Majority Muslims want Sharia law in their countries: Study

[Dubious]

uff, why so emo, was just an innocent joke.

@hinduguy YOU sit down and design primers all day and then let me see how you feel!

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian
As a Muslim all we are asked to do is pass the beautiful msg....with good words and guard our behaviour .....We are not asked to force nor are we ever asked to do anything more...Even Prophet SAW was told to do pass the msg THAT IS ALL...

As for shariah law ....That SHOULD BE the law for an Islamic country NOT where EVERYTHING WRONG takes place and then try to apply a just law....Well, SINCE EVERYTHING wrong is occurring, applying a just law will ONLY seem barbaric BECAUSE EVERYTHING is WRONG! If you get what I mean

@hinduguy I beg YOUR PARDON! That is really lame and immature!

Oh of course Muslims talking nicely is just too painful to witness there always has to be a hidden agenda, hana?

Wow.

Well stated.


peace


p.s. Please Ignore Hinduguy. Poor fellar is too much into Bollywood. He probably is already picturing us singing lata song and hugging trees . We can never have serious discussion in front little boys. Can't we

Just kidding HinduGuy!. I am sure you just watch bollywood songs and not daydream about them. Right?

 

[Dubious]

@WebMaster can we have a slapping emoticon coz I could really use it right now something like this:

 

[Patriots]

Can you tell why the use of analogy, is there a story/reason behind saying that they are right hand possessions?

I don't know deep analogies of Quran ... Because I am not a Aalim

 

[FaujHistorian]

I don't know deep analogies of Quran ... Because I am not a Aalim

Don't fret dear poster.

Kloitra got the answer already.


peace

 

[livingdead]

self-delete

 

[Patriots]

Don't fret dear poster.

Kloitra got the answer already.


peace

Thanx Bro ...............

 

[niaz]

You have clearly Mis-judged that part , Every Sunni Sect whether its Barelvi\Deobandi\Ahle hadees declared that the disrespect of Sahaba R.A or any muslim personality cannot be tolerated specially when its being done on the continuity basis . Here problem is that this tradition of "Wajib ul Qatl" and declaring "Kafir" to other was started by the barelvi Sect in sub-continent and as far as suicide bombing were concerned then various sources proved that it was our own Army who trained them during the soviat war . But I'm sure you have seperate excuse for them . Every different Sect have tried to Impose their Sharia even with miltancey , Its just a past of Tribal Taliban which makes them stronger then others.

Hon sir,

Being a student of Islamic history, I have come across the story that there was a tradition of cursing Hazrat Ali ibne Abu Talib (RA) started by Ameer Muawiyah. This carried on until stopped by the pious Khalifa Omer bin Abdul Aziz. Ameer Muawiyah was a ‘Sehabi’ himself and majority of the Muslims accept all the Omayyad Khalifas without question.

Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali - Rediff Pages

I am also against showing disrespect to Sehaba Karam and those who do are definitely in error. My point is that this crime doesn’t make one ‘Wajibul Qatal’.

Your second point about Braelvis starting Takfir tradition and declaring people Wajib ul Qatal is also erroneous. Maulana Tahirul Qadri is a Braelvi scholar. I have heard many of his lectures. According to him declaring someone ‘Gustaakh e Rasool’ and Wajibul Qatal is incorrect. All the Muslim scholars of the Ummah must declare someone ‘Kafir’ before such ‘Hadd’ can be applied.

How can we declare some one Gustakh-e-Rasul(saw)& Wajib-e-Qatal?Dr.Tahir-ul-Qadri**By:*Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr M. Tahir-ul-Qadri - DeenIslam.Com

Finally, your contention that Pakistan Army trained suicide bombers during Soviet Afghan war is totally false and borders on treason. Kindly get your fact right before you malign Pakistan Army.

I repeat my assertion that I am not against the imposition of Sharia, but won’t accept such imposition by TTP. SSP, LEJ etc. as in my view these people have changed Islam from a peaceful forgiving religion into a vindictive blood thirsty creed. Their version of Islam is not what was preached by our holy Prophet (PBUH) who was nicknamed ‘Rahmatul al Alimeen’ for his patient & forgiving character.

By indirectly supporting suicide bombing, did you imply that it does not matter if one disregards clear instruction of Allah as revealed in the holy Quran?

 

[dabong1]

Politicians playing politics.

The use of the word “Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b) and the words “Sikh, Jain and Buddhist” in Explanation II have given birth to the controversy whether the latter are followers of religions other than the Hindu religion or that they are merely sects or sectional faiths which are a part of the larger Hindu religion?

I really cant be that hard for the indians to bracket the sikhs along with muslims and christians as seperate faith not connected to hinduism.......there would be no ambiguity on the issue then.


The object of Explanation II, therefore, was “to widen the concept that Hindu religious institutions were broad-based and Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism although separate religions could enjoy the right of temple entry”.

Do Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhist as part of there faith have to enter hindu temples?....i dont know the answer but i would assume not as there would have there own houses of worship......and it does seem a rather weak excuse to include Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhist as some sort of sub division or off shoot of hinduism.

Constitution in Article 25 was also maintained by Parliament in the enactment of the four statutes of the Hindu personal laws, namely, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; and the Hindu Adoptions and the Maintenance Act, 1956. Parliament enacted one section in each of these four statutes to maintain the dichotomy between those who are Hindus by religion and those who are Sikhs, Buddhists or Jains by religion even though the legislation would apply to all of them as the Hindu personal law used to apply to them before the enactment of these statutes. In enacting these four statutes the legislature expressly recognized that Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism were religions separate from Hinduism.

The above quote shows that on certain issue in law "enacting these four statutes the legislature expressly recognized that Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism were religions separate from Hinduism."
If thats the case then why are the sikhs pushing for a change or as you would call it "Politicians playing politics."


Its along article but i think you get my drift

 

[Zarvan]

Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you truly believe Quran is complete?

If not, we cannot discuss any matters related to Quran.

Thank you




Hopefully you got it now.

I admire your diligence.


Sometimes non-Muslims can be better researchers of Quran, as they are not stuck with one particular idea like so many of us.


Thank you

sir first Muslim has to follow both Quran and sunnah sir the kind of complete you are referring here is no basic message is complete sir and surah ahzab and surah no or both explain order of hijab sir and also hadees have explained it and if I go by your definition of Quran being or some fools have understood it than in Quran most order which it gives but their is no method on how to follow those orders and for that and for some further orders is hadees and sun ah of prophet saw

 

[FaujHistorian]

sir first Muslim has to follow both Quran and sunnah sir the kind of complete you are referring here is no basic message is complete sir and surah ahzab and surah no or both explain order of hijab sir and also hadees have explained it and if I go by your definition of Quran being or some fools have understood it than in Quran most order which it gives but their is no method on how to follow those orders and for that and for some further orders is hadees and sun ah of prophet saw

If Quran is quiet on some thing, that means Allah swt is flexible on that and we have to figure out things from our time.

You cannot expect Quran telling us to travel on planes or rockets

Quran will not tell you to ride donkey in 21st century.

you have to use your head in daily matters.

Quran says cover your private parts.

If you cover them using pants-shirt, shalwar-Qameez, dhoti, Arabic dress, Chinese dress, Japanese dress, it is OK.

Do not do what Munafiqeen used to do with Mohammad pbuh. That they would joke "haha hha Quran is not a full guide".

Even when Allah swt says, Quran is complete,

Munafiqeen keep on saying it is NOT.

Should we all take the word of Allah or Munafiqeen?

You are making your choice, I am making mine.

Let Allah decide who is right.

No Mullah should decide how much faith I have vs. how much faith you have



peace to you

 

[Kloitra]

The use of the word “Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b) and the words “Sikh, Jain and Buddhist” in Explanation II have given birth to the controversy whether the latter are followers of religions other than the Hindu religion or that they are merely sects or sectional faiths which are a part of the larger Hindu religion?

I really cant be that hard for the indians to bracket the sikhs along with muslims and christians as seperate faith not connected to hinduism.......there would be no ambiguity on the issue then.

Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists were kept with Hindus because there are laws which are applicable to the four of them equally, like Hindu personal law. But there are different law for Muslims and Christians.

The object of Explanation II, therefore, was “to widen the concept that Hindu religious institutions were broad-based and Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism although separate religions could enjoy the right of temple entry”.

Do Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhist as part of there faith have to enter hindu temples?....i dont know the answer but i would assume not as there would have there own houses of worship......and it does seem a rather weak excuse to include Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhist as some sort of sub division or off shoot of hinduism.

That I think is a mistake. The law was to open Hindu temples to all (to all castes for example). The same rule was to be applied to all 3 other religion. The author probably made a mistake. I had said before, it is not the best I could find, but i was short of time.

Constitution in Article 25 was also maintained by Parliament in the enactment of the four statutes of the Hindu personal laws, namely, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; and the Hindu Adoptions and the Maintenance Act, 1956. Parliament enacted one section in each of these four statutes to maintain the dichotomy between those who are Hindus by religion and those who are Sikhs, Buddhists or Jains by religion even though the legislation would apply to all of them as the Hindu personal law used to apply to them before the enactment of these statutes. In enacting these four statutes the legislature expressly recognized that Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism were religions separate from Hinduism.

The above quote shows that on certain issue in law "enacting these four statutes the legislature expressly recognized that Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism were religions separate from Hinduism."
If thats the case then why are the sikhs pushing for a change or as you would call it "Politicians playing politics."


Its along article but i think you get my drift

Law regards the four separate on all issues, and it is just politicians playing politics. The constitution was written by intellectuals. The politics is 'played' by politicians. And the public is fooled. I do not need to tell you how things work in sub-continent, or India.

 

[Zarvan]

If Quran is quiet on some thing, that means Allah swt is flexible on that and we have to figure out things from our time.

You cannot expect Quran telling us to travel on planes or rockets

Quran will not tell you to ride donkey in 21st century.

you have to use your head in daily matters.

Quran says cover your private parts.

If you cover them using pants-shirt, shalwar-Qameez, dhoti, Arabic dress, Chinese dress, Japanese dress, it is OK.

Do not do what Munafiqeen used to do with Mohammad pbuh. That they would joke "haha hha Quran is not a full guide".

Even when Allah swt says, Quran is complete,

Munafiqeen keep on saying it is NOT.

Should we all take the word of Allah or Munafiqeen?

You are making your choice, I am making mine.

Let Allah decide who is right.

No Mullah should decide how much faith I have vs. how much faith you have



peace to you

sir Allah says follow Allah and his rasool saw and it says this several time and Allah doesn't even tell the method of salah which is also calls nama/ it also doesn't tell about zakat and it also doesn't give detail ff most other orders those orders and details are in hadees and you are understanding the meaning of complete wrong sir basic concept is compete sir and munafiqeen and kharjis used to deny hadees and hazrat Muhammad saw those who were sahabas followed hadees Mr ally in Quran orders to follow hazrat Muhammad saw along with him I mean Allah

 

[FaujHistorian]

Hon sir,

Being a student of Islamic history, I have come across the story that there was a tradition of cursing Hazrat Ali ibne Abu Talib (RA) started by Ameer Muawiyah. This carried on until stopped by the pious Khalifa Omer bin Abdul Aziz. Ameer Muawiyah was a ‘Sehabi’ himself and majority of the Muslims accept all the Omayyad Khalifas without question.

Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali - Rediff Pages

I am also against showing disrespect to Sehaba Karam and those who do are definitely in error. My point is that this crime doesn’t make one ‘Wajibul Qatal’.

Your second point about Braelvis starting Takfir tradition and declaring people Wajib ul Qatal is also erroneous. Maulana Tahirul Qadri is a Braelvi scholar. I have heard many of his lectures. According to him declaring someone ‘Gustaakh e Rasool’ and Wajibul Qatal is incorrect. All the Muslim scholars of the Ummah must declare someone ‘Kafir’ before such ‘Hadd’ can be applied.

How can we declare some one Gustakh-e-Rasul(saw)& Wajib-e-Qatal?Dr.Tahir-ul-Qadri**By:*Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr M. Tahir-ul-Qadri - DeenIslam.Com

Finally, your contention that Pakistan Army trained suicide bombers during Soviet Afghan war is totally false and borders on treason. Kindly get your fact right before you malign Pakistan Army.

I repeat my assertion that I am not against the imposition of Sharia, but won’t accept such imposition by TTP. SSP, LEJ etc. as in my view these people have changed Islam from a peaceful forgiving religion into a vindictive blood thirsty creed. Their version of Islam is not what was preached by our holy Prophet (PBUH) who was nicknamed ‘Rahmatul al Alimeen’ for his patient & forgiving character.

By indirectly supporting suicide bombing, did you imply that it does not matter if one disregards clear instruction of Allah as revealed in the holy Quran?

Excellent points Niaz Sahib,

Long time admirer of your balanced views.

Just minor comments. Again not against you per se but the ideas.


1. Declaring someone Kafir
No one can and should declare an individual a Kafir or anything like that. Not even a state.
My faith is my business. As long as I'm not involved in physically harming someone, I want to be left alone.
There are already laws in English jurisprudence / and hence in Pakistani law to deal with speech and freedom etc.



2. Declaring a group as a whole as Kafir
Again! The group who tries to declares others as Kafir should be subjected to civil laws of defamation. Perhaps resulting in confiscation of property.


3. Implementation of Sharia
Modern day British/American penal code is not in violation of Sharia and it is now much more thorough and complete as compared to the so-called Islamic penal code. Thus any implementation of outdated laws will result in loss of freedom and liberty that has already been developed under UK/US/EU laws.

Why. Penal code is not static. it changes with new systems and new styles.


Thank you.



p.s. This is no way an effort to contradict what you said. Just adding a bit more info.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

Excellent points Niaz Sahib,

Long time admirer of your balanced views.

Just minor comments. Again not against you per se but the ideas.


1. Declaring someone Kafir
No one can and should declare an individual a Kafir or anything like that. Not even a state.
My faith is my business. As long as I'm not involved in physically harming someone, I want to be left alone.
There are already laws in English jurisprudence / and hence in Pakistani law to deal with speech and freedom etc.



2. Declaring a group as a whole as Kafir
Again! The group who tries to declares others as Kafir should be subjected to civil laws of defamation. Perhaps resulting in confiscation of property.


3. Implementation of Sharia
Modern day British/American penal code is not in violation of Sharia and it is now much more thorough and complete as compared to the so-called Islamic penal code. Thus any implementation of outdated laws will result in loss of freedom and liberty that has already been developed under UK/US/EU laws.

Why. Penal code is not static. it changes with new systems and new styles.


Thank you.



p.s. This is no way an effort to contradict what you said. Just adding a bit more info.

Dear, you know what the root cause of the problem is? Its a space, a void, missing out of institutions responsible for such decision making.

Can you clarify, whom you are referring to? State or groups like TTP or SSP?

There are some terms use in Islamic books regarding different groups as one used in western democracy style. In current system you say that State's pillar are constitution, parliament, executive and judiciary. In Islamic terms there are

Khwaas
Awaam-ul-Naas
Qazi
Aalim

This was the democracy we used to practice 14 centuries ago. And what is the history of current western democratic system? 4 centuries or so?

Its the responsibility of Islamic state to build these institutions, and it is duty of Aalims (Qualified in Islamic laws, history, Fiqa etc.) to interpret Quran and Hadees according to current era needs. Qazi or judge's job is to provide justice. Executive job is to run government. Awaam are we people, common population. People like you or me cant issue fatwa's or interpretation because we don't qualify for that position. Not even common Mullahs or politicians like Fazal-ur-Rehman can do this job.

"Objective Resolution", which is part of our constitution bind our government to build these institutes, so that work could be done to make Pakistan "An Islamic Welfare State".
All governments have miserably failed to establish these institutes. Its the most blatant violation of constitution for which no one have been held responsible till now. Due to this void, every other Mullah stand up and give his version of Sharia. Due to this reason you see the current mess in which we are now a days.

A good example of institutionalizing is "Moon sighting committee". State build an institute and almost 98% population of the country follow it. Imagine if we remove this institute, what kind of jokes and controversies will fill in this void.

PS: If i understand correctly, you are referring to Ahmedis in point 2? Sir, its a whole new discussion and Ahmedis are declared as Kafir after very long legal and political struggle. Its a broader subject but on this issue Pakistani laws and state is 101% correct in declaring them non-muslim.

Peace