Islamism ???

[VCheng]

Go on then, bless us.

Me? And bless you? No Sir, suraj ko chiragh kaun dikhaye?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Sorry to disagree with a couple of your observations:

1. Deoband is a school of thought. The people who graduated from there developed institutions and practices by their own initiative. Tablighi Jamat was started by Maulana Ilyas on his own. He just happened to have graduated from Darul Uloom Deoband. Similarly establishment of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind was individual initiative (by Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni ? If I am not Wrong). Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi and his pro-independence political program was also a graduate of Deoband. Before Iqbal's Allahabad address of 1930, he discussed his idea of a pseudo-secular country that comprised of present day Pakistan with whole of Punjab (West Punjab, East Punjab, Himachal Pardesh, Haryana), Kashmir, etc... to be named "Sindh Sagar".

So you see, it is rather simplistic to devise a binary division of Deobandis.

2. I can guess that you have Ahl-e-Hadith leanings by your avoiding using the term 'Wahabist'. If niyat is to refer to a person by the name of Abdul Wahab, then there is nothing wrong with using this term. It has come to acquire a particular meaning in context and doe NOT refer to Allah.

3. Your grasp of Deobandi / Barelvi issues seems to lack clarity. I can not claim to be expert, but I can tell that though I have Barelvi leanings myself, I consider Barelvis to be wrong in this whole issue. Deobandis did not go out on a limb to bait Barelvis. Rather it is the Barelvis who focused on a particular theological position and unfairly applied it to Deobandis. As far as I know, there is no real difference between Barelvis and Deobandis. The difference is that of the emphasis. One emphasizes Tauheed, and rightly so. The other focuses on Risalat, and rightly so. This difference should not have created a needless issue.

Dont guess anything dear. I don't follow any particular sect blindly although i have seen most of my relatives leaning towards brealivism and differences between barelvi and deobuni are mostly about malawaid, concept of waseela(Tawassul), nature of Prophet(PBUH) whether he(PBUH) was made of light or not and also whether he(PBUH) had future knowledge and still alive and then it come down to differences in expressing their love for their prophet Muahmmad(PBUH) and sufi saints. They even celebrate the Eid on two different days here in UK because of difference in sighting the moon etc I have seen some devout followers of these sects don't even pray behind Imam of opposite sect which is sad indeed. I personally think braevli are bit more superstitious while on other hand doeunbdi are too literal and extreme in some cases especially the way they interpret jihad(i mean jihad bis saif here which is called qataal) and imposing Islam. These are my personal observation while spending time with boht of them and after having plenty of debate and argument and others may disagree with my perception

 

[FaujHistorian]

Go on then, bless us.

Please please please

let's make sure no one quotes single verses from Qur'an while ignoring the section where that verse exists.


Thank you


p.s. case in point

2:129 where the story is being told about Ibrahim and Ismail pbuh but some posters ignore the context and say the verse is talking about Mohammad pbuh. I urger everyone to read the verse and context themselves before quoting

 

[Kompromat]

Please please please

let's make sure no one quotes single verses from Qur'an while ignoring the section where that verse exists.


Thank you


p.s. case in point

2:129 where the story is being told about Ibrahim and Ismail pbuh but some posters ignore the context and say the verse is talking about Mohammad pbuh. I urger everyone to read the verse and context themselves before quoting

Not allowed - any religious content will be deleted. We wish to keep this debate as political as it can get.

 

[VCheng]

Not allowed - any religious content will be deleted. We wish to keep this debate as political as it can get.

Okay then, let us take the basic question first:

Should religion be allowed to participate in national politics?

 

[Kompromat]

Where did quote that verse ???

You didn't, nor shouldn't.

@rockstar08

@FaujHistorian - Answered your question which contained Quranic verses. I deleted it, because its against the forum rules.

Lets stick to the original.

 

[FaujHistorian]

You didn't, nor shouldn't.

@rockstar08

@FaujHistorian - Answered your question which contained Quranic verses. I deleted it, because its against the forum rules.

Lets stick to the original.

post #165 and two above it. One by luftwafa and the other by rampage

 

[Kompromat]

Okay then, let us take the basic question first:

Should religion be allowed to participate in national politics?

Religion plays a part in politics either directly or indirectly, all over the world. The very argument is absurd.

 

[VCheng]

Religion plays a part in politics either directly or indirectly, all over the world. The very argument is absurd.

Please read it again with comprehension.

SHOULD religion be allowed to participate in national politics?

Not whether it does or does not, SHOULD it?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Please read it again with comprehension.

SHOULD religion be allowed to participate in national politics?

Not whether it does or does not, SHOULD it?

Off course. NO!

haven't we seen enough death and destruction.

Thank you

 

[Kompromat]

Please read it again with comprehension.

SHOULD religion be allowed to participate in national politics?

Not whether it does or does not, SHOULD it?

In a democracy, if majority of the people want to keep it in the national politics, who am i to say otherwise?

Similarly, if majority are against it then it should not be included.

Isn't this what democracy is?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Where did i quote that verse ???
?

moot point


See @Aeronaut directions.,


Thank you

In a democracy, if majority of the people want to keep it in the national politics, who am i to say otherwise?

Similarly, if majority are against it then it should not be included.

Isn't this what democracy is?

Democracy was never meant to be "tyranny of majority".

 

[VCheng]

In a democracy, if majority of the people want to keep it in the national politics, who am i to say otherwise?

Similarly, if majority are against it then it should not be included.

Isn't this what democracy is?

No, that is called a theocracy.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

In a democracy, if majority of the people want to keep it in the national politics, who am i to say otherwise?

Similarly, if majority are against it then it should not be included.

Isn't this what democracy is?

I was going to say the same thing

If 98 percent population claim to be follower of Islam then why they should have problem of having Islam as complete code of their life from political to social affairs?

My only concern is there is no one version of Islam which is the main obstacle in this process of having Islam in politics

 

[FaujHistorian]

No, that is called a theocracy.

Democracy is not just "elections and votes".

It is a complicated system of government that is founded on the teachings of eminent philosophers / scholars such as John Locke, and de montesqueue

Our educated class has no forking idea what these scholars were proposing or saying.

This is why most of the educated elite are in fact theocrats and not demcrats.

sadly