Two Opposing Terms: Islamic and Republic

[qamar1990]

Quran never said to hang/kill someone for "disrespecting" mohammad pubh or tearing a page of the book.

But no Islamist has a backbone to mention this. Not a single Islamist.


Again your effort to turn this thread about religion is pathetic.

Sorry to say.

in a true republic the people get what they want and if you actually do a vote from the people on what they want then pakistani would become a country like iran. i hope you know that lol.

Khilafat was not a failure, it's people who fail things, specially when they become lazy and corrupt.

obviously i know that, i was just replying to the guy who said that it is.

Quran never said to hang/kill someone for "disrespecting" mohammad pubh or tearing a page of the book.

But no Islamist has a backbone to mention this. Not a single Islamist.


Again your effort to turn this thread about religion is pathetic.

Sorry to say.

also next time try not to run away from an argument few days ago you were asking for a debate and now your coming out with this when you have no answer?
the truth is that you don't know what a republic is! lol
I'm pretty sure its because of your lack of english, you trying confuse "republic" with "secularism" once again.

 

[Chronos]

Quran never said to hang/kill someone for "disrespecting" mohammad pubh or tearing a page of the book.

But no Islamist has a backbone to mention this. Not a single Islamist.


Again your effort to turn this thread about religion is pathetic.

Sorry to say.

Now if I may butt in, I think adherence to an ideology that demands blind devotion is trouble.

The only constant in this world is change. And to keep ahead you need to change with the times.

The troube with islamism and really any ideology similar to it, is that they invoke a mythical golden age as the blueprint for the modern world.

When the world is in constant flux, this is just not possible.

 

[FaujHistorian]

your making no sense what so ever, imran khan said that khalifa system was failed from the start because khalifas got killed by their own people supposedly.

They got killed because they all failed to setup instiutions.

The rules and edicts they issued were no different from the kings and emperors of their day.

The only difference is that they mentioned a religion in their name.

But pretty much all Khalifas abused religion by adding their name in even Jumma Khutba.

Even today

Standard Jumman Khutba in Pakistan includes the follwoing words


--- Mun Ahan al Sultan, Ahan -Allah

Anyone disrespecting Sultan is disrespecting Allah.

But you will not know about this.

As you never studied the issue.


But as a blind follower trying to do mental Qalabazis with the Greek term aka Republic.


peace

 

[BATMAN]

my dear islamic system of gov was failed from day one other wise 3 khalifa rashdeen was not murderes umer - usman - ali - was murdered by own people

and again hussain was murdered becasue of faild gov system and its seed a hate which is going on today

if it was so nice how wife of prophet PBUH and ali was faught safeen war ? killed thousands of sahaba those whom have direst teachings from PBUH ???????????

And continue, even before prophet Isa, may not had been taken for crucification, prophet Musa would not had been chased by pharo.

Come on man.... Iblis is trying to control humans, since the day adam was born.

As you clearly see, even democracy is failing in Islamic states, so the issue is between Iblees vs. Islam.

Kaliphs were murdered by haters and its a debate for another time.

 

[freelancer93]

Now if I may butt in, I think adherence to an ideology that demands blind devotion is trouble.

The only constant in this world is change. And to keep ahead you need to change with the times.

The troube with islamism and really any ideology similar to it, is that they invoke a mythical golden age as the blueprint for the modern world.

When the world is in constant flux, this is just not possible.

If it was possible 1400 years ago when there was nothing like system and everything was based on regional differences then why can't a simple nation can use it for their own independent country? It's not like they are imposing on others. Everyone have rights in it, so enjoy it. Why keep bugging them? just to make them inattentive for getting their aim of sound and stable Islamic state?

 

[qamar1990]

And continue, even before prophet Isa, may not had been taken for crucification, prophet Musa would not had been chased by pharo.

Come on man.... Iblis is trying to control humans, since the day adam was born.

As you clearly see, even democracy is failing in Islamic states, so the issue is between Iblees vs. Islam.

Kaliphs were murdered by haters and its a debate for another time.

imran khan is a confessed athiest wo in cheezon sey nahin darta lol.
his heart is so blackened that he got believe even if he wants to.

They got killed because they all failed to setup instiutions.

The rules and edicts they issued were no different from the kings and emperors of their day.

The only difference is that they mentioned a religion in their name.

But pretty much all Khalifas abused religion by adding their name in even Jumma Khutba.

Even today

Standard Jumman Khutba in Pakistan includes the follwoing words


--- Mun Ahan al Sultan, Ahan -Allah

Anyone disrespecting Sultan is disrespecting Allah.

But you will not know about this.

As you never studied the issue.


But as a blind follower trying to do mental Qalabazis with the Greek term aka Republic.


peace

the righteous islamic khalifas got killed because they failed to setup institutions?lol plz stop with bs and stop smoking ganja.
for being a historian you actually don't know shit about history lol.
I'm not even going bother replying to you on the khalifa subject because that clearly something beyond your knowledge level.

 

[BATMAN]

imran khan is a confessed athiest wo in cheezon sey nahin darta lol.
his heart is so blackened that he got believe even if he wants to.

He is not alone... there are many people out there, but they have no right to impose their ideology on others.
Problem starts when non believers, come out to humiliate belief of religious people, irony is that same people will start crying victims, when you talk back in even coin.
If today i post the scientific proofs of existence of Allah, they would still not believe it.
While, I have no problem living and debating with them.... i have listened to non believers a lot. Its interesting to listen and i have no issues with it.

Now to the topic, In Islam all systems of life and rights are given in Quran.

If a man believe in resurrection than he definitely behave in this world, but if he believes only on this world, than he is free to spread evil.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....
the righteous islamic khalifas got killed because they failed to setup institutions?

Ready for some education? Now don't run away crying blasphemy. Promise?

FYI. Islamists don't have a concept of institutions. Let me tell you something.

The biggest issues (among many) of not having institutions was to figure out the succession and peaceful transfer of power and the limit of Khalifa's term. Khalifa's were rulers for life just like kings and emperors of their day. No difference.

For Khalifah 1, there was no set rules for transfer of power, that modern democracies take for granted.

So Ali's supporters and Abu bakar's supporters clashed and quibbled. Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, but Abu bakers supporter followed friends line of succession.

Once the matter was about to get out of hand, Umer stepped in with sword and forced Ali's supports to shut up and quiet down.


This is how our first Khalifa was chosen.

No institutions at the end of his rule

So Ali's supporters and Umer's supporters clashed and quibbled. Again Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, while Umer's supporter followed friends line of succession.

Umer's sword was stronger so he won


Still no institutions for making laws and peaceful transfer of power.


So when Umer was assassinated

Ali's supporters again clahed and quibbled, But Usman's money/tribal power won. Again Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, while anti-Ali supporter followed friends line of succession.

So

Usman became Khalifa

Still no term limit, no instiutions for peaceful transfer of power. Again Ali's supporters strictly followed blood line for succession, while Usman's supporter followed friends line of succession.

This time Ali's supporters have had it. So Usman was murdered while one of Ali's son was guarding Usman's house. Yeah there are stories of how assissns jumped the back wall.


When Usman got assassinated


Ali's supporters who always strictly followed blood line for succession, finally got a chance.


Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.

So Aysha jumped into the fray as per family line of succession instead of blood lines.

Thus there was war

1000s of Sahabis died


Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.


When Ali was assassinated

Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.

So the battle ensued between Ali's blood line and Moawia

That continued through blood lines of Moawia (Yazeed) and Ali's blood lines.


Still no institutions for transfer of power and term limit.



I hope I have given you enough examples.

I hope you are willing to understand the value of institutions and the impact of the absence of such institutions in the Rashid Khilafat.


peace


p.s. Read Shibli Nomani's excellent book Al-Farooq to learn the true history.

 

[BATMAN]

Too much fitna... attempts.

Shall we discuss the shia and non Shia history or discuss the terms!

 

[FaujHistorian]

Too much fitna... attempts.

Shall we discuss the shia and non Shia history or discuss the terms!

Terms will result or not result in building secure and sound instiutions.

As long as we ignore Pakistan to be a true Republic without religious mumbo jumbo,

we will not be able to build stable instiutions and orderly transfer of power.


p.s

Fitna should be blamed on people who created fitna in 7th century

and

not someone who was born in 20th century.

 

[BATMAN]

Terms will result or not result in building secure and sound instiutions.

As long as we ignore Pakistan to be a true Republic without religious mumbo jumbo,

we will not be able to build stable instiutions and orderly transfer of power.


p.s

Fitna should be blamed on people who created fitna in 7th century

and

not someone who was born in 20th century.

Ignore the terms fine.. tell me is Pakistan govt. Islamic or Republic?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Ignore the terms fine.. tell me is Pakistan govt. Islamic or Republic?

Confused and contradictory heap of mumbo jumbo.

 

[BATMAN]

Confused and contradictory heap of mumbo jumbo.

So, shall i take it as un-islamic, mambo jumbo!

On the other hand, all developed nations have surprisingly adopted Islamic way of governance, minus Islam and few tweaks to benefit few selected.

 

[FaujHistorian]

So, shall i take it as un-islamic, mambo jumbo!

Mumbo jumbo was referring to the Islamic part.

On the other hand, all developed nations have surprisingly adopted Islamic way of governance, minus Islam and few tweaks to benefit few selected.

Totally incorrect and perhaps self made self slapping statement by some Islamist.

To be honest.

Islam never gave even a hint of modern institution.



Name one single institution that comes from Islamist era and not from Greeks or Romans.


The core at the instiuttions for developed nations (EU, UK, US etc) is based on Greko Roman concept of citizenship.

Not a single Islamic ruler had that concept.

So if the core is not comparable, rest of comparisons are just un-intellectual (that is nicer way of saying that such comparisons are $tupid )


Thank you.

 

[RangerPK]

Republic is actually a nation-state federation or union binded by the constitution. such as Pakistan or America.

the word Islamic republic is A muslim nation state which is binded by a constitution governed by the principle of Islam.

there is no issue. you will see some half-baked minds building and destroying correlation between two words, for their understanding is limited to words, not the philosophy behind it.

Yes. I agree. I do not know what the issue is. As far as Islam is concerned, there is no right or wrong way to build a state or elect a leader. This part of state building is left open for different cultures to decide how to do it, and they do so organically themselves.


The republic part, is our cultural organic evolution to build our state. Which naturally comes to humans.

The Islamic part means, there would be a narrative of the state, which it would have to follow.

For example, A state would not go around killing people for being from other different religions, because it is against the narrative of Islam, on this matter. Further more, each individual would have the freedom to practice his/her religion, even if it is paganism. This is the narrative of Islam, which the state would have to follow.


Same way, hypothetically speaking, if we have, Islamic Communist of ( Insert country name here)

Then the country would have communism, but it would follow the same narrative of Islam. As the example above. an Islamic communist country, wont go around killing people of different religions, or ban religions, because such actions are against the narrative of Islam.


So Islamic Republic of Pakistan is NOT an oxymoron.

Nor is Islamic Communism of Pakistan for that matter....