Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
@Zarvan you are quite a crude & dishonest copy-paste artist. Why can you not have the decency of crediting an article when clearly you DID NOT write it?
You had asked me to read your very very lengthy reply. It is interesting to note that you do not have the intellectual or educational capacity to write something like this yourself. You picked it up from something like:
Muslims Against Voting
And you did not have the decency to link the source. How is that for honesty?
I have scanned through it, and the following are my observations:
1. If this is the extent of your knowledge about political science, then indeed you are in a sorry state. In my last post, I suggested that you get a little bit of an education in Political Science, precisely because I had guessed that the absence of any argument from you to support your POV was because of your lack of basic knowledge in Political Science. I had also guessed you mind-set, but I wanted you to come up with something a bit more reasoned so that I could shred through it. Your two-bit proclamations were getting over-repetitive and absence of any arguments or references just showed the shallowness of your understanding.
2. I have indeed scanned through the references provided in the article - Both Quranic Verses, and Ahadith. I believe in them whole-heartedly, completely, unequivocally. I need to say this so that you may be able to understand what I am going to say next.
I can assure you that the case made is flimsy and the references from Quran and Hadith are mis-applied. Whoever wrote the article has a motivation for mis-representation and that is why he has stretched the meaning of Quran and Hadith and still not able to do a job that he set out to do. So, I can state without any fear of contradiction that the case made by the article is NOT proven.... The arguments are specious, sort of like A is equal to B, therefore A is also equal to Z! This is intellectual laziness at best and outright dishonesty at worst.
3. The author clearly does not have any proper idea of the impact of what he is saying. It is typical fatalist tendency of Salafist 'revolutionaries' to decry everything, without actually offering anything concrete - quite similar to what you have been doing. This is Fitna, Haraj, Fasad. When a group of people set out to dismantle an order (even an imperfect order), without having the capacity (intellectual, educational, moral) to replace it, they are guilty of Zulm. Yes that is right. You are preaching Zulm, because you know what you are told and taught to hate, but you are not able to say anything with certainty as to what must replace it. Throwing around words like Sahaba, Khilafah, Sunnah, does not cut it. Imagine that you abolish a system and when everything is thrown into chaos, muttering vague terms will not recreate order. This is AlQaeda's way of doing (or rather messing up) things. Only incredibly angry, naive, and reactionary people can subscribe to such stuff. One has to be blind to not see the logical result of such thinking.
4. There are indeed FALSE PREMISES in the article quoted by you, such as:
A) Legislation is Shirk (?????). ummm, not really. If Sahaba could legislate for their time, why can't we? We clearly live in a different age and era which is much different from the time of Sahaba. If they could legislate even within a year or two into establishment of Caliphate about things like the term of service in Army, or punishment for theft in times of famine, or ways and means of preserving Quran, then why can't we legislate about concerns of OUR time? Why can we not discuss and legislate about electronic crimes, value of DNA, misuse of Internet, etc...? Clearly the author lives in West or looks only at West to not bother about checking the self-imposed limits to legislation in an Islamic country. He has neither the brains, nor the inclination to learn about Constitutional government in MUSLIM countries. Because if he does, he can not make a White-and-Black case of Islam-against-Kufr, or Haq-against-Batil, or Deen-against-Taghoot. That is also why you have no time for details. You must brush them aside so that you can keep your focus on Zulm, without acknowledging Zulm as it is.
B) Many scholars have decided that voting is haram: And what scholars does the idiot author quote? Not some one respectable or really learned, but AlQaeda operatives like OBL and AlZwahiri. Also thrown into the mix is the one named Albanee - I particularly dislike his half-baked theories based on shoddy faux-scholarship. Do you want me to mention some of his outlandish 'fatwas'? None of these 'scholars' had much in the way of scholarship. No achievement, but they did spread a lot of confusion by their crooked political projects.
C) By Voting, people assume ultimate responsibility for wrong-doings of their rulers: Really??? Politicians are not robots you know. People do not actually hold a collective remote control to make politicians do their bidding. British public was against Iraq war, and yet Tony Blair jumped into it. Vietnam is another example. Come to Pakistan, we had worst leaders like Yahya and Musharraf as bloody dictators. Show one politician worse than them? Trouble with you and the writer of the article is that you both know that voting usually keeps extremists out of power, and therefore you must find fault with it.
5. There are a number of IMPLIED premises:
A) Caliphate continued til end of Ottoman rule: NO - Caliphate ended with Hazrat Ali (R.A). Some may include Amir Muavia, since Hazrat Hassan (R.A.) yielded his right. But no matter how you look at it, Amir Muavia turned it into Kingship, and that was the end of Caliphate. Calling a power-grabbing King by the name of Caliph does not make him a Caliph. You have purposely avoided discussing the difference between Caliphate and Kingship because you knew that you could not defend this label.
B) A scholar does not need to learn, but needs to agree with the notions of the Writer: I am not even going to comment on this foolishness.
C) A Daleel is only valid if it agrees with certain notions of the Writer, and ordinary Muslims are irrelevant: I need to quote two Hadith in this regard. First one has mafhoom like My Ummah shall not agree on an error. Second one has mafhoom Obey majority. Clearly these two Hadith contradict your POV, or atleast puncture it pretty badly. Besides this, you ignore the fact that it is the common people who pay taxes and must therefore have a say in how these taxes are spent. But this is novel notion for people who tend to view people as tax-payers who are good as cannon fodder for wars. To you such a notion is Bidah because it gets in way of your political projects of world conquest. Only that you do not know that even if you somehow assume the right to farm people and grab their money, you can never conquer the world. Islam is not about 'conquering' the world. It is about out-competing other man-made models and presenting people with a choice. But these notions require scholarship and thinking, both of which are beyond people like you.
There are others, but I would stop here.
6. Your 'superiors' are those who happen to divide world into 'Dar-ul-Islam' & 'Dar-ul-Kufr' / 'Dar-ul-Harb'. These notions lost their meaning a few centuries ago. Colonialism ensured that. But still insisting on these notions - as implied by the posted Article - is somehow key to 'correct' version of Islam? The world is a whole lot greyer and mixed up than the days gone by. Even if one were to accept the validity of such views in ancient times, they no longer hold valid today. There are reasons for it, like a great number of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, etc... but I would not go into it just yet.
7. Your interest in Pakistan is unmistakable. You are over-concerned about weapons systems of Army, Navy, Air Force, etc... You are also interested in number of troops and their training. If Indian planes violate Pakistani Air Space for a couple of minutes, you loose your sleep and apatite over it. Does it ever occur to you that Pakistan was created by Voting process? If Pakistan is a result of Haram, then please leave this Haram place. You have quoted OBL, AlZawahiri, and others like them, all of them Arabs, and mostly belonging to Saudi Arabia. Why do you not go to Saudi Arabia and be rid of us? Please your logic should not support you being in Pakistan, a Haram country made by a Haram process of Evil voting, Right? So please then, go live in an Arab country, where dictators and Kings rule, notions of freedom and rights are conditional and uncertain - constitutionalism is not found there in a recognizable form.
8. In view of all the above, when you present your views as being 'Islamic' or rather 'more Islamic' then really you are presenting your lack of knowledge and asking us to believe in you. Sorry, it is not possible. It is also interesting to note that people of TTP and AQ have the exact same mind-set. I am surprised that you profess interest in Pakistan's Army, Air Force, and Navy. Your views are exactly those of the people who have attacked our Airbases, our personnel, and our civilian population. How does it make you feel to use language and rhetoric of terrorists?
9. Lastly, @Zarvan, read all of my reply and respond with civility and without wild accusations like an AlQaeda operative.
Pakistan was not created through voting process if WORLD WAR 2 wouldn't have taken place their would have been no Pakistan UK face so much losses in World War II that they couldn't afford to maintain south Asia and If voting would have taken place Pakistan wouldn't have been created this funny voting or referendums only took place in Muslim areas that is why we won other wise it would have been blunder
Islam against Democracy | Muslims Against Voting
Mr I would not leave this place I would change this system even if I had to go thorough blood bath it would be changed this kufr system of democracy would not survive for long now the change is near it may be the most bloodiest one but it would come
Last edited by a moderator:
