How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

[TalibanSwatter]

Now i can understand by reading your link, your mind set, which is close to wahabism and ghair mukaladeen supporting talaban and Al Qaida activities and raising funds for them.

My brother their methodology is totally wrong ,better keep yourself away from them.What is net result of Al Aqeada Jehad , 1 million dead in iraq ,.7 million in Afghanistan 50 Million displaced and still war is continue ----Stupid war strategy making muslim countries battle ground.

Why dont they go to Palestine , as per their claim they are doing jehad againt zoinists.

Frequent attacks on your elders seniors personality ,show your real face , you should learn to behave or otherwise i can teach you very well.

Your misbehave also show your sick mental status.

thanks for the comment - this guy yarmouk clearly seems to support the wahhabi taliban pagans. I wonder if he is even pakistani - given that he lives in saudi makes me speculate that he has been indoctrinated by the saudi wahhabi doctrine at the very least.

 

[Fracker]

In that case there is no need for further discussion on the fact that what the Taliban are doing is not 'Jihad'.

No discussion, but just a line, isn't Taliban (real one not TTP) are fighting a war declared by the leaders of major Islamic nations, Pakistan, KSA, Jordon etc?

If by Taliban you mean TTP, then TTP is not Taliban i can provide you proofs the way you like, Logic or media. And also i never backed TTP, neither i said Pak Army is doing something wrong in destroying them, if i did then show me please.

Any type of violence in that is not sanctioned by the legitimately elected government of Pakistan is illegal and 'un-Islamic', agreed?

You mean to say, if i come on the road because i received an high electricity bill, or rally against the government because of some higher taxes, or even to major extent, for the removal of the government because they haven't follow their promises like Restoring CJ or something is "Illegal" and "un-islamic". Thank YOU for your definition/interpretation. I would be careful, by not saying anything in this forum.

This discussion on 'Jihad' should be over now.

It should be, after I provided the definition of Jihaad

 

[Fracker]

I am not supporting terrorism , blame game will not work , come with any logical comment

oo Bhai or kitni logic chahiya? Read my 1st post in this forum..

 

[waraich66]

Lollz, you yourself don't know the meaning of jihaad and yet again jump into correcting me. Khair, if you do some study about jihaad, then you will find there are four types of jihaad,

1. Jihad al-nafs (jihad against one’s self),
2. jihad al-Shaytaan (jihad against the Shaytaan),
3. jihad against the kaafirs
4. jihad against the hypocrites

Similarly the jihaad against kaafirs, and hypocrites also divide into four different forms,
1. tongue, 2. heart, 3. Wealth & lastly your own self.

Right,In addition to your above information,i would like to say the life of muslim has two phases whether he is practically doing jehad or in preparation of jehad.

Qital literly means fighting, while Jihaad is struggling. Qital comes under armed jihaad against kuffar & hypocrites. Lastly do some research on this word Jihaad then come up. by studying i don't mean what USA/pak government say, but what actually Islamic books/scholars speak up. Even dr. Zakir naiq didn't deny jihaad fisabi-lillah don't exists.

Agreed.No body is denying holy war or Herb, but only Islamic state can decide based on fatwa of Mufti when and where it is valid , me and you cant decide it.

Which Taliban, TTP or Taliban? Also who actually wage war against TTP? Pak army or TTP? Then how come you say they started this war? So who is responsible for IDP's, pak army or TTP?

Dont act like ignorant , every one know what Sufi did after peace agreement in bunar.

Ps: This doesn't means TTP are right, neither i am backing TTP, Also i never said no operation should be happen against TTP, or even I said Pak army, or government is wrong. I just said who is actually responsible.

Dont try to be over smart , better draw battery limits between good and evil.Both of them can not be right.

Lolzz.. So you really think any Al-Qaida exists? & whole world can see who actually attacked Iraq & Afghanistan. If USA is Taliban then i could easily agree on your statement that they are actually now trying to destroy pakistan, after creating TTP, and letting India to back BLA.

If Al Qeada dont exist from where TTP getting million of dollars for WAR?

Phellay ek kaam tu khataam ho jay. It isn't that old news, when Taliban established in Afghanistan, they also started to speak for the jihaad for palestine, but again, how come Israel loving USA could agree on this. & interestingly you didn't mention Kashmir, Kosovi, Chechniya....

There is lot difference in Talaban and Al Qaida claims and actual practice.

Please analyse the whole satuation in Pakistan with cool mind

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No discussion, but just a line, isn't Taliban (real one not TTP) are fighting a war declared by the leaders of major Islamic nations, Pakistan, KSA, Jordon etc?

The role of the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan is a separate issue for the most part. There is overlap because there are groups operating in Afghanistan that have sanctuary in the Pakistani tribal areas, just as there seem to be groups that operate out of Afghanistan and cross into Pakistan for attacks.

If by Taliban you mean TTP, then TTP is not Taliban i can provide you proofs the way you like, Logic or media. And also i never backed TTP, neither i said Pak Army is doing something wrong in destroying them, if i did then show me please.

Whatever you want to call them - my point is that no group should be allowed to use violence unless sanctioned by the state, and that there should be no doubt over the fact that the legitimately elected GoP has the right to take whatever action it deems necessary to restore its writ. At the moment the TTP (Mehsud and Fazlullah groups) call themselves 'Taliban', so that is what they are.

You mean to say, if i come on the road because i received an high electricity bill, or rally against the government because of some higher taxes, or even to major extent, for the removal of the government because they haven't follow their promises like Restoring CJ or something is "Illegal" and "un-islamic". Thank YOU for your definition/interpretation. I would be careful, by not saying anything in this forum.

If your protest is peaceful then you have every right to do so. You do not have the right to start burning tires, cars and stores, and throwing rocks at law enforcement and property. You do not have the right to force people to close their businesses and not go to work or school.

The march to restore the CJ was largely peaceful, and should be commended for that.

 

[tal]

recent ban of one of our members tell a lot about this forum and it's so called "balanced" moderators which are nothing more then US *** kissers and this forum is here for parroting US propaganda ,ban me if u must but believe me you will regret when your US masters will throw u like a used toilet paper which they have done before. I am out of here.
tal

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it has nothing to do with "supporting USA"

TTP is our own enemy and this is our own war now. If USA put more effort into stabilizing Afghanistan (rather than invading Iraq for no reason) then Afghanistan would have been stable and it wouldnt be a problem for us.

But the point is, taleban are an enemy of Pakistan and therefore we must take action.


We had elections in our country. Judiciary and media is now free. Do we want people in our country who say our Constitution is haram??? They are sh*tting all over our way of life. Do you want that?

Don't be a coward, don't be in denial.

Religion has no business getting involved in state affairs. We have Ulema and we have Religion Ministry. They can voice suggestions or concerns in Parliament. But Mullahs should not be dictating the "should bes" and "must nots"

not in our name.

 

[waraich66]

recent ban of one of our members tell a lot about this forum and it's so called "balanced" moderators which are nothing more then US *** kissers and this forum is here for parroting US propaganda ,ban me if u must but believe me you will regret when your US masters will throw u like a used toilet paper which they have done before. I am out of here.
tal

Friend in need is friend indeed, Pakistan is at the moment under siege by its enemies and their terrorism ,who are threathening writ of our state and Al Qaeda network is still active which is continues danger not only for humanity but damaging the image of islam.

If you still think we should not support US to eradicate cancer of talibanization from Pakistan, then your decision is right.

 

[A1Kaid]

If you advocate an overthrow of the Pakistani State, its constitution and legitimately elected government through force, then you will be banned.

The above is not welcome, however, disagreements over the best strategy/tactics to deal with the militant threat are completely acceptable.

You have in the interim shown no desire to back off from your equivocation of the Pakistani State and the barbaric hordes it is confronting, nor have you retracted your comments against the Pakistani state and the Constitution of Pakistan.

Good bye - have fun advocating treason and anti-state activities in the 'Islam awakening forums' - if you are the sort of poster that holds sway there, it is unfortunately more of a continuation of the 'Islamic demise' we have seen of late.

In another thread were we discussed how the Zardari administration removed pictures of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the Presidential Palace, I made a post but from what I read from your post (one above) I should be banned...

In fact one of the members here posted that photo in the "Pakistan won 2009 world cup" thread, and someone made a post noticing that Quaid e Azam's picture is missing on the wall.


Zardari is another miscreant who was not elected by the people of Pakistan nobody ever asked for this dishonorable individual to become Pres. but the shameful PPP nominated him as the head of the party, even knowing the Pakistani people oppose him.


Zadari is a traitor and he must be dealt with, take back the country. Army must remove him.

This man has not been supportive of the judicial system, he has made the most foolish blunders, he has brought no real economic reform, he is a very incompetent leader.

Please visit the link to understand the context of the thread I posted that in as well.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...der-removed-president-house-2.html#post410651


Are you also saying we cannot question Zardari's legitimacy to rule, in spite of the criminal allegations against him, corruption charges, and incompetency?

Advocating Zardari's removal by Coup d'état, and replacing him with a more legitimate and befitting leader is violating the forum rules? If so technically I should be banned.

Though obviously I am not against the Pakistani state, but as many Pakistanis I feel the country must be taken back, and put it place of better hands and minds for a better future.


So according to your post should I or should I not be banned? Where do you weigh in on this issue?

 

[Conscientious objector]

So you banned brother yarmouk then, well it was to be expected.I didn't think anyone here could refute him, or debate with him freely and fairly so you went for the cop out, a cowardly move that does nothing to enhance the reputation of this forum.

Its obvious the mods couldn't counter yarmouk's arguments and that is why they resorted to the ban. A counter productive move for you guys.

Please enlighten us as to what such times are.

One such time is when the government/ruler does not rule in accordance with the sharia I have posted the relevant Quranic ayah's please refer to those.

This thread would not be here and we would not be arguing back and forth for the past many days if it was just about the aim and objectives. The bottom line is the means being used here. There is no room for these means to be used given the circumstances.

The circumstances are such that those who have resorted to violent means have only done so in order to defend themselves from aggression

The folks you are running interference for are misguided and are on a self-destructive path given the fact that their own understanding of the deen is lacking.

Lets try to stick with well established facts as we disagree with each others opinions, and you just stating your opinion and the me responding with mine will get us nowhere. If you say something is Islamic or unIslamic then quote texts.

You cannot provide cover for their misdeeds by claiming that their aims and objectives are noble.

Well we haven't established that their actions are "misdeeds" to begin with have we? Misdeeds according to who G.O.P? U.S.A?

If you want to discuss from an Islamic perspective you must state this is haram because of this verse or this hadith, this is how we can proceed.

This was indeed the way of the Kharijis as well. Their intention may have been noble in the beginning, but their misguided zeal took them off course and resulted in weakening of the Muslims.

Oh, a little bit of Islamic history, well done, its a shame that what you have provided by way of an example is not relevant, even though their might be some similarities.The plural of khariji is khawarij by the way.

These gents representing TTP and others are no different.

WRONG, they are different, please explain who it was the Khawarij rebelled against and for what reason,then maybe we can look at the comparison in perspective and see if the description of "kharijis" really does fit the Taliban.

When in the land of Muslims, worshippers are slaughtered, their ulema are put under the knife and then boldly claimed as the intended targets by the TTP and gents, then no matter what arguments you put up, they ring hollow. In fact you do a disservice to Islam and the rest of us Muslims by defending them.

Lets separate emotional discharges and textual proofs, you claim to be a sunni which means you follow the sunnah so bring textual proofs.

The advantage of the will of the people is you can ask them.

We don't need to ask anyone what they think Islamicly speaking the Quran is clear on the matter.The system of governance has to be the sharia

Unless i missed some thing there hasnt been a recent divine revelation that Baitullah Mehsud is the chosen of Allah.

No one has claimed he is, no one is saying he should be king of Pakistan.I am arguing for the establishment of the sharia, we have the Quran, and its just as relevant today as twhen it was revealed.Once sharia is established InshaAllah then the Ulema can decide as to who will be the leader, who will preside over affairs.BUT PLEASE NOTE THE RULER CAN NOT MOVE AWAY FROM THE SHARIA.

some of you people are confused.

You think secular means atheist.

No one has equated the two, secularism is different to atheism, both are kufr though.

Read a dictionary, and learn about countries with secular government

.

I didn't know I could find information about secular countries in a dictionary

Even though Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, we still have minorities.

Yes and your point is what exactly?

The purpose of Pakistan's creation was for religious freedom and it was to promote modern principles.

No one is suggesting that non Muslim minorities would not be allowed to live peacefully in a Islamic Pakistan under sharia law.

If you don't respect Jinnah, then you don't respect Pakistan.

If you do not want to be ruled by sharia law then you do not respect Islam

i trust somebody who is educated, can argue cogently, works hard for his/her nation and society, and who has the credentials.
I dont trust some fiery Mullah or some mediocre bigot who thinks he is proper Maulvi to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

Evidently you disregard Islamic teaching and do not judge what is right or wrong by Islamic standards, so who is a so called "fiery" Mullah in comparison?

I dream of a secular Pakistan. Religion has no business in state affairs. The sooner people realize it, the better

100% kufr. Ask any Alim about the above statement and I'm not talking about "fiery Mullah" go to any genuine Islamic scholar and ask him about the above quote.

 

[Faruqi]

Are you also saying we cannot question Zardari's legitimacy to rule, in spite of the criminal allegations against him, corruption charges, and incompetency?

I think what the moderators are trying to say is that advocating & protecting the Taliban is not allowed, along with the fact that the Zardari issue is off topic and should be the subject of a new thread.

 

[Faruqi]

Its obvious the mods couldn't counter yarmouk's arguments and that is why they resorted to the ban. A counter productive move for you guys.

If you'd actually READ WHAT OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN, you'd see that Yarmouk wasn't so invincible in arguments as you think. That's the problem with some of Taliban supporters, you just say whatever pops up on the top of your heads without thinking about what others say. You're lost.

 

[Faruqi]

We don't need to ask anyone what they think Islamicly speaking the Quran is clear on the matter.The system of governance has to be the sharia

The question is whose Shariah? Will it be the Deobandi version or the Salafist version or the Taliban version? Youb keep repeating Shariah again and again and again, but you never state which form of it you want in place. Frankly speaking, it was agreed the Qur'an would stay in Arabic to prevent it from being changed/altered, but we Muslims have done a fairly good job of messing up our religious beliefs despite this measure.

This Shariah relies heavily on Hadith, but the problem is that there are over
300k Hadith in circulation & a number of them were likely added long after the Prophet's dead, so apart from a few, such as most of those verified by Bukhari, most maybe unreliable. Qur'an couldn't be changed so someone added more Hadith. This is why a more secular approach to law is needed, as the Qur'an doesn't give a direct punishment for some crimes & somr activities and certain Hadith relating to these crimes may be unreliable.

No one is suggesting that non Muslim minorities would not be allowed to live peacefully in a Islamic Pakistan under sharia law.

Tell that to the Taliban
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...ikhs-minorities-taliban-controlled-areas.html
http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue5622.html

 

[Conscientious objector]

The question is whose Shariah?

The answer is Allah's sharia,as for the finer details, well considering Pakistan is majority hanafi, the hanafi code would be most applicable and appropriate.

Will it be the Deobandi version or the Salafist version or the Taliban version?

The theological differences needn't be problematic as these differences do not relate directly to the administrative applications of the sharia,the deobandis and barelvis have major differences between them yet both adhere to the hanafi madhab in matters pertaining to fiqh.

Frankly speaking, it was agreed the Qur'an would stay in Arabic to prevent it from being changed/altered, but we Muslims have done a fairly good job of messing up our religious beliefs despite this measure.

Again theological differences have existed for centuries but it never prevented the ummah from applying the sharia as a ruling system.

This Shariah relies heavily on Hadith, but the problem is that there are over
300k Hadith in circulation & a number of them were likely added long after the Prophet's dead, so apart from a few, such as most of those verified by Bukhari, most maybe unreliable.

Alhamdulillah the scholars of Islam haven't left us to our own devices, the 4 schools of jurisprudence are well established and codified.We would refer to one of these schools as a reference point and like I said Pakistan would be more suited to the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa. The doubts relating to the authenticity of Prophetic ahadith have been well and truly demolished for us by our great muhaditheen who developed the sciences of Usool ul hadith they meticulously and painstakingly deciphered the sahi ahadith(whch are not restricted to Bukhari by the way) those that were hasan, those that were dhaeef and those that were maudhuo etc etc. Alhamdulillah

Qur'an couldn't be changed so someone added more Hadith. This is why a more secular approach to law is needed, as the Qur'an doesn't give a direct punishment for some crimes & somr activities and certain Hadith relating to these crimes may be unreliable.

Once again Islamic jurisprudence is too advanced for such things to be problematic, we have a precedence of over 1400 years of Islamic scholarship and Islamic rule we are more than adequately prepared to repel any such doubts that may occur Alhamdulillah.

Tell that to the Taliban
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...ikhs-minorities-taliban-controlled-areas.html
Minorities at risk as Taliban executes Christians in Pakistan

Haven't read the whole article but Jizya payment is nothing unusual and is agreed upon by all four schools of thought,it is less than what the Muslims have to pay in Zakah.

Th dhimmi in return gets full protection of the state, non Muslims throughout Islamic history were more than willing to pay this tiny amount for the benefits that came with it, and that is why the jews and christians prospered in Muslim ruled states.

 

[Faruqi]

Haven't read the whole article but Jizya payment is nothing unusual and is agreed upon by all four schools of thought,it is less than what the Muslims have to pay in Zakah.

Th dhimmi in return gets full protection of the state, non Muslims throughout Islamic history were more than willing to pay this tiny amount for the benefits that came with it, and that is why the jews and christians prospered in Muslim ruled states

.

Read the second one, which specifically states that the Taliban executed some of the Christians. Judging by your flags, I assume you live in the UK right now, therefore you probably know a lot of Christians and may have some Christian friends. How would you feel if they were faced with either conversion or execution? Would you leave them to their fate or help them? This is a very personal question, but I request an answer.

Also, the fact that the Taliban have attacked various Sufi Shrines in the past shows that they want they're form of Islam, not others and may not accept another form of Shariah.