What's new

When Jinah Met Muslim brotherhood leadership

they hate the Brotherhood and see them as a threat; their support is for the Salafists like el Noor
But sir, books by the Muslim Brother hood are part of there curriculum as explained by a member of Jamat! Also there are numerous references.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report » Leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami Issue Anti-Semitic And Anti-American Comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-e-Islami_Pakistan

Drawing parallels between Jamaat-e-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood – The Express Tribune

and many more available on internet. Also what i said was from a member of Jamat-e-Islami (not that i trust them a lot :P )
 
Mr first read about Karbala and don't quote me Shia things I have read it in detail and many have been proven wrong yes Yazid always in our elections and followers of Imam Hussain always loose Mr Democracy is complete kufr not even close to Islam

Democracy is in contradiction with Islam its rules are in complete contradiction with Islam as Muslims we can't follow democracy

I dont think any of us in entitled to issuing Fatwa's of Kufr! So please Stop this.

As for general discussion, you may provide some points that are against democracy and we can debate on that. But better not on this thread and please not with this chanting of KUFR KUFR!! this is 5hit!!
 
Mr first read about Karbala and don't quote me Shia things I have read it in detail and many have been proven wrong yes Yazid always in our elections and followers of Imam Hussain always loose Mr Democracy is complete kufr not even close to Islam

My brother why are you so arrogant?

1. If you remember your Fiqh class - you would know that the most important concern is the intent of the legislator (Allah). A true Faqeeh never forgets that. Parroting other people's opinions without understanding the nuances of age/era, context, meaning, & intention does not help in understanding an issue of vital importance. Your view is probably based on one Hadees. If you are capable of looking at how mature democratic system actually works with choosing of candidates, process of elections, checks & balances, and the system of safeguards, you would realize that the admonition contained in that Hadees does not quite apply here

2. I would like to ask how come Ulema accepted Kingship as an acceptable system of governance, when kingship went against everything that Islam teaches in matter of establishment of government? In this day and age, the only way of peacefully changing government is through ballot box. If you have a better idea, please let me know.

I hope you realize one day that your opinion indirectly supports confusion and fitnah in today's Islamic world. Calling democracy Kufr and extrapolating this Kufr to the whole of nation is the AlQaeda way of looking at things. This is how killing of innocents is justified and this is how Muslim countries are falling into ruin. I am not saying that you are related to AQ, but that your view finds its expression in how they justify their actions.

3. When you call democracy Kufr, then do you also mean that all the people who participate in democratic process are practicing Kufr? What about the members and supporters of religious political parties? Are they also practicing Kufr? Our elected representatives and government functionaries are also product of Kufr?

When you call democracy Kufr, you are effectively denying the basis of Pakistan's creation. I am not sure you have the right to speak about Pakistan's political & strategic issues when you are against the basis of creation of Pakistan. Tell me straight up: Do you consider Pakistan a product of Kufr?

4. What makes you think I do not know about what happened at Karbala? What makes you think I am quoting Shia things? What Shia thing did I say and how can you prove me wrong? What do you mean when you say "many have been proven wrong"? Perhaps you derive certitude and security from your belief that you are automatically always right, but I would like to know the basis of it.

5. It would be best if you leave aside your interpretation of Islam when you post on this forum. Your opinions and pronouncements fit very nicely with negative stereotypes of what many here consider a "religious person". Many here ridicule religion, religiosity, and religious people and you provide them with plenty of ammunition on this count. You are source of embarrassment and ridicule for practicing Muslims who are aware of nuances and distinctions necessary in today's world. A saving grace would be a show of courtesy & politeness, but you can not manage to do that even.

If you care to use the term Mister, you may as well mean it. It is a polite and formal way of addressing the other person. You seem to be using it in a derogatory manner - as suits a Mullah who is unaware of many things, but is very aware of his assumed position of moral & educational superiority.
 
My brother why are you so arrogant?

1. If you remember your Fiqh class - you would know that the most important concern is the intent of the legislator (Allah). A true Faqeeh never forgets that. Parroting other people's opinions without understanding the nuances of age/era, context, meaning, & intention does not help in understanding an issue of vital importance. Your view is probably based on one Hadees. If you are capable of looking at how mature democratic system actually works with choosing of candidates, process of elections, checks & balances, and the system of safeguards, you would realize that the admonition contained in that Hadees does not quite apply here

2. I would like to ask how come Ulema accepted Kingship as an acceptable system of governance, when kingship went against everything that Islam teaches in matter of establishment of government? In this day and age, the only way of peacefully changing government is through ballot box. If you have a better idea, please let me know.

I hope you realize one day that your opinion indirectly supports confusion and fitnah in today's Islamic world. Calling democracy Kufr and extrapolating this Kufr to the whole of nation is the AlQaeda way of looking at things. This is how killing of innocents is justified and this is how Muslim countries are falling into ruin. I am not saying that you are related to AQ, but that your view finds its expression in how they justify their actions.

3. When you call democracy Kufr, then do you also mean that all the people who participate in democratic process are practicing Kufr? What about the members and supporters of religious political parties? Are they also practicing Kufr? Our elected representatives and government functionaries are also product of Kufr?

When you call democracy Kufr, you are effectively denying the basis of Pakistan's creation. I am not sure you have the right to speak about Pakistan's political & strategic issues when you are against the basis of creation of Pakistan. Tell me straight up: Do you consider Pakistan a product of Kufr?

4. What makes you think I do not know about what happened at Karbala? What makes you think I am quoting Shia things? What Shia thing did I say and how can you prove me wrong? What do you mean when you say "many have been proven wrong"? Perhaps you derive certitude and security from your belief that you are automatically always right, but I would like to know the basis of it.

5. It would be best if you leave aside your interpretation of Islam when you post on this forum. Your opinions and pronouncements fit very nicely with negative stereotypes of what many here consider a "religious person". Many here ridicule religion, religiosity, and religious people and you provide them with plenty of ammunition on this count. You are source of embarrassment and ridicule for practicing Muslims who are aware of nuances and distinctions necessary in today's world. A saving grace would be a show of courtesy & politeness, but you can not manage to do that even.

If you care to use the term Mister, you may as well mean it. It is a polite and formal way of addressing the other person. You seem to be using it in a derogatory manner - as suits a Mullah who is unaware of many things, but is very aware onf his assumed position of moral & educational superiority.
First of all most propaganda about yazeed is false many sahabas had done bait of yazeed sir some of them were from Badar I mean those who participated in battle of badar yazeed was neither corrupt nor he used to somethings against Islam Mr but only reason he didn't deserved Khilafat was that he was not a Sahabi and Many Sahabas were alive at that time Mr and main responsible for killing of Imam Hussain is Ibn Ziyad Yazeed strictly prohibited him to attack yazeed and still yazeed children were also married to grand children of Imam Hussain and other family members you have not written shia things but you are influenced by Shia propaganda which unfortunately most Pakistanis are yes in Islam their can be no political parties this is the biggest divider of Muslims This is PPPP Muslim this PML N Muslim and in result they bash each other which is not allowed Mr I give a dam about others I would keep telling the true facts and what is written in Quran and sunnah and what lies are told in the name off history
 
I can quote Quran and Hadith in support of a mature democratic system in opposition to kingship / dictatorship / plutocracy. By calling a system of Kufr as Khilafah does not make it Halal. Kingship is close to Kufr and democracy is close to Islam.

This makes perfect sense.

Mr first read about Karbala and don't quote me Shia things I have read it in detail and many have been proven wrong yes Yazid always in our elections and followers of Imam Hussain always loose Mr Democracy is complete kufr not even close to Islam

Zarvan bhai, if Democracy is against Islam, why Pakistan as an Islamic state follow Democracy ? I believe, the current ruling govt of Pakistan is a democratic govt. Am I wrong in thinking that ? Don't you think, your current democratic Govt is against the Islam ? Your thoughts on this please ?
 
Sheikh Hassan Bann wrote to King Farouk, then King of Egypt and other Kings and Prime Ministers of the Muslim world with his 50-point agenda; which if implemented the same would have transformed the Muslim society to a peaceful law abiding citizens.

Ikhwane Muslimeen was not an extremist party as conceived by Sheikh Hassan Banna. I have read translation of his 50 point agenda. Nowhere does he subscribe to violence and like all Muslims Scholars he considered ‘Suicide’ as ‘Haraam’.

I am also an admirer of Sheikh Banna for his work for the welfare of Suez Canal workers in Ismailia and his strong support for the Palestinian cause. I also don’t see any strong anti-US bias in his writings. My only criticism would be Sheikh Banna’s open admiration of Hitler & the Nazis.
Sheikh Banna was killed in 1949 in Cairo probably by an Israel agent.

Ikhwane Muslimeen changed its character and adopted militant Salafi ideas thru Syed Qutb. Especially after his return from the US. Syed Qutb joined Ikhwan in 1950 and soon rose thru the ranks and soon become their chief spokesman thru their weekly publication. It was this time that Ikhwan changed into an extremist /terrorist organization and strong opponent of Nasserism. Syed Qutb in his various writing propagates his view as only true Islam. Modern Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations take their inspiration from Syed Qutb's writings.

To my simple mind no mortal can go against the word of Allah as revealed in the holy Quran. IMHO Ikhwane Muslimeen follows a heretic version of Islam. The photo posted above would not have been possible under Syed Qutb’s leadership of Ikhwan as they would consider most of the persons in the above as kafir.
 
First of all most propaganda about yazeed is false many sahabas had done bait of yazeed sir some of them were from Badar I mean those who participated in battle of badar yazeed was neither corrupt nor he used to somethings against Islam Mr but only reason he didn't deserved Khilafat was that he was not a Sahabi and Many Sahabas were alive at that time Mr and main responsible for killing of Imam Hussain is Ibn Ziyad Yazeed strictly prohibited him to attack yazeed and still yazeed children were also married to grand children of Imam Hussain and other family members you have not written shia things but you are influenced by Shia propaganda which unfortunately most Pakistanis are yes in Islam their can be no political parties this is the biggest divider of Muslims This is PPPP Muslim this PML N Muslim and in result they bash each other which is not allowed Mr I give a dam about others I would keep telling the true facts and what is written in Quran and sunnah and what lies are told in the name off history

Hon Sir,

Battle of Badr took place in year 2 of Hijra. Amir Muawiyah died in year 60 AH. Any one who had taken part in the battle of Badr had to be at least 16 years old. Thus even youngest veterans of Badr would be in their late 70’s.

As a scholar you must be aware that accession of Yazeed was very unopular in both Mecca & Medina. Yazeed had sent his henchman Marwan bin Al Hakm to Medina to coerce the grandees of Medina such as Imam Hussain (RA), Abdullah ibne Zubair ( RA) & Abdulla bin Umar (RA). To the best my knowledge neither Imam Hussein (RA) nor Addullah ibne Zubair (RA) who was grandson of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) ever swore oath of allegiance to Yazeed. Abullah ibne Abbas (RA) & Abdullah bin Umar (RA) probably did but Ibne Abbas (RA) was only 4 years old & Abdulla ibne Umar (RA) was 10 at the time of Badr.

Only 313 took part in Badr. 14 were shaheed and out the rest 299 majority were certainly dead when Yazeed took power as very few people lived beyond 70 in those times. The very few who were still alive would have been much too old. Holy Prophet (PBUH) died in 632 AD, Yazeed's era started in 680 AD that is 48 years later. Thus only Sehaba alive then were those who were kids during the holy Prophet's time.

Your assertion about veteran's of Badr & most of Sehaba swearing 'Bait' on Yazeed appears to be historically improbable. This is obviuosly one of the myths concocted by the admirers of Yazeed to improve his image.
 
Hon Sir,

Battle of Badr took place in year 2 of Hijra. Amir Muawiyah died in year 60 AH. Any one who had taken part in the battle of Badr had to be at least 16 years old. Thus even youngest veterans of Badr would be in their late 70’s.

As a scholar you must be aware that accession of Yazeed was very unopular in both Mecca & Medina. Yazeed had sent his henchman Marwan bin Al Hakm to Medina to coerce the grandees of Medina such as Imam Hussain (RA), Abdullah ibne Zubair ( RA) & Abdulla bin Umar (RA). To the best my knowledge neither Imam Hussein (RA) nor Addullah ibne Zubair (RA) who was grandson of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) ever swore oath of allegiance to Yazeed. Abullah ibne Abbas (RA) & Abdullah bin Umar (RA) probably did but Ibne Abbas (RA) was only 4 years old & Abdulla ibne Umar (RA) was 10 at the time of Badr.

Only 313 took part in Badr. 14 were shaheed and out the rest 299 majority were certainly dead when Yazeed took power as very few people lived beyond 70 in those times. The very few who were still alive would have been much too old. Holy Prophet (PBUH) died in 632 AD, Yazeed's era started in 680 AD that is 48 years later. Thus only Sehaba alive then were those who were kids during the holy Prophet's time.

Your assertion about veteran's of Badr & most of Sehaba swearing 'Bait' on Yazeed appears to be historically improbable. This is obviuosly one of the myths concocted by the admirers of Yazeed to improve his image.
Mr only 4 Sahabas disagreed with him and many other Sahabas took bait to yazeed they were not scared of yazeed only they wanted to avoid fitna and Yazeed was appointed because that tribe didn't wanted Khilafat to go out side because what happened to HAZRAT USMAN RA was not very old thing Still they were Sahabas Mr and they had fought wars their whole life and by the way yazeed was also part of that group which Hazrat Muhammad SAW gave glad tiding to that those who would attack the city Constantinople would be in Jannah Sir mine one is correct I have searched a lot even Shias major books and Sunni all authentic books confirm it Shia who abuse Sahabas abuse Yazeed and try to prove him the way they do so they can damage Sahabas several Sahabas in one go others left to be insulted and main person behind Karbala was Ibn Ziyad not Yazeed
 
1174758_533634213358061_1357634977_n.jpg
@Aeronaut @Leader @WebMaster @Antibody @nuclearpak @Oscar @Major Sam @through pro @RazPaK @Zakii @Arsalan @araz @fatman17 and others

Let those who are trying to "secularize" Pakistan, look at this photo and many more of such pictures and reports to understand the true Islamic ideology of the conceptual Pakistan, which was framed to deliver the Muslims of Hindustan from the Hindu plans of ethnic cleansing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
holy

Saudi Arabia Promises to Aid Egypt's Regime

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-vows-to-back-egypts-rulers.html?pagewanted=all

more:

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has voiced support for the crackdown by Egypt's military-backed interim government on members of the Muslim Brotherhood.


Saud al-Faisal released a statement on Monday. He said a terrorist group is threatening Egypt's stability and the nation's authorities should deal firmly with the threat.

Saud said some countries are freezing financial aid for Egypt, but he suggested Saudi Arabia will continue sending assistance.

Leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates imposed restrictions on activities by the Muslim Brotherhood in their country.

@Zarvan sab iqtadar ka khail hay piyaray !!
Saudis are supporting "sisi" because "sisi" has allowed wahabi political party named "Noor party" to form the alliance government.Historically, KSA has always supported anything which could help them to propagate their religious ideology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr only 4 Sahabas disagreed with him and many other Sahabas took bait to yazeed they were not scared of yazeed only they wanted to avoid fitna and Yazeed was appointed because that tribe didn't wanted Khilafat to go out side because what happened to HAZRAT USMAN RA was not very old thing Still they were Sahabas Mr and they had fought wars their whole life and by the way yazeed was also part of that group which Hazrat Muhammad SAW gave glad tiding to that those who would attack the city Constantinople would be in Jannah Sir mine one is correct I have searched a lot even Shias major books and Sunni all authentic books confirm it Shia who abuse Sahabas abuse Yazeed and try to prove him the way they do so they can damage Sahabas several Sahabas in one go others left to be insulted and main person behind Karbala was Ibn Ziyad not Yazeed


Hon Sir,

Yazid ruled for less than 4 years and except for the tragedy of Karbala nothing special or of any consequence happened during his time.

I have heard about the Hadith in Sahih Muslim “First army that will attack Constantinople will enter in Paradise”. I have a translation of ‘Sahih Bukhari’ in my personal library which lists "The army from my people who will first perform jihad through water has made Paradise obligatory for itself."
I am of the view that Sahih Bukhari Hadith relates to campaigns of Abdullah ibne Zubair in North Africa.

By the way, Yazid was born some 15 years after our holy Prophet (PBUH) passed away.
 
Hon Sir,

Yazid ruled for less than 4 years and except for the tragedy of Karbala nothing special or of any consequence happened during his time.

I have heard about the Hadith in Sahih Muslim “First army that will attack Constantinople will enter in Paradise”. I have a translation of ‘Sahih Bukhari’ in my personal library which lists "The army from my people who will first perform jihad through water has made Paradise obligatory for itself."
I am of the view that Sahih Bukhari Hadith relates to campaigns of Abdullah ibne Zubair in North Africa.

By the way, Yazid was born some 15 years after our holy Prophet (PBUH) passed away.
No Sir HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW have mentioned the city Sir
 
First of all most propaganda about yazeed is false many sahabas had done bait of yazeed sir some of them were from Badar I mean those who participated in battle of badar yazeed was neither corrupt nor he used to somethings against Islam Mr but only reason he didn't deserved Khilafat was that he was not a Sahabi and Many Sahabas were alive at that time Mr and main responsible for killing of Imam Hussain is Ibn Ziyad Yazeed strictly prohibited him to attack yazeed and still yazeed children were also married to grand children of Imam Hussain and other family members you have not written shia things but you are influenced by Shia propaganda which unfortunately most Pakistanis are yes in Islam their can be no political parties this is the biggest divider of Muslims This is PPPP Muslim this PML N Muslim and in result they bash each other which is not allowed Mr I give a dam about others I would keep telling the true facts and what is written in Quran and sunnah and what lies are told in the name off history

What are you doing on this jew kafir invented internet? Shouldn't you be with your brothers in Waziristan hiding under a palang from a drone strike?
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom