tangible benefits are hard to see it doesn't mean they aren't there. On the subject of headlines, I'm sure if one conducted even a superficial econometric analysis, they'd see the effects of negative press on investment in Pakistan over the years, opposite can be easily hypothesised for positive coverage.

And those who you are trying to appease in the West will only continue to make more and more demands till we completely disfigure our deen.

I agree we have to draw the line somewhere. We are just disagreeing on where. I don't like to make holier than thou arguments because someone is not agreeing where I draw the line.

From an Islamic perspective, it is completely invalid point. I am sure you are aware of jizya and khiraj.

Ours is not an Islamic financial system. Nor is the tax system. We are already operating a system close to that seen in all other countries. In these systems, citizens that pay taxes can make demands of government, and governments can invest in communities selectively given their own policy goals. Which is exactly what's happening here.

 

[Desert Fox]

Your one and only argument is that it’s against Islam. And that’s the one area that there can’t be any debate on.

Pakistan is an Islamic country. The entire basis for its creation, ie a Muslim homeland in North India, is NOT a secular one. Therefore anything that the current or past governments have done on a secular basis are contrary to the founding notion of Pakistan, ie Muslim homeland.

If you want to advocate a religiously plural secular society like the UK then create a movement to undo partition and reemerge with a Secular India, don't do a half-way job of making secular Liberal arguments within an Islamic country.

If it improves out global image, if it makes headlines and promotes a tolerant view of Pakistani polity.

Improves our global image according to who's standard?

No, we should set standards of our own rather than be blind followers.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Pakistan is an Islamic country. The entire basis for its creation, ie a Muslim homeland in North India, is NOT a secular one. Therefore anything that the current or past governments have done on a secular basis are contrary to the founding notion of Pakistan, ie Muslim homeland.

If you want to advocate a religiously plural secular society like the UK then create a movement to undo partition and reemerge with a Secular India, don't do a half-way job of making secular Liberal arguments within an Islamic country.

Nobody here denies that Pakistan was created on the basis of a homeland for Muslims, but nowhere did Jinnah think to create a republic based on only and exactly Islamic theocracy. He envisioned a democracy. Democracies by their nature are pluralistic and their ideology if they have one are pliable and at the mercy of the demos.

Plenty of our laws and statecraft have no basis in Islam, and parts of our system are wholly based on secular style democracy if not exactly secularism. And in the case of our financial system, not only is it not Islamic, by some interpretations it’s unislamic.

An honest reading of what motivated the creation of Pakistan would lead you to find that plurality. And also you’d know that Pakistan was not created to become a theocracy.

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

Note the last part about nothing to do with the business of the state. That sounds awfully secular to me. At best you could say that quote means that our government shouldn’t build any places of worship it’s not their job etc.