VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/airchiefmarshal.jpg)
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Go on then, bless us.
Me? And bless you? No Sir, suraj ko chiragh kaun dikhaye?
![Mrgreen :D :D](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/mrgreen.gif)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Go on then, bless us.
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.
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
Not allowed - any religious content will be deleted. We wish to keep this debate as political as it can get.
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.
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.
Please read it again with comprehension.
SHOULD religion be allowed to participate in national politics?
Not whether it does or does not, SHOULD it?
Please read it again with comprehension.
SHOULD religion be allowed to participate in national politics?
Not whether it does or does not, SHOULD it?
Where did i quote that verse ???
?
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?
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 thingIn 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.