Imran Khan's new wife casts spells on Nawaz Sharief..Shaami

[Valar.]

I am sorry, but i hate it when people start talking about other peoples women folk.

You are such a gentleman

 

[MultaniGuy]

Mexicans are very emotional people typical of Latin America.

They have the same shitty cultural issues like us.

I believe they are also indus people.

Canadians are nice People though very boring like @Iqbal Ali

Very funny @El Sidd

 

[I.R.A]

I am an Agnostic. I do believe in some supreme being, but I don't consider him/her/them to be worthy of worshiping.

If you don't mind ......... its the other way around ..... Am I worthy of worshiping HIM?

Insan ki "میں" ........ bohat khatarnak cheez hai bai ....... 6 saal hain per the latest technological calculations ... apnay iss keeray ko kabo karny ki koshish karo, before its too late.

Just the daily dose of random religious thoughts. Lucky you it was your turn.

 

[GumNaam]

I don't worship anyone.
I am an Agnostic. I do believe in some supreme being, but I don't consider him/her/them to be worthy of worshiping. And I don't think he/she/them needs my worshiping anyway.
What about you, American Swedish guy? Who do you worship?

uh wait what? weren't you trying to lecture me about what is "shirk" and how I should read Surah-e-Ikhlas? If your agnostic, where do you get off lecturing me on Islam???

 

[I.R.A]

uh wait what? weren't you trying to lecture me about what is "shirk" and how I should read Surah-e-Ikhlas?

That has got nothing to do with what he thinks (for the time being). Nor it takes away his right of commenting on anything that he wishes to.

 

[GumNaam]

That has got nothing to do with what he thinks (for the time being). Nor it takes away his right of commenting on anything that he wishes to.

no actually it does. If he doesn't believe in Islam and is agnostic (between him and God), where does he get off telling ME that what I am deriving as the definition of shirk straight from The Quran is wrong? I'm open to constructive criticism if I am mistakenly misinterpreting something in Quran, but you'd THINK naturally that such constructive criticism would come from someone who actually BELIEVES in Quran. I mean, duh!

 

[I.R.A]

no actually it does. If he doesn't believe in Islam and is agnostic (between him and God), where does he get off telling ME that what I am deriving as the definition of shirk straight from The Quran is wrong? I'm open to constructive criticism if I am mistakenly misinterpreting something in Quran, but you'd THINK naturally that such constructive criticism would come from someone who actually BELIEVES in Quran. I mean, duh!

Believing in Quran is one thing, understanding Quran is another. Most staunch critics understand Quran better than blind believers.

The stamp, the seal is for those who understand Quran, who know its the only truth ... but still don't believe in it. A born believer doesn't go through any test, any hardship.

Your extending of Shirk to committing sins is bit too much. Any person when faced with helplessness would call for the ALL MIGHTY, no matter how powerful, how intelligent and how habitual offender he / she is.

 

[GumNaam]

Believing in Quran is one thing, understanding Quran is another. Most staunch critics understand Quran better than blind believers.

The stamp, the seal is for those who understand Quran, who know its the only truth ... but still don't believe in it. A born believer doesn't go through any test, any hardship.

Your extending of Shirk to committing sins is bit too much. Any person when faced with helplessness would call for the ALL MIGHTY, no matter how powerful, how intelligent and how habitual offender he / she is.

so...read through all the posts above to understand what I was saying. Right now, my point is that why would an agnostic, which means someone who is not a Muslim but believes in "some higher power", gets to push his interpretation of the Book when he doesn't even believe in it. That's like, a vegetarian telling a meat eater how to make a good beaf steak...doesn't make any sense.

 

[I.R.A]

so...read through all the posts above to understand what I was saying. Right now, my point is that why would an agnostic, which means someone who is not a Muslim but believes in "some higher power", gets to push his interpretation of the Book when he doesn't even believe in it. That's like, a vegetarian telling a meat eater how to make a good beaf steak...doesn't make any sense.

I have read all the posts on this thread including your's. I still find your stretching of Shirk to sins a bit too much.

You tell me how eating vegetables takes away right of commenting on meat diet? Nothing is exclusively for one particular set of people only. Remember Quran is for humanity, every black, white, believing, non believing, agnostic or whatever ......

 

[GumNaam]

I have read all the posts on this thread including your's. I still find your stretching of Shirk to sins a bit too mu

You tell me how eating vegetables takes away right of commenting on meat diet? Nothing is exclusively for one particular set of people only. Remember Quran is for humanity, every black, white, believing, non believing, agnostic or whatever ......

cuz he doesn't believe in eating meat to begin with...and did not talk about the meat "diet" now did I? I was talking about how to make a specific meat dish, STEAK in my case. Where does a veggietarian get off telling me how to make a good, juicy, well-done steak when he doesn't even believe in it. Not that difficult to understand the analogy.

And yes, the Quran IS for humanity. But humanity has to choose to believe in it before it can follow it and lecture someone on what its right interpretation is.

And just for the sake argument, let's just believe that my interpretation of "shirk" is an over-stretch. It's not but JUST for the sake of argument, suppose it is. Suppose it is too overly cautious. Well given that shirk is unforgivable (unless one specifically repents and does sincere taubah), one would be better off being overly cautious and take the safest approach now wouldn't they? Kinda like playing Russian roulette. The safest bet would be TO NO PLAY THAT GAME AT ALL!

DISCLAIMER: My intention is neither to hurt anyone nor label anyone. My intention is PURELY help others learn what is right WHILE myself being open to being wrong. That is why, I always ask for evidence from The Quran and sunnah if I am wrong.

 

[Pakistansdefender]

How can they go so far in hatred of a person that they start insulting their women.
Shane on Shami.
There is not a ounce of neutrality in our media sadly.
Allegations on nawaz sheriff :
Corruptions of billions and properties all over the world. Which he can't explain.
Allegations on imran khan :
He married a religious wife.

 

[I.R.A]

cuz he doesn't believe in eating meat to begin with...

Can he deny existence of meat?

I was talking about how to make a specific meat dish, STEAK in my case. Where does a veggietarian get off telling me how to make a good, juicy, well-done steak when he doesn't even believe in it. Not that difficult to understand the analogy.

He may be a Chef in some 5 start hotel, cooking a dish and eating it yourself aren't binding. One can cook meat dishes for others but that doesn't necessarily mean he has to eat it too, to become a certified cook.

Actually you are contradicting your own argument that "no Molvi is required teach you".

And yes, the Quran IS for humanity. But humanity has to choose to believe in it before it can follow it and lecture someone on what its right interpretation is.

Nobody has the ownership rights. Anyone can follow.

And just for the sake argument, let's just believe that my interpretation of "shirk" is an over-stretch. It's not but JUST for the sake of argument, suppose it is. Suppose it is too overly cautious. Well given that shirk is unforgivable (unless one specifically repents and does sincere taubah), one would be better off being overly cautious and take the safest approach now wouldn't they? Kinda like playing Russian roulette. The safest bet would be TO NO PLAY THAT GAME AT ALL!

I consider sectarianism at par with Shirk. But still both are separate. I keep referring to Haroon Peace be upon Him, Moosa Peace be upon him and their people, when they started worshiping a calf. One of the reasons Haroon Peace be upon him didn't strictly and harshly dealt with people, was that they would get divided. Basically he tolerated Shirk, to prevent division (sects)

The sins have an affect on well being of a society, my committing sins doesn't harm anything but my near ones and the society I am living in. Quran advocates a healthy society, where everyone is free to think and ponder.

 

[GumNaam]

@I.R.A,
Can he deny existence of meat? He may be a Chef in some 5 start hotel, cooking a dish and eating it yourself aren't binding. One can cook meat dishes for others but that doesn't necessarily mean he has to eat it too, to become a certified cook.
Actually you are contradicting your own argument that "no Molvi is required teach you".

okay, fair enough, perhaps that was a bad example since at some point in life the guy could have eaten meat. So try this for an analogy...someone who doesn't believe in medical science tells you how to perform surgery...does he have the right to do so? GOD I hope not!

Nobody has the ownership rights. Anyone can follow.

but doesn't that actually support that "no molvi is required to teach you" if nobody has the ownership rights?


I consider sectarianism at par with Shirk. But still both are separate. I keep referring to Haroon Peace be upon Him, Moosa Peace be upon him and their people, when they started worshiping a calf. One of the reasons Haroon Peace be upon him didn't strictly and harshly dealt with people, was that they would get divided. Basically he tolerated Shirk, to prevent division (sects)

Can't argue with that brother, I 100% agree. sectarianism and shirk, although not the same thing, are dangerously so close that sectarianism could lead to shirk as the jews and christians did when they started letting their "scholars" (rabbis and priests) decide the divine law. And yes, Haroon AS indeed was wise in his decision but please be clear, that he did not stop teaching what is right...he did not use force nor did he use the harshness of declaring anyone wajib ul qatal or etc but he continued trying to reach out to the ones who were worshipping the golden calf to the best of his abilities using wisdom to the extent that they had to overwhelm him. That is all that I am doing; I'm not declaring anyone as anything; just pointing out how a sin can lead to shirk if we become arrogant and start claiming that we don't think it should be a sin at all. See my point?

The sins have an affect on well being of a society, my committing sins doesn't harm anything but my near ones and the society I am living in. Quran advocates a healthy society, where everyone is free to think and ponder.

Of course The Quran teaches that. But that does NOT mean that The Quran is telling us that "it is okay to believe" something that is wrong. Rather, The Quran tells use to think and ponder about what Allah said, deeply think about why the DOs are a must to be done and why the DON'Ts are best not to do. For example, if someone thinks that there is nothing wrong with consuming alcohol and that (nauzubillah) Allah ta'alah is wrong to forbid it then okay, we can talk about it. Let's discuss it. When someone thinks along those lines then I can prove by the he is committing shirk. But where does that put me? Should I just accept it and let other younger people get infected with his way of thinking? NO! Or should I just get up kill him? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But what I can do is have a fact based discussion with him as to WHY he is wrong WHY Allah forbade alcohol. If my reasoning makes sense to him and he repents then AWESOME! But if he still doesn't then at least I did my part with the HOPE that if wasn't listening, maybe someone else was and won't go down the route he did.

 

[I.R.A]

okay, fair enough, perhaps that was a bad example since at some point in life the guy could have eaten meat. So try this for an analogy...someone who doesn't believe in medical science tells you how to perform surgery...does he have the right to do so? GOD I hope not!

I hope you have heard of the word Specialist, its mainly used in skills department and not for faith, beliefs. Doctors are specialists. Your analogy doesn't stand any ground.

but doesn't that actually support that "no molvi is required to teach you" if nobody has the ownership rights?

So when nobody has the ownership rights, then why would you think an agnostic, atheist cannot share his views on Islamic faith (obviously in a polite way)?

 

[GumNaam]

I hope you have heard of the word Specialist, its mainly used in skills department and not for faith, beliefs. Doctors are specialists. Your analogy doesn't stand any ground.




So when nobody has the ownership rights, then why would you think an agnostic, atheist cannot share his views on Islamic faith (obviously in a polite way)?

I think you didn't understand the point I was trying to make in my analogy. Yes, the guy who does not believe in medical science is no specialist. He can have a view that could be discussed but he sure heck canNOT tell you what is right OR wrong about medical science or surgery. Having said that, I never said that he could not share his views. But he just came out claimed that I am wrong. And I did not even say that he should not say that either. ALL that I asked is to back it up with evidence. I presented my evidence from The Quran and had he provided HIS evidence from The Quran then I would have humbly accepted. But just to say that my views are wrong without any evidence or backing and that too, from an agnostic is just unacceptable. AT LEAST provide evidence for goodness sakes. Which, in this case, never happened.

Having said that, if you still don't agree then let's agree to disagree. Its past 10pm here and we have to wake up before 3am for sehri for the first day of Ramadan in shaa Allah. Hope your having a good fast brother.