Defending Militancy: Why they kill civilians, attack the state
- Thread starter forcetrip
- Start date
ashokdeiva
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 4,266
- Reaction score
- 0
In the present context, almost every girl reaches her puberty by the age of 13 and 14 resply. so are they ready to get married? No.. Reason - They are not physically or mentally prepared to take the burden of motherhood or family running capabilities.
If you still argue on this its like hitting the wall.
---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------
If you say so, you have to declare your home as a country and live a life that the God has told you and you are not entitled to enter into Pakistan as the country has a constitution and Government setup all created by Men and not God.
TARIQ BN ZIYAAD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 0
Assalam alaikum
yaro non muslim say behes nahi karo PROPHET PBUH ki bay adabi kar dain gay kahin hamain hi gunah na ho jay let it be between us only
TARIQ
yaro non muslim say behes nahi karo PROPHET PBUH ki bay adabi kar dain gay kahin hamain hi gunah na ho jay let it be between us only
TARIQ
laiqs@mi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,571
- Reaction score
- 0
I dont agree.
these laws are man made if Zia did it. or any one ... i dont care.
we have Quaan and if some thing we cant find from Quran we have Hadith thats it.
if we will implement man made laws then it must be twisted.
next thing we are not willing to implement Islamic laws ....... we cant leave our life style.
if you look at the time of Mohammad(pbuh) all of Sahaba Karam when the became muslim they just listned and obyed they did not said that first we shall clean our self we will work on ourselves and then Islamic laws shall be implemented.
here I want to discuss just one point.
Islam is a very very complete system.
but untill we are divided in sects and until we leave our own interpretations of islam untill that time it is not going to happen.
some people say what did taliban did when they implemented Islamic laws in Afghanistan ........
Oh yar ......... who say they were Islamic laws???
if some one kill any person in the name of islam it is not fault of islam rather fault of that person. so connected islam to taliban is not a wise thing.
(continued)
---------- Post added 08-25-2011 at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-24-2011 at 11:59 PM ----------
I request you dont comment on Islamic rules Laws. if i start abusing your religion then what...... (I am not like you so I wont.)
so please be out of discussion where islam or religion related discussions are being discussed.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
As a follow up to my post # 118 and to add to the typology we discussed, allow me to present to you:
Gnostic religiosity
Describing the difference between the lover’s approach to God as opposed to the scholar’s, Hussein Bin Mansur Hallaj would say: " The Beloved is laden with allures, not secrets". And with his unerring grace, Mowlana attributed both these qualities to the Benevolent Creator and said:
The tongue speaks of its secrets and allures
Or depicts the sky as its heavenly robes
Robe? Every thread and fibre is made of gold
The more you cover it, the more it glows
In gnostic religiosity, there is no talk of the allures of God and his prophets; that is the business of the experiential believer. Here, it is all a question of His secrets; not secrets in the sense of myths, but secrets as rational problems and puzzles that one must grapple with like a mental wrestler. Here one finds a theoretical rationality which is sensitive to the appropriateness of a reason to a claim, not just a practical rationality that is concerned about the appropriateness of a means to an end. If we identify pragmatic religiosity by its dogmatism, gnostic religiosity can be identified by a sense of rational wonder and, by the same token, experiential religiosity by certainty. Hence, on entering the realm of gnosticism, dogma is exchanged for doubt and wonder, and, as dogmatism is left behind, the road is paved for entering the realm of certainty. Rationality always brings along two sturdy companions: one is the tireless raising of whys and wherefores and maybe sos and maybe nots, and the other is a relentless individuality. No rational thinker ever stops posing questions and destroying and rebuilding ceaselessly. And no two rational thinkers are ever the same. It is emotion that drowns people en masse and formlessly in a sea of excitation.
This is not the domain of rationality. Rationality both allows its followers independence and individuality and endorses these qualities; it deems these attributes to belong to rational thinkers by right. In the pragmatic religiosity of the general masses, all believers practice their religiosity in the same manner, and their beliefs and actions are very similar. But, on stepping into the realm of gnosticism, individual religiosity and religious individualism enter in. Every rational thinker has their own conception of religion, that is, their own understanding of God, the Prophet, revelation, joy, wretchedness, sin and obedience; an understanding that belongs to that believer alone, results from their own reflections and is subjected to constant questioning and revision.
This is why gnostic religiosity is unstable and in a state of flux. The religiosity of the masses has the stability of paralysis. This same kind of constancy and uniformity cannot be expected from gnostic religiosity. Rational storms will inevitably stir and rouse the ocean of religious belief and knowledge; swimming in these tempestuous waters represents the skill and excellence of and even life itself to the gnostic believer. All this examining, reexamining, rediscovering, doubting and pondering is the essence of worship to the gnostic, while sin would amount to submitting uncritically to beliefs, succumbing to popular vulgarities, following superstitions and famous personalities, and refusing to engage in doubt and reflection. And the believer’s joy lies in the excellence of his theoretical skills.
Theologians and exegisists are two of the prominent representatives of this category. This religiosity is reasoned (as opposed to causal), investigative, reflective, based on choice and free will, wondrous, theological, non-mythical, non-clerical, individualistic, critical, fluctuating and non-imitative.
Here God appears in the form of a great rational secret and, awed by His Splendor, His servants seek to unravel the secret. And the Prophet is like a great teacher and philosopher who has conveyed his lessons in the most intense form, while believers are like his students and novices who strive for a rational understanding of his words, and nonbelievers are like ungrateful pupils or like ignorant people who are incapable of even recognising their own ignorance.
Thus the Prophet’s target is also perceived differently. Here, his target is believers’ minds, not their emotions. And believers become followers of his school to the extent that they can find rational fulfilment. The Prophet’s task is to teach and to pledge their betterment, not to demand and compel, and the believer’s task is rational - not physical or emotional - acceptance and submission.
There is no role for the clergy in this religiosity, since it is not founded on myths and rituals, and it has no place for emulation. It is on good terms with religious pluralism, because individual religiosity and religious individualism are synonymous with a plurality of conceptions and interpretations. It cannot be turned into an ideology because it has no time for dogmatism and official interpretations, or for simplistic views of the world, human beings and history. It is basically inclined towards the truth, not towards movement or an identity.
Its particular form of worship is thought and one can enter into dialogue with its religious personalities without having to praise and revere them unquestioningly. It conceives of moral virtues as things that help the individual arrive at a better and more advanced understanding of error. It considers the worst forms of villainy to be dishonesty and duplicity and deception and pride and arrogance and mischievous cunning and pretentiousness and irrationality.
Gnostic believers are per force multi-sourced and their religious understanding recedes and advances in keeping with the contractions and expansions of their minds. This type of religiosity has been scorned by both pragmatic and experiential believers. When Shariati spoke of "philosophers as history’s fatheads ", he revealed the nature of his own religiosity. Mowlana Jalaleddin Rumi, for his part, likened the cunning displayed by theologians and gnostics to a diver’s derring-do under the sea that proves more dangerous than beneficial:
A cunning diver swims under the sea
He’ll not last long and will drown eventually
Love is like a ship for the fortunate few
Salvation is likely and the dangers are few
Ghazzali, too, scorned the science of theology and said that it led to pride, prevented people from struggling against their baser instincts, created the illusion of certainty while engendering doubt, and represented a contrived development that had not existed during the time of the Prophet.
The first two moral points must be resolved rigorously and diligently. The third point must be conceded and accepted, but it must not be seen as an ill or a vice because the oar of logic and reasoning cannot steer the mind to the shore of peace. There, waves and turbulence are the rule and calm the exception.
As to the fourth point, it calls for an explanation: the science of theology belongs to the age of consolidation, not to the time when religion was being founded and the age of the Prophet when the furnace of revelation was ablaze and when the presence of the Prophet’s glowing personality meant that there was no need for any theological mind to try to shed light on things or to grapple with problems. The age of the Prophet cannot be compared with other ages, nor can uniform rulings be made about the two. Theologians came on the scene in order to study the words of the Prophet with reverence for knowledge (rather than with
servile reverence for any person), and to lay the foundations for exploring other-worldly teachings from a great distance, compelled by the separation in time and the needs and questions of a later age, proceeding on the basis of the reasoning and culture of their own time. They thus succeeded in nurturing the science of theology like an embryo in the womb and then entrusted it to future generations as the legitimate child of religious history. This has been the historical destiny of and the course taken by every religion; it is not the brainchild of heretics and deviationist.
In gnostic religiosity, the more robust is the rope of criticism, the more narrow is the thread of servile reverence, and it is this very robustness and narrowness that provokes the sneers of the scornful. The main characteristic of this type of religiosity is that the personality of the leader is in abeyance and it is his teaching instead of his person that serves as the candle brightening the lives of believers. And, since the emphasis is on approaching that teaching through rationality and logic, the independence of the words from the speaker and the teaching from the teacher becomes clearer and more prominent. Here, reason assists the leader rather than the leader assisting reason. This is precisely something that neither pragmatic nor experiential believers like or tolerate, since they both lay rationality, humanity’s greatest blessing, like a sacrificial offering before the feet of the master and beloved:
How can anyone speak of rationality while the Prophet is in the world?
Bow down and place rationality at the Prophet’s feet
Say: God, I’m at Your Orders, Your Order is all I need
Surrender rationality like an offering to a friend
You’ll find endless rationality if you just gaze at heaven
Gnostic religiosity, which is like a rational form of existence to the believer who has no motive or aim in discovering other than discovery, opens the way for the mind to discover independent, non-religious concepts. Hence, theologians must be seen as the first harbingers of the modern world among believers. Thus, although this type of investigative, probing, critical, learned, theological, non-sanctified, anti-mythical, pensive, argumentative, non-emulative, gnostic religiosity is not in keeping with the unwavering faith of the masses and the loving certainty of the few, it can, nonetheless, be seen as a respectable and independent kind of creed in its own right, for no type of religiosity is a measure of the truth or falsity of any other. This religiosity is a sapling that grows in a tremor-prone land. Those who are born in this terrain choose to make their homes here while others choose other, different ways. Fakhreddin Razi and Mohammad Hossein Tabataba’i can be identified as two of the distinguished champions of this realm.
Gnostic religiosity
Describing the difference between the lover’s approach to God as opposed to the scholar’s, Hussein Bin Mansur Hallaj would say: " The Beloved is laden with allures, not secrets". And with his unerring grace, Mowlana attributed both these qualities to the Benevolent Creator and said:
The tongue speaks of its secrets and allures
Or depicts the sky as its heavenly robes
Robe? Every thread and fibre is made of gold
The more you cover it, the more it glows
In gnostic religiosity, there is no talk of the allures of God and his prophets; that is the business of the experiential believer. Here, it is all a question of His secrets; not secrets in the sense of myths, but secrets as rational problems and puzzles that one must grapple with like a mental wrestler. Here one finds a theoretical rationality which is sensitive to the appropriateness of a reason to a claim, not just a practical rationality that is concerned about the appropriateness of a means to an end. If we identify pragmatic religiosity by its dogmatism, gnostic religiosity can be identified by a sense of rational wonder and, by the same token, experiential religiosity by certainty. Hence, on entering the realm of gnosticism, dogma is exchanged for doubt and wonder, and, as dogmatism is left behind, the road is paved for entering the realm of certainty. Rationality always brings along two sturdy companions: one is the tireless raising of whys and wherefores and maybe sos and maybe nots, and the other is a relentless individuality. No rational thinker ever stops posing questions and destroying and rebuilding ceaselessly. And no two rational thinkers are ever the same. It is emotion that drowns people en masse and formlessly in a sea of excitation.
This is not the domain of rationality. Rationality both allows its followers independence and individuality and endorses these qualities; it deems these attributes to belong to rational thinkers by right. In the pragmatic religiosity of the general masses, all believers practice their religiosity in the same manner, and their beliefs and actions are very similar. But, on stepping into the realm of gnosticism, individual religiosity and religious individualism enter in. Every rational thinker has their own conception of religion, that is, their own understanding of God, the Prophet, revelation, joy, wretchedness, sin and obedience; an understanding that belongs to that believer alone, results from their own reflections and is subjected to constant questioning and revision.
This is why gnostic religiosity is unstable and in a state of flux. The religiosity of the masses has the stability of paralysis. This same kind of constancy and uniformity cannot be expected from gnostic religiosity. Rational storms will inevitably stir and rouse the ocean of religious belief and knowledge; swimming in these tempestuous waters represents the skill and excellence of and even life itself to the gnostic believer. All this examining, reexamining, rediscovering, doubting and pondering is the essence of worship to the gnostic, while sin would amount to submitting uncritically to beliefs, succumbing to popular vulgarities, following superstitions and famous personalities, and refusing to engage in doubt and reflection. And the believer’s joy lies in the excellence of his theoretical skills.
Theologians and exegisists are two of the prominent representatives of this category. This religiosity is reasoned (as opposed to causal), investigative, reflective, based on choice and free will, wondrous, theological, non-mythical, non-clerical, individualistic, critical, fluctuating and non-imitative.
Here God appears in the form of a great rational secret and, awed by His Splendor, His servants seek to unravel the secret. And the Prophet is like a great teacher and philosopher who has conveyed his lessons in the most intense form, while believers are like his students and novices who strive for a rational understanding of his words, and nonbelievers are like ungrateful pupils or like ignorant people who are incapable of even recognising their own ignorance.
Thus the Prophet’s target is also perceived differently. Here, his target is believers’ minds, not their emotions. And believers become followers of his school to the extent that they can find rational fulfilment. The Prophet’s task is to teach and to pledge their betterment, not to demand and compel, and the believer’s task is rational - not physical or emotional - acceptance and submission.
There is no role for the clergy in this religiosity, since it is not founded on myths and rituals, and it has no place for emulation. It is on good terms with religious pluralism, because individual religiosity and religious individualism are synonymous with a plurality of conceptions and interpretations. It cannot be turned into an ideology because it has no time for dogmatism and official interpretations, or for simplistic views of the world, human beings and history. It is basically inclined towards the truth, not towards movement or an identity.
Its particular form of worship is thought and one can enter into dialogue with its religious personalities without having to praise and revere them unquestioningly. It conceives of moral virtues as things that help the individual arrive at a better and more advanced understanding of error. It considers the worst forms of villainy to be dishonesty and duplicity and deception and pride and arrogance and mischievous cunning and pretentiousness and irrationality.
Gnostic believers are per force multi-sourced and their religious understanding recedes and advances in keeping with the contractions and expansions of their minds. This type of religiosity has been scorned by both pragmatic and experiential believers. When Shariati spoke of "philosophers as history’s fatheads ", he revealed the nature of his own religiosity. Mowlana Jalaleddin Rumi, for his part, likened the cunning displayed by theologians and gnostics to a diver’s derring-do under the sea that proves more dangerous than beneficial:
A cunning diver swims under the sea
He’ll not last long and will drown eventually
Love is like a ship for the fortunate few
Salvation is likely and the dangers are few
Ghazzali, too, scorned the science of theology and said that it led to pride, prevented people from struggling against their baser instincts, created the illusion of certainty while engendering doubt, and represented a contrived development that had not existed during the time of the Prophet.
The first two moral points must be resolved rigorously and diligently. The third point must be conceded and accepted, but it must not be seen as an ill or a vice because the oar of logic and reasoning cannot steer the mind to the shore of peace. There, waves and turbulence are the rule and calm the exception.
As to the fourth point, it calls for an explanation: the science of theology belongs to the age of consolidation, not to the time when religion was being founded and the age of the Prophet when the furnace of revelation was ablaze and when the presence of the Prophet’s glowing personality meant that there was no need for any theological mind to try to shed light on things or to grapple with problems. The age of the Prophet cannot be compared with other ages, nor can uniform rulings be made about the two. Theologians came on the scene in order to study the words of the Prophet with reverence for knowledge (rather than with
servile reverence for any person), and to lay the foundations for exploring other-worldly teachings from a great distance, compelled by the separation in time and the needs and questions of a later age, proceeding on the basis of the reasoning and culture of their own time. They thus succeeded in nurturing the science of theology like an embryo in the womb and then entrusted it to future generations as the legitimate child of religious history. This has been the historical destiny of and the course taken by every religion; it is not the brainchild of heretics and deviationist.
In gnostic religiosity, the more robust is the rope of criticism, the more narrow is the thread of servile reverence, and it is this very robustness and narrowness that provokes the sneers of the scornful. The main characteristic of this type of religiosity is that the personality of the leader is in abeyance and it is his teaching instead of his person that serves as the candle brightening the lives of believers. And, since the emphasis is on approaching that teaching through rationality and logic, the independence of the words from the speaker and the teaching from the teacher becomes clearer and more prominent. Here, reason assists the leader rather than the leader assisting reason. This is precisely something that neither pragmatic nor experiential believers like or tolerate, since they both lay rationality, humanity’s greatest blessing, like a sacrificial offering before the feet of the master and beloved:
How can anyone speak of rationality while the Prophet is in the world?
Bow down and place rationality at the Prophet’s feet
Say: God, I’m at Your Orders, Your Order is all I need
Surrender rationality like an offering to a friend
You’ll find endless rationality if you just gaze at heaven
Gnostic religiosity, which is like a rational form of existence to the believer who has no motive or aim in discovering other than discovery, opens the way for the mind to discover independent, non-religious concepts. Hence, theologians must be seen as the first harbingers of the modern world among believers. Thus, although this type of investigative, probing, critical, learned, theological, non-sanctified, anti-mythical, pensive, argumentative, non-emulative, gnostic religiosity is not in keeping with the unwavering faith of the masses and the loving certainty of the few, it can, nonetheless, be seen as a respectable and independent kind of creed in its own right, for no type of religiosity is a measure of the truth or falsity of any other. This religiosity is a sapling that grows in a tremor-prone land. Those who are born in this terrain choose to make their homes here while others choose other, different ways. Fakhreddin Razi and Mohammad Hossein Tabataba’i can be identified as two of the distinguished champions of this realm.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
We discussed Practical or utilitarian religiosity in post 118, we highlighted Gnostic religiosity in post 125, below is a discussion of Experiential Religiosity:
Experiential religiosity
When we come to experiential religiosity, we step from the domain of separation into the domain of union. The previous types of religiosity can be described as religiosities of distance, for the first was physical and practical and the second mental and reflective. The first was based on instrumental rationality and the second on theoretical rationality. One was after utility and the other after knowledge.
But experiential religiosity is neither physical nor mental, neither instrumental nor theoretical; it seeks the evident and the manifest, and if gnostic religiosity is concerned with hearing, the experiential believer is concerned with seeing:
I’ve heard the inebriating melody of faith
What I long for now is to see its face
Experiential religiosity is passionate, revelatory, certain, individualistic, deterministic, quintessential, reconciliatory, ecstatic, intimate, visual, saintly, mystical and mysterious.
Here, God is a graceful and alluring beloved. The Prophet is an ideal, a serene man and a model of successful religious experience. To follow him is to share his passions, to extend and repeat his experiences, and to be drawn into the magnetic force field of his personality.
Sin is that which muddies, weakens or destroys the devotional link, the power of discovery and the state of union, and worship is that which feeds the flames of ecstasy.
Heaven is the experience of union and hell the bitterness of separation.
When the preacher spoke of the fear felt on Judgement Day He was depicting the terror the possibility of separation conveys
The certainty that is unattainable in gnostic religiosity is picked like a fruit from the tree of experience here and the freewill that was seen as a virtue there now gives way to the passionate compulsion of love:
The ever-impatient lover, I intone my Destiny
And he who knows not love is trapped by destiny
And the teacher who was eclipsed by his teaching there, re-enters the scene here,
casting light like a gleaming moon.
In this religiosity, the plurality of experience and positive religious pluralism are matters of principle. Encountering the Exalted is a normal experience and religious individualism unavoidable. Here, instead of being the cause of the believer’s religious experience and excellence, rites and rituals are the effect of that excellence, that is, they follow and flow from the believer’s passionate devotion to God, instead of being an instrument for achieving it. Hence, ritualism and dedication to religious practices are not the
central axis of this religiosity. In the words of Mowlana:
So many nights spent standing at the feet of the Prophet
Cloak shredded, hair dishevelled, feet distended
A quest for the absolution of sins past and present?
‘Tis the passion of love, not hope or fear, he retorted
Here, everything is personal: my religion, my experience, my beloved, my morality. The link with the leader is what makes the religion. Whoever inflames and enlightens the believer is his leader and prophet. And the leader addresses the believer’s heart, not his mind or his emotions. The experiential believer’s morality, too, is the morality of love; it can, therefore, give way to disregard for good manners and correct behaviour, for the behaviou of love is the behavior of the ill-mannered. This abandonment of good manners can go as far the abandonment of all formality and end up in "the audacities of the recluse", and the inebriety of devotion alters all sense and dignity:
The drunkenness felt in the presence of the King
You’ll not find in one hundred barrels, vats or casks
How can I behave dutifully then?
The steed has fallen, unable to perform the simplest tasks
The awesome mystery of the Truth enters the very being of the experiential believer like a mighty guest and renders him so stunned and silent that even his intonations and prayers take on a different form and content. And, although he gives the appearance of mingling with people, inside, he is enthralled by his own experiences, and, although he seems to use the same words as others do, he fills these vessels with different meanings.
The fruit of love is union and ecstasy, and the etiquette of love is secrecy, for God
understands every language:
Of this, in truth, there’s many a tale to relate
But when the pen arrives here, it stops, it breaks
Experiential religiosity
When we come to experiential religiosity, we step from the domain of separation into the domain of union. The previous types of religiosity can be described as religiosities of distance, for the first was physical and practical and the second mental and reflective. The first was based on instrumental rationality and the second on theoretical rationality. One was after utility and the other after knowledge.
But experiential religiosity is neither physical nor mental, neither instrumental nor theoretical; it seeks the evident and the manifest, and if gnostic religiosity is concerned with hearing, the experiential believer is concerned with seeing:
I’ve heard the inebriating melody of faith
What I long for now is to see its face
Experiential religiosity is passionate, revelatory, certain, individualistic, deterministic, quintessential, reconciliatory, ecstatic, intimate, visual, saintly, mystical and mysterious.
Here, God is a graceful and alluring beloved. The Prophet is an ideal, a serene man and a model of successful religious experience. To follow him is to share his passions, to extend and repeat his experiences, and to be drawn into the magnetic force field of his personality.
Sin is that which muddies, weakens or destroys the devotional link, the power of discovery and the state of union, and worship is that which feeds the flames of ecstasy.
Heaven is the experience of union and hell the bitterness of separation.
When the preacher spoke of the fear felt on Judgement Day He was depicting the terror the possibility of separation conveys
The certainty that is unattainable in gnostic religiosity is picked like a fruit from the tree of experience here and the freewill that was seen as a virtue there now gives way to the passionate compulsion of love:
The ever-impatient lover, I intone my Destiny
And he who knows not love is trapped by destiny
And the teacher who was eclipsed by his teaching there, re-enters the scene here,
casting light like a gleaming moon.
In this religiosity, the plurality of experience and positive religious pluralism are matters of principle. Encountering the Exalted is a normal experience and religious individualism unavoidable. Here, instead of being the cause of the believer’s religious experience and excellence, rites and rituals are the effect of that excellence, that is, they follow and flow from the believer’s passionate devotion to God, instead of being an instrument for achieving it. Hence, ritualism and dedication to religious practices are not the
central axis of this religiosity. In the words of Mowlana:
So many nights spent standing at the feet of the Prophet
Cloak shredded, hair dishevelled, feet distended
A quest for the absolution of sins past and present?
‘Tis the passion of love, not hope or fear, he retorted
Here, everything is personal: my religion, my experience, my beloved, my morality. The link with the leader is what makes the religion. Whoever inflames and enlightens the believer is his leader and prophet. And the leader addresses the believer’s heart, not his mind or his emotions. The experiential believer’s morality, too, is the morality of love; it can, therefore, give way to disregard for good manners and correct behaviour, for the behaviou of love is the behavior of the ill-mannered. This abandonment of good manners can go as far the abandonment of all formality and end up in "the audacities of the recluse", and the inebriety of devotion alters all sense and dignity:
The drunkenness felt in the presence of the King
You’ll not find in one hundred barrels, vats or casks
How can I behave dutifully then?
The steed has fallen, unable to perform the simplest tasks
The awesome mystery of the Truth enters the very being of the experiential believer like a mighty guest and renders him so stunned and silent that even his intonations and prayers take on a different form and content. And, although he gives the appearance of mingling with people, inside, he is enthralled by his own experiences, and, although he seems to use the same words as others do, he fills these vessels with different meanings.
The fruit of love is union and ecstasy, and the etiquette of love is secrecy, for God
understands every language:
Of this, in truth, there’s many a tale to relate
But when the pen arrives here, it stops, it breaks
Captain03
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,244
- Reaction score
- 0
sects are illegal, killling innocent people are illegal (includes women and children), and killing your self is illegal (suicide bombing).
neither the government nor does the taliban have right intake on religion, but we have to choose the lesser of evil which is our government.
neither the government nor does the taliban have right intake on religion, but we have to choose the lesser of evil which is our government.
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Mr Islam has complete laws and Islamic system will be soon established and all the traitors of Islam will run away
ashokdeiva
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 4,266
- Reaction score
- 0
To be frank, I am far from reality in preaching Peace and Love, where as you are far from reality in establishing a Utopia of all truning to Islam
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Sir I love Islam and I am against all those who are its enemies and Islamic system will be soon established
ashokdeiva
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 4,266
- Reaction score
- 0
Loving Islam is not my problem, but you telling that everyone should abandom their faith and convert to Islam is my problem.
If you look in my post or any of the people from other religion. They have never said that anything like you say, They are at peace with others where as you are at war with others.
You need to reconsider your position or it will be you who will perish
but what if we become enemy to the others and attack them?
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
What do you mean sir who ever is enemy of Islam we have to fight him and take him out
Similar threads
