What's new

How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

The one you are falsely accusing of contradicting the Quran is the one who the Quran was revealed to, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I'm sure he may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him wAs more aware of what is meant by the verses you quoted.

Objector, there are a large number of fake/slightly doctored Hadith that are in circulation. Could you tell us who recorded this hadith & whether it's considered sahih?
 
We should be very carefull about explaination of islamic issues,it is better to discus with Alim or mufti for any clarification.


I am relating what the Ulema of the past have said about the issue and not writing stuff based on my personal understanding,I think maybe you should offer your advice to the DIY scholar and not me.
 
You've failed to answer the question,what kind of a response would the type of criticism I asked about bring from the military.How would such a critic be dealt with officially by the US army and unofficially by the the critics colleagues?
I did not 'failed' to answer because there is no question. Criticism is not treason for US. May be it is for Islam, but if it is not for US, there can be no valid comparison. You need to look up what is normally considered to be 'treasonous' acts. But to initially filter out some more easily items:

Disobedience
Cowardice
Incompetence
Ignorance

None of them are 'treasonous'.
No, because the US actually INVITE criticisms, internal and external.
Do they? I have seen no evidence of that,In fact Ive seen evidence to the contrary.I know of people who have been branded unpatriotic just because they didn't have the US flag displayed in their businesses.So if such is the response to not doing something how would your society react to someone who actually openly criticised the US?
Really? Are you saying that in fact, the US actually imprisoned people for criticism? Last time I checked, Noam Chomsky roams freely, around the country and around the world, all the while spewing thinly disguised hatred for his country. In fact, the Pentagon indirectly paid for his research at MIT. Chomsky is a multi-millionaire from his speeches and his books. Chomsky actually called the Pentagon an 'evil' institution. Or how about Howard Zinn?

Can you tell me how many years Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch and The Nation, a bastion of liberal print journalism in the US and incessant critic of everything conservative, spent in prison? The US Constitution contains 'amendments' and they are there from what? Criticism, may be? The US had a bloody civil war to abolish institutionalized slavery in the country. Sane people would call that criticism in the extreme towards an issue.

As a 10yrs USAF veteran, I do not have an American flag planted in front of my house and very few people in my neighborhood know my veteran status. The vast majority of US veterans do not openly daily flaunt their status. No one call us 'unpatriotic'. From my experience alone, I have doubts about your claim, which seems to imply that such labeling of people is widespread. Still, even if this does happen, how is it the equal of a death sentence for apostasy? You are treading into the absurd.

If you do not see how the US actually goes beyond tolerance but actually welcome criticism, you must be looking at your own society.

Your either not understanding what Im saying or your deliberately being evasive.How would your society react to someone who denied the holocaust for example? Would he not be labeled a extremist fruit cake?
Are you saying that labeling or name calling is the equivalent of capital punishment for apostates? I understand this better than you do.

If that is the case then why does the US feel the need to interfere with the affairs of other sovereign nations?Why does the US feel the need to impose its so called values of freedom and democracy on the world.Take a look at this list of wars and military interventions your nation has been apart of,just read from 1950 onward.If as you say "The US end at the borders"why the need to "intervene" in the affairs of other nations.
Are you saying that the US is somehow unique in having interests in the affairs of other countries? What do you call the sponsorships of Hezbollah and Hamas? What do you call Saddam Hussein's attempt to unite Iraq and Syria into one country? Or you did not know about that? What do you call the Taliban's support for al-Qaeda when Mullah Omar were in full knowledge of al-Qaeda's global operations?

Yes but your assumption does not coincide with reality of the way in which america operates,they do not care for diplomacy or the rule of international law.So lets leave aside false assumptions and deal with the reality.
Please...The US is the largest single donor to the Palestinians, larger than any Arab state that shed crocodile tears for them. When natural disasters struck in Asia, the muslims there were asking, in anger at that, at the reporters:'Where is America?' Not 'Where are my muslim brothers and sisters?' but 'Where is America?' It is 'Death to America' when convenient but whenever, as the proverbial natural disaster sh!t hit the fan, US Navy ships and aid are always welcome and even expected as dues.

For the tsunami that struck South Asia, oil wealthy Saudi Arabia gave $10 millions but actress Sandra Bullock, who does not own a single oil derrick, managed to give $1 million. Catholic Relief Services had its web servers crashed because of donors traffic. In simple monetary terms, the US was behind Australia, Canada, Germany and Japan, but in merely a few days, the US military sent 13,000 men and women, two dozens ships and nearly one hundred aircrafts to deliver 300 tons of supplies. US warships also desalinated sea water for the victims. No one bothered to do the math on that. Not one muslim country was in the top 10 donors list. Reuters news tracking had:

No. 20 Qatar: $25 million
No. 22 United Arab Emirates: $20 million
No. 27 Kuwait: $10 million
No. 32 Algeria: $2 million
No. 33 Bahrain: $2 million
No. 34 Libya: $2 million

Instead, the reality was that the world saw how imams tripped over themselves in trying to blame the disaster on US in every imaginable mental contortions. Kuwait's law maker Walid Tabtabai said the tsunami was a punishment from Allah because the people neglected their prayers, listened to music and mixing the sexes. I am here in Las Vegas and my girlfriend is a dealer at the Sahara, where is Allah's punishment for this modern day Sodom? The two of us alone certainly deserve it.

The US also saved muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. How many muslim troops did the guardian of Mecca and Medina sent to help US there?

So please lay off the hyperboles on how the US is a 'rogue' nation.

Did any ambassador or diplomatic delegation that can claim to speak for ALL the muslims in the world appealed to the Dutch government to extradite Theo van Gogh to a muslim dominated country to stand trial for committing a grave insult against Islam?
No,so what's your point? The killing of van gough was not sanctioned by any Muslim nation so again what are you trying to get at?
I may not be best friends with my neighbors, but if there is news of a sex predator lurking about the neighborhood, we would lay aside whatever petty differences we have and unite to protect our families, which is our common goal. I do not care if the murder, or should we say -- execution -- of Theo van Gogh was sanctioned by any muslim nation. That is merely an administrative rubber stamp. It is the idea behind the deed that seemingly unite the muslims of the world and this is where we see who is truly being evasive -- YOU.

I asked (post no. 340) if you approved of the death sentence on apostate writer Salman Rushdie. You avoided the question in your response. Why? Because deep down you know there is something amiss about the idea that a religion should have a death sentence other than the one that its god mete out. You hide behind a convenient shield composed of Quranic verses and the names of immam this and scholar that. Now you sidestep the same issue, which is the killing of anyone who disrespect Islam, by saying that no political and legal authority approved the sentence. It does not matter if it is about Rushdie or van Gogh, it is about offending a religion and if there is a death sentence for one method of offense, it is only natural that the same can be for the other method.

So because this demand wasn't met,the whole of the people of Afghanistan must suffer as a consequence?
The whole of Afghanistan? You must be joking. The US targeted only Taliban controlled areas. Most of Afghanistan were under tribal authority. When these tribal leaders and petty warlords united with US, their people were no worse off than when the Taliban were in control.

What gives the US the right to demand the expulsion of someone from another nation apart from the right of might that is?
The right of vengeance, which is far more legitimate than how Iran justified the mullahs' war against Israel. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to used Afghanistan as a safe haven for recruitment and training. Under international laws, the ones you claimed the US flouted, any acts of war committed by al-Qaeda can be legitimately attributed to the ruling authority as an accomplice.

No I don't mean a show trial,I mean a real trial,which is more than what is afforded by the US to those individuals it has been holding for years on end with no trial and no charge,it has produced no evidence against these prisoners and has infringed on their basic human rights.
Please...Spare US more of these gross exaggerations. I would like to see evidence of Salman Rushdie's trial for the crime of apostasy.

Does this give the CIA the right to engage in the
crimes
against humanity that it has done over the years?

Please take a look at the list but be warned it is very long
Of course...The ever so convenient CIA boogeyman.

When thinking people see how you brought the CIA into this, they will see that you have lost the debate. Religion is about issues that are supposedly perfect, eternal and cosmic in scope. The US is an entity that is flawed and has a finite existence. Notice how I have always tried to compare Islam against other religions, not against countries. When you try to justify certain Islamic principles against the flawed and finite US, you effectively trivialized your faith.
 
Notice how I have always tried to compare Islam against other religions, not against countries. When you try to justify certain Islamic principles against the flawed and finite US, you effectively trivialized your faith.

Right, we appreciate US support in Bosinia and Indonesia and many other countries, but also comdem US wrong decision to attack on Iraq because their were no weapon of mass distruction found and also US failed to get strategic victory in Afghanistan for which Pakistan is paying heavy cost and now become battle ground.

As for as punishment of apostate is concerned , you need to understand the reason why islam is very strict on it.It is necessary for the protection and smooth function of Islamic society. Islamic state give liberty to apostate to leave the islamic state but if he refused and determine to stay in muslim country , then punishment shall be executed.

If you have still doubt better discuss with any Mufti for detail clarification , we all in this forum belong to different professions, i hope to agree with my proposal.
 


Right, we appreciate US support in Bosinia and Indonesia and many other countries, but also comdem US wrong decision to attack on Iraq because their were no weapon of mass distruction found and also US failed to get strategic victory in Afghanistan for which Pakistan is paying heavy cost and now become battle ground.
Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's chief nuclear scientist, disagreed with you and just about anyone else who believed so.

Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: Mahdi Obeidi, Kurt Pitzer: Books

As for as punishment of apostate is concerned , you need to understand the reason why islam is very strict on it.It is necessary for the protection and smooth function of Islamic society. Islamic state give liberty to apostate to leave the islamic state but if he refused and determine to stay in muslim country , then punishment shall be executed.

If you have still doubt better discuss with any Mufti for detail clarification , we all in this forum belong to different professions, i hope to agree with my proposal.
Ours seems to be thriving just fine with no such laws.
 
I am relating what the Ulema of the past have said about the issue and not writing stuff based on my personal understanding,I think maybe you should offer your advice to the DIY scholar and not me.

"Neem hakeem khatra jan neem mullah khatra iman" :lol:

in english

"Little knowledge is dangrous"
 
Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's chief nuclear scientist, disagreed with you and just about anyone else who believed so.

Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind: Mahdi Obeidi, Kurt Pitzer: Books


Ours seems to be thriving just fine with no such laws.

I dont believe these books because , know the process of nuke development very well , Blair and Bush admitted their mistake , dont try to prove your leaders wrong again.

Intresting article posted enlighten your thaughts.

Iraq: A failed imperialist venture


by Haroon Siddiqui

.
Global Research, July 4, 2009
The Star - 2009-07-02


Email this article to a friend
Print this article





American troops were not welcomed with flowers in Iraq but their departure from cities and towns has been.

Iraqis celebrated National Sovereignty Day Tuesday as U.S. troops were yanked out of populated centres and put into remote bases.

In time, even that hidden presence will begin to grate on the Iraqis, just as a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia had spurred Osama bin Laden and others.

Yet this limited troop pullout is being hailed as a triumph. One is reminded of Richard Nixon's 1973 boast of "peace with honour" in Vietnam. The 1973 Paris treaty that led to the U.S. troop withdrawal was a face-saving formula.

In Iraq, too, the U.S. has little choice but to get out.

Not only did the Iraqi invasion and occupation prove the limits of military power, it also exposed how incapable America has become at nation-building. Its postwar incompetence was stunning.

America plunged Iraq into chaos, shattered the infrastructure and destroyed the society, reducing human beings to their basest instincts. They turned on each other and found safety only in family, tribe, clan and sect. Shiites and Sunnis, who had lived together for ages, ethnically cleansed each other's neighbourhoods, which to this day remain separated by barricades, walls and checkpoints.

Having unleashed the forces that put Iraq's three main communities at war with each other, the U.S. toyed with the idea of dividing the country into the Kurdish north, a Sunni centre and a Shiite south, much like the British had divided India in two in 1947.

Having created the chaos, violence and jihadism, the U.S. said, in colonial fashion, it had to stay to curb the chaos, violence and jihadism. Having crippled the state, it had no choice but to prolong the occupation until the natives were ready to govern themselves.

Iraq exhausted America more than the 1917-32 British invasion and occupation sapped the British. It also created killing fields on a vast scale.

Yet Iraqis have been brushed out of the American narrative – Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein, it is democratic, it is stabilized, it is this and it is that.

There's nary a mention of how many Iraqis are dead (between 100,000 and 1.2 million, depending on who's counting), how many maimed (not known), how many displaced (4 million), and how many tortured with Saddam-like methods in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere (not known).

Besides the damage to U.S. credibility, and not just in the Muslim world, the Iraq adventure empowered Iran far more than the U.S. would ever acknowledge.

Finally, the quest for oil may also turn out to be a mirage.

This week, Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, a U of T graduate, put development rights up for international bidding. No more no-bid contracts for U.S. firms, unlike under the Bush-Cheney domain.

Nor did George W. and Dick get what they wanted out of the Status of Forces Agreement. Passed by the Iraqi parliament last fall, it stipulates that all U.S. troops must be out by Dec. 31, 2011. No U.S. military operation can be carried out without Iraqi consent (a provision Hamid Karzai can only dream of). Iraqi soil cannot be used by the U.S. to launch a war on any neighbour (Iran).

Iraq is the imperial adventure that both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, one a neo-con hawk and the other a liberal hawk, fully backed. A monumental failure in judgment, their common stance was, and remains, an affront to the collective will of Canadians.


Global Research Articles by Haroon Siddiqui
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.
U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.
The parts and documents Obeidi gave the CIA were shown exclusively to CNN at CIA headquarters in Virginia.
Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.
"I have very important things at my disposal that I have been ordered to have, to keep, and I've kept them, and I don't want this to proliferate, because of its potential consequences if it falls in the hands of tyrants, in the hands of dictators or of terrorists," said Obeidi, who has been taken out of Iraq with the help of the U.S. government.
Obeidi also said he was not the only scientist ordered to hide that type of equipment.
"I think there may be more than three other copies. And I think it is quite important to look at this list so they will not fall into the hands of the wrong people," he said.
Centrifuges are drums or cylinders that spin at high speed and separate heavy and light molecules, allowing increasingly enriched uranium to be drawn off.
David Kay, who led three U.N. arms inspection missions in Iraq in 1991-92 and now heads the CIA's search for unconventional weapons, started work two days ago in Baghdad. CNN spoke to him about the case over a secure teleconferencing line.
"It begins to tell us how huge our job is," Kay said. "Remember, his material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden.
"There's no way that that would have been discovered by normal international inspections. I couldn't have done it. My successors couldn't have done it."
Kay said he had mixed emotions when he saw the centrifuge components: "It was a realization that I hadn't gotten all the parts [of Iraq's nuclear program]. So there was a moment of regret, but there was also an exhilaration that now maybe we have a chance to take this to the very bottom."
CNN had this story last week but made a decision to withhold it at the request of the U.S. government, which cited safety and national security concerns.
The U.S. government told CNN the security and safety issues have been dealt with and there is no risk now in telling the story fully.
The gas centrifuge equipment dates to Iraq's pre-1991 efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Experts said the documents and pieces Obeidi gave the United States were the critical information and parts to restart a nuclear weapons program, and would have saved Saddam's regime several years and as much as hundreds of millions of dollars for research.
David Albright, who was a U.N. nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s, said inspectors "understood that Iraq probably hid centrifuge documents, may have had components, and so it is very important that those items be found."
"What it is that Obeidi was ordered to keep was all the information and some centrifuge components, so that if he was given the order, he could restart the centrifuge program," said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.
"In a sense, the program was in hibernation. He was the key to the restart of this centrifuge program, and he never got the order. So in that sense it doesn't show at all that Iraq had a nuclear program. And Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991."
Obeidi said he felt unsafe in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion and that he was getting pressure from different corners of the country.
He also said other Iraqi scientists were watching to see if he was safe after he cooperated with the U.S. government.
Now that he and his family are safely out of Iraq, Obeidi said he believes other scientists would come forward with other components of Iraq's weapons program.
Before the Iraq war, U.S. officials said Iraq tried to purchase aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges that enrich uranium.
In his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, however, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said there was no evidence "Iraq intended to use these 81-millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets."
U.S. officials, including President Bush, also had cited British intelligence documents indicating Iraq may have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the IAEA said the documents were obvious fakes.
 
Centrifuges are drums or cylinders that spin at high speed and separate heavy and light molecules, allowing increasingly enriched uranium to be drawn off.
Obeidi recalled how he played 'secret agent man' in Europe, dealing with black marketeers who needed no details to correctly guess what Iraq wanted. One of the items on Obedi's shopping list was maraging steel...

Maraging steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maraging steel production, import, and export by certain states is closely monitored by international authorities because of their use in gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Very few other materials will work for this task, and its other uses are very specialized.
Obeidi had no choice but to resort to the black markets precisely because of the monitoring programs on this material. Obeidi also revealed how his assistance taped uranium to his leg under his trousers and snuck the uranium through Heathrow's security. It is fallacious to believe that the initials 'WMD' pertains only to a functional nuclear warhead.
 
Gambit
Not that i disagree with you, but at that time the Bush administration
was screaming on the top of her lungs " IMMINENT DANGER"
The I.A.E.A. on the other hand was issuing statements like :
"We Think that...... "
Know what i mean ?
 
Gambit
Not that i disagree with you, but at that time the Bush administration
was screaming on the top of her lungs " IMMINENT DANGER"
The I.A.E.A. on the other hand was issuing statements like :
"We Think that...... "
Know what i mean ?
We did?

Because of the US in WW II, the world knows full well the result of a nuclear weapon. How many countries are willing to take a chance with 'We think that.....'?

If the initials 'WMD' is meant to denote a functional nuclear warhead, then what was the IAEA doing in Iraq in the first place? The only way for Iraq to prove that an indigenous nuclear weapon program is successful is to actually detonate one. But by that time it would be pointless to have any 'inspection'. Look at India and Pakistan for a couple examples.

The analogy is this: If I buy 100,000 Volkswagen Beetles for transportation purposes, what is the likelihood of me converting this vehicle into a war machine? Can I do it? Of course I could. How well would it work? Not very. But if I buy 100,000 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, aka Humvees, my neighbors to whom I have hostile relations would certainly take notice as this ostensibly 'civilian' vehicle is ready built for military purposes from design.

The line between an energy nuclear program and a weapon nuclear program can be easily hidden as India, Pakistan and Iraq have shown. Now we have Iran.
 
We did?

Because of the US in WW II, the world knows full well the result of a nuclear weapon. How many countries are willing to take a chance with 'We think that.....'?

If the initials 'WMD' is meant to denote a functional nuclear warhead, then what was the IAEA doing in Iraq in the first place? The only way for Iraq to prove that an indigenous nuclear weapon program is successful is to actually detonate one. But by that time it would be pointless to have any 'inspection'. Look at India and Pakistan for a couple examples.

The analogy is this: If I buy 100,000 Volkswagen Beetles for transportation purposes, what is the likelihood of me converting this vehicle into a war machine? Can I do it? Of course I could. How well would it work? Not very. But if I buy 100,000 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, aka Humvees, my neighbors to whom I have hostile relations would certainly take notice as this ostensibly 'civilian' vehicle is ready built for military purposes from design.

The line between an energy nuclear program and a weapon nuclear program can be easily hidden as India, Pakistan and Iraq have shown. Now we have Iran.

3000 magnetic rings required to produce 50-100 kg U-235 required to produce 3-7 nuke weapons.

Did US find 3000 magnetic rings in Iraq?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3000 magnetic rings required to produce 50-100 kg U-235 required to produce 3-7 nuke weapons.

Did US find 3000 magnetic rings in Iraq?
Are they for magnetic bearings for the centrifuges? Is this the IAEA's guideline for when a nuclear energy program is able to cross the enrichment threshold to become a nuclear weapons program? We did find that Iraq paid for the equipment and the training to operate production lines instead of just buying the magnets, a less expensive alternative. But from what I know, the US did not find exactly 3000 magnetic rings.
 
Back
Top Bottom