Mush meets Benazir

[Keysersoze]

If what you are implying were true, then dynastic rule would not have failed as miserably as it did.

Touche! people from the inside sometimes can't see the woods for the trees.

 

[Ababeel]

What is happening is a clear directive from the Big Boss of Musharraf as both the leaders having Secular and anti Islam mind set. So in future their will be clear polarisation of Secularist on one side and Islamic-Democratic Parties on other side.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What is happening is a clear directive from the Big Boss of Musharraf as both the leaders having Secular and anti Islam mind set. So in future their will be clear polarisation of Secularist on one side and Islamic-Democratic Parties on other side.

Anti Islam? Are you sure about that? Are they advocating firing squads for people "hiding" Qurans in their homes? Are they advocating beatings and jail time for people growing beards? Jail time for women wearing veils? Any prohibitions on prayer?

What the so called "defenders of Islam" need to get through their minds is that advocating policies that do not force people to follow a particular ideology are not "anti-Islam".

Quran: 109:01-109:06

Say: O disbelievers!

I worship not that which ye worship;

Nor worship ye that which I worship.

And I shall not worship that which ye worship.

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

 

[Ababeel]

If they are realiy good muslims or mumins then whom they are waiting to come and implement the Sharia in Pakistan. Its this "Muslim" Bibi who has called the Hoodud Law as "Black Law".
On the other hand the great President has announced openly that Mustafa Kamal Ataturk is his "Ideal". How a real muslim can say that a Mulhid or Atheist be his Ideal who openly try to through Islam out of Turkey and destroy it completely and make a large muslim population Atheist. How can he read the Kalima of Oneness of Allah and acceptance of Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) and on the other hand try to follow his enemy?
These are just two clear cut examples. Now go and try to compare people of these characters in light of Quran and Sunnah and you will find where both your "Beloved" stand from Quranic and Prophetic point of view.
If they are really follow Islam then they must keep their enmity upto the so called extremist and do not spread it so as to involve the whole Islamic Ideology.
As muslims our aim must be to be successfull in this world and mainly in the life after death as that will be eternal life.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If they are realiy good muslims or mumins then whom they are waiting to come and implement the Sharia in Pakistan. Its this "Muslim" Bibi who has called the Hoodud Law as "Black Law".
On the other hand the great President has announced openly that Mustafa Kamal Ataturk is his "Ideal". How a real muslim can say that a Mulhid or Atheist be his Ideal who openly try to through Islam out of Turkey and destroy it completely and make a large muslim population Atheist. How can he read the Kalima of Oneness of Allah and acceptance of Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) and on the other hand try to follow his enemy?
These are just two clear cut examples. Now go and try to compare people of these characters in light of Quran and Sunnah and you will find where both your "Beloved" stand from Quranic and Prophetic point of view.
If they are really follow Islam then they must keep their enmity upto the so called extremist and do not spread it so as to involve the whole Islamic Ideology.
As muslims our aim must be to be successfull in this world and mainly in the life after death as that will be eternal life.

This issue of "implementing shariah" is being discussed on the "acts of terrorism thread" where I have made my case against it.

Proclaiming someone as your ideal does not necessitate absolute adherence to every single trait or belief that individual may possess. Musharraf may very well admire Ataturk for his ability to bring Turkey back form the brink, modernize and develop it, not for some of the anti-religion laws he helped promulgate. If you have a quote from him in which he advocated Turkish style restrictions on religion in Pakistan, then please post it.

 

[dabong1]

If they are realiy good muslims or mumins then whom they are waiting to come and implement the Sharia in Pakistan. Its this "Muslim" Bibi who has called the Hoodud Law as "Black Law".
On the other hand the great President has announced openly that Mustafa Kamal Ataturk is his "Ideal". How a real muslim can say that a Mulhid or Atheist be his Ideal who openly try to through Islam out of Turkey and destroy it completely and make a large muslim population Atheist. How can he read the Kalima of Oneness of Allah and acceptance of Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) and on the other hand try to follow his enemy?
These are just two clear cut examples. Now go and try to compare people of these characters in light of Quran and Sunnah and you will find where both your "Beloved" stand from Quranic and Prophetic point of view.
If they are really follow Islam then they must keep their enmity upto the so called extremist and do not spread it so as to involve the whole Islamic Ideology.
As muslims our aim must be to be successfull in this world and mainly in the life after death as that will be eternal life.

My understanding of the Hoodud Law is that if a woman syas she is raped then she needs to get four eyewitness to prove it......you know as well as i do that no one is going to rape somebody infront of four eyewitness.
This bothered me for a bit of time as it is not logical and islam is logical.
After sometime i met a scholar and asked him the same question,he told me that in todays age you can use DNA testing to check if intercourse has taken place ,if that has proved then the woman must bring 4 witness to say she is off good character and is not accusing someone ,after agreeing to have sex.
When early islam was about there was no DNA testing and a woman could if she wanted accuse any man of rape without no proof,once the four witness of good character come into the equation it is harder for a woman to accuse a man.
There was another person listening to the conversation who said that the prophet pbuh never used DNA testing so it must be haraam and we must not follow the west ,but stick to what islam says.
The scholar asked the gentleman if he had a car that was invented by the "kaffir" or did he use a camal like out beloved prophet to travel around on?
The man left without anwering the question.

 

[roadrunner]

My understanding of the Hoodud Law is that if a woman syas she is raped then she needs to get four eyewitness to prove it......you know as well as i do that no one is going to rape somebody infront of four eyewitness.
This bothered me for a bit of time as it is not logical and islam is logical.
After sometime i met a scholar and asked him the same question,he told me that in todays age you can use DNA testing to check if intercourse has taken place ,if that has proved then the woman must bring 4 witness to say she is off good character and is not accusing someone ,after agreeing to have sex.

A woman did not need 4 witnesses to prove rape, but in order to get the Islamic punishment for it, the Hudood, there was a requirement for 4 witnesses. This I've heard was because public rape was considered extra bad for society. Then the private rapes did not need to have 4 witnesses to get a conviction, but the conviction was only subject to Tazir jailtime. The Hudood though had flaws (eg adultery to rape equivalence), but that was not one of them. I don't think your scholar knows what he's talking about.

 

[Bull]

you can use DNA testing to check if intercourse has taken place ,if that has proved then the woman must bring 4 witness to say she is off good character and is not accusing someone ,after agreeing to have sex.
.

This is plain bullshit, medical tests can easily prove whether the sex was with consent or not.

 

[Bull]

you can use DNA testing to check if intercourse has taken place ,if that has proved then the woman must bring 4 witness to say she is off good character and is not accusing someone ,after agreeing to have sex.
.

This is plain bullshit, medical tests can easily prove whether the sex was with consent or not.

And why is the girl has to bring 4 witness and not also the man.

 

[roadrunner]

This is plain bullshit, medical tests can easily prove whether the sex was with consent or not.

Only in the world's greatest democracy are they this advanced.

 

[Bull]

Only in the world's greatest democracy are they this advanced.

What the hell? Injury to the vagina can prove whether it was with consent or without.

 

[dabong1]

This is plain bullshit, medical tests can easily prove whether the sex was with consent or not.

What utter rubbish

 

[dabong1]

A woman did not need 4 witnesses to prove rape, but in order to get the Islamic punishment for it, the Hudood, there was a requirement for 4 witnesses. This I've heard was because public rape was considered extra bad for society. Then the private rapes did not need to have 4 witnesses to get a conviction, but the conviction was only subject to Tazir jailtime. The Hudood though had flaws (eg adultery to rape equivalence), but that was not one of them. I don't think your scholar knows what he's talking about.

What the scholar said makes more sense then what your saying.
"The Hudood though had flaws" you say it yourself that the law has flaws but it is somehow islamic?