[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *
And i have heard about that news less than about the first.....because?!
Who is the claiming group?
[/QUOTE]
Not many people are sympathetic when terrorist supporters are killed. It is a natural reaction.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Agent Smith: *
Mr Patriot wrote **an Islamic republic that treats some citizens as first class and others as second or third really worth it,*
Declaring someone as non-Muslim minority does not make them a 2nd class or 3rd class citizen. That’s your speculation; I didn’t say anything like this. They have are free to practice their faith.
Mr Patriot wrote he wanted a secular Muslims majority state. You know this and I know this
I didn't know this. You are telling me something new. Maulana Mawdudi argued that from the beginning of the struggle for Pakistan, Muslems had an understanding that the center of their aspirations, Pakistan, would be an Islamic state, in which Islamic law would be enforced and Islamic culture would be revived. Above all, Quaid-i-Azam himself assured the Muslims that the constitution of Pakistan would be based on the Quran.
Maududi, demanded that the Constitutional Assembly should unequivocally declare:
1. That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.
2. That the Islamic Shariah shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.
3. That all existing or future legislation which may contravene, whether in letter or in spirit, the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of the constitution; and
4. That the powers of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of the Islamic Shariah alone.
I don't see word secular anywhere? Are you sure that Pakistan supposed to be secular nation? If we wanted to live in a secular nation then we would not have separated from India which is a secular nation.
Next time do some research before you start expressing your lame points.
[/QUOTE]
Your religion teaches you to have an open mind and try to understand or thats what some Mulsims would lead us to belileve. Im not sure if thats your strong point.
When you make a law that discriminates against a certain group then you are not treatng those citizens as equals..
Think about this.
Ahmedis are not allowed to worship freely. Not the mark of a respected citizen offcourse.
Ahmadis have sign a paper in which they basically give up their religous belief in exchange for voting rights.
No Minorities can be PM of this amazing Islamic republic regardless of their citizenship.
Minorities are not allowed to progress in many facets of society including the Military where they are usually superceded by member of the majority. The govt knows this, but no one cares.
Religous minorites have to watch what they say or do in order to prevent offending the majority. No one dares say anything against Islam, This is punishable by death. BUT a so called Muslim can say whatever he wants, they can desicrate a Mandir, throw rocks at Guru nanaks gurdwara, and the Minorites would be lucky if the cuprits are even given a slap on the wrist. Most of the time the authorites support such action. If the govt had made Blasphemy a crime punishable in regards to all faiths and not just Islam, then it might have been acceptable, but no...Second class citizens are not worth such rights.
If you dont see the obviuos then you need to take your head out of you rear end... I dare you to respond. :)
As for the second half, I think you do know this and you choose to ignore it. I refer to Jinnahs sppech in which he said that ALL citizens are FREE TO WORSHIP as they please and ITS NO BUSSINES OF THE GOVT...
He also said that at some point, everyone will meld into one people regardless of their faith, at least in the political sense. He said THEIR RELIGOUS BELIEFS WERE THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIFS. Seems like a pretty clear declaration of his intentions. And just because a govt is inspired by a religoun, and turns to it for advice, doent make it a relgious govt. Many secular govt claim to be inspired by their faith, Bush govt being just one example. I believe Jinnah tried to appease people like you by having a govt that turned to Islam for some guidance but this was not the call for a Islamic state. We seperated from India based not on religoun but to Politics. Learn your history my friend, your religoun teaches you that much, otherwise shut up.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PaKpatriot1: *
We seperated from India based not on religoun but to Politics.
[/QUOTE]
really ? .... then how were the borders of Pakistan shaped based on what political agenda?
Yaar, you can belive what you want. First of all, I never said he wasnt a Muslims, I just said he wasnt a good one. He claimed to be Muslim and thats good enough for me. . Ofcourse I still dont think this brings him down in any way, I still respect him regardless of whether he was a good Muslim or not. But, if Jinnah is meanigless, then we might aswell hand Pakistan back to India and be done with the mess all these religous maniacs have made of it. Because it wasn’t they who created this country. As for the Prophet I have read some accounts of him but the most interesting one is concerning how he ruled. When settleing a case between Christians or Jews, he would use their laws to make his decision not Islamic laws. This to me is a good indication of what he thought of as good governance. Respect for others beliefs and not forcing your belifs and your laws on others. Also, I dont think Muslim know enough about their religion to be able to accuratly apply laws that were laid down over a millenia ago to the modern day. I mean, you guys really need a serious Ijtehad to catch up with the times here people. Failing this, most of the stuff you religous people are always spouting is also irrelevent to our modern times. Islam has to be reinterpreted to give meaning to a modern people. I for one dont see any meaning in a religion whos laws were made to apply to a group of desert dwellers over two thousand years ago. Show me how we can apply these ancient laws, and I think we can, and I might consider your point.
Second, about secularism, I admit, I dont think its the only way to progress, but it helps A LOT. The presnt setup is unfair and hypocritical. If you could see what garbage there is in that so called Islamic state you would probably ask for a secular one. Im sure your god can see that behind the Islamic facade is a big lie. A facade will not get you into heaven. The Kafir nations may be corrupt, and full of sin, but atleast they are honest about it. The same garbage goes on in Pak and worse and we hide it and pretend to be saints.
Honestly, I see Pakistan as a huge insult to Islam, and if you really want to do Islam a favor, you will stop eating grass, stop living this hypocrit nation and its fake Islamic facade. Lastly, to be secular doesnt mean to be Kufar, it only means the govt doesnt intefer in you religious beliefs or holds on to its own. I think thats the basic responsiblity of any govt but sadly our rligious govt doesnt support those beliefs.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChaChoo: *
really ? .... then how were the borders of Pakistan shaped based on what political agenda?
[/QUOTE]
The areas where Muslims were a majority were ceded to Pakistan, but not Muslims the religious group, but rather Muslims the POLITICAL MINORITY.
Jinnah didnt envision a state for Islam, but one where Muslims as minority in unified Indias could be the majority. Jinnah didnt care if the Muslim minority that would form his new country prayed to Allah or some other god, he was only concerned about political right of Muslims.
This is partly why they religous parties oppsed Jinnah and Pakistan, because they say him as another Secularist and felt Islam would actually be a threatned by the creation of Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Degas: *
But u didnt condemned the terrorist acts of shias who killed these muslims! Since u can nevwer perceiveany shia doing a terrosrist act and the only worry about theincidence is that in retaliation they will kill more shias.. sameis the case of terrorists who killed shais last week .. they never thought they were doing any thing wrong.. the fat is there are sunni and shias terorists though in minority but the fact ius we havethem in both camps who believe killing te other party is a great service.. the day u will acknowledge and condemn shias terrorists they will be weaken .. but if u keep on justifying their acts and have carefree attitude for those killers this vicious go on for ever.. ur assumption that all wahabis are evil is same as wahabis's perception of shias..
[/QUOTE]
I think this was a revenge killing, harder to condemn someone who fights out of revenge and someone who kilss innocent for nothing at all.
Doesnt Islam allow people the right to revenge that fair and balanced? You slap me I slap you?
If all land is Allahs, then you should let the Palestinians, Kashmiris and Chechens in on it. They may be interested to know that they are fighting for land that isnt their to begin with.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PaKpatriot1: *
The areas where Muslims were a majority were ceded to Pakistan, but not Muslims the religious group, but rather Muslims the POLITICAL MINORITY.
Jinnah didnt envision a state for Islam, but one where Muslims as minority in unified Indias could be the majority. Jinnah didnt care if the Muslim minority that would form his new country prayed to Allah or some other god, he was only concerned about political right of Muslims.
This is partly why they religous parties oppsed Jinnah and Pakistan, because they say him as another Secularist and felt Islam would actually be a threatned by the creation of Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
Muslims “the religious group” or “political minority” … the whole movement of independence was based on the rights including political for Muslims (follower of Islam)… why does anyone care about political rights? Jinnah envisioned a state for Muslims where they can freely live and pray exercising their political rights… He was neither leading this cause for one particular religious sect nor he cared what those sects stood for but one thing was for sure it was for Muslims (people who practice Islam)….. political movements are based on some agenda… what was that motivation why was this minority in need of a leader like him? …. Jinnah was a great leader and no doubt he brought relief and hope to millions of Muslims ….
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChaChoo: *
Muslims “the religious group” or “political minority” … the whole movement of independence was based on the rights including political for Muslims (follower of Islam)… why does anyone care about political rights? Jinnah envisioned a state for Muslims where they can freely live and pray exercising their political rights… He was neither leading this cause for one particular religious sect nor he cared what those sects stood for but one thing was for sure it was for Muslims (people who practice Islam)….. political movements are based on some agenda… what was that motivation why was this minority in need of a leader like him? …. Jinnah was a great leader and no doubt he brought relief and hope to millions of Muslims ….
[/QUOTE]
Look at it this way, Jinnah was a Muslim, or he claimed to be one. He felt he himself was a memeber of this minority group. You can call this Minority group whatever you want to call them, in this case they just happened to be Muslims. The fact that Muslims just happened to follow Islam was a side note. Jinnah represented Muslims, not because they prayed to Allah and believed in the Prophet of Islam, but because they happened to be a Minority group within predominantly Hindu India. You have to make a distinction between Muslims the political social group and Islam as a relgion, they are not the same thing. If Jinnah had created Pakistan for Islam, he would have said he was represent Allah and the Prophet, but he never made such a claim. But he did say that he represented the Muslims as a people. The fact that he didnt care for an Islamic state state is summed up by the fact that he didnt care what sect or religion anyone belonged to, and also when he said that eventually everyone would become Citizens in the political sense regardless of what their personal religous beliefs were.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PaKpatriot1: *
If all land is Allahs, then you should let the Palestinians, Kashmiris and Chechens in on it. They may be interested to know that they are fighting for land that isnt their to begin with.
[/QUOTE]
so do you deny that all land is allah's?
the freedom fighters are fighting to take the land from the kafirs and place it in the hands of muslims who belive in allah. there is no contradiction, it only exists in secular mindsets,
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ThandyMazaq: *
so do you deny that all land is allah's?
the freedom fighters are fighting to take the land from the kafirs and place it in the hands of muslims who belive in allah. there is no contradiction, it only exists in secular mindsets,
[/QUOTE]
I dont know about allah or his property clams. Thats not the point. But for the sake of the discussion I will agree with you and say fine allah owns all land.
But the second part about the Kafirs, I think you didnt think out very well. I still think its a contrdiction unless you admit that what your really saying I think, is that only Muslims have the right to live on gods land, and they have a right to kick out people who arent Muslim from this land. Well, I have to say, does this mean that you have no problems with stealing another persons land if they arent Muslim? I mean, would you invade someones home, kick them out and say its yours in the name of god if they werent Mulsim? Sounds criminal to me... no? really would like a respomse to this, and one to my last post in regards to Allahs law and Jinnahs irrelevance/ relevence. Hope its not to much. thanks.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sadiqaan: *
Not many people are sympathetic when terrorist supporters are killed. It is a natural reaction.
[/QUOTE]
Gimme a break! Is your belief tha weak?!