Prinstine....>>While the correctness of this ruling may be contested by anyone, legalistically, my opinion is correct.<<
Not only legalistically, but logically it is correct too. I am so grateful to you that I learned something.
But NYA is not second generation Ahmadi. ;-)
blackzero:
You may be right. These things are never clear. No one knows when is Qiyama, so we don’t know how close we are, already. But, my school of thought (Ahl-e-Sunnah) believes that there are still lots of indications for Qiyamat, which are still to appear, so, yes.
Bakhtiyar:
Re: Legal or logical rebuttal to Ahmadiat/Qadiyaniat. I can speculate on reasons why Ahmadis/qadiyanis don’t consider themselves as non-muslims or “murtids”, but I’d rather not share these. Some folks might complain (“as attack on faith”) and Admin is rather too quick to jump on such cases.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
In any case, let Ahmadis explain themselves how they translate the verse in 33:40. Just a hint: I think they say there is a difference between Prophet and Nabi. I may be wrong there, so I’d better keep quiet.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/cool.gif
freestyle:
For online Quranic translations I use the following:
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/_quran/main.htm (They have excellent searchable database by sura and by subject)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ (They have Quran translation by three different scholars, Shakir, Pikthal, YousafAli)
For Islamic questions, I refer to
Adios!
can we muslims call ourselves cristains or Jews? the answer in no why? Because Islam contradicts the basic priciple of Cristanity which is Jesus is the son of god. Cristains dont't call muslims Cristains becuse we don't belive one basic theory of Cristanity!
as every one knows that other than that we belive in the same thing, Right?
So Ahmadi's don't belive one basic principle of Quran and Islam so they can't be called muslims. Shias,sunnis,Ismailies,bohri,wahabi and the rest of the 73 belive everything in the quran to be right but Ahmadies are as stubborn as donkeys when they read Quran they don't understand the surah AHZAAB that mohammed was the last messenger so they contradict the basic fact of Islam now NY I request you to Inteperate the 33:40 after you have done that can you argue with me? And other than the mention of the MAHDI there is no promised prophet if there is please tell me!**
[/QUOTE]
I think lollypop has hit the nail on the head. If a person is not prepared to accapt that Mohammed (pbuh) is the last prophet then he can not be a muslim. Mr NYA why don't you just stop being a nuisense and just stop calling yourselves muslims. You can always stop believing in Mirza Gulam as a prophet, and then you will be muslims.
[quote]
Originally posted by Lollypop:
posted by NYAhmadi<<. If I say, I am a but Ahmadies are as stubborn as donkeys !
[/quote]
What a shame! Mind your tongue Lollypop, Try to be civilized.
Well yes Shaheen you are very valid in your opinion as it is Government's duty to look after these matters and problems but Here rises another question What is the responsibility of a commom person or should I say a Muslim who is living under a Government which is, being ruling on a Muslim state does not follow the Islamic Laws or Sharria?
And Thanx brother Pristine for the links and they are very usefull. You bears the same opinion about the Government as Shaheen does but Do you really think that It is solely Government's responsibility to do so, as being a Democratic or even in the recent situation a Couped Military Leader (with the support of politicians and parliment) can handle this stuff on their own?
Hope get something good from you and other responsive friends.
cio
I came, I saw, I am still watching
Pristine....>>In any case, let Ahmadis explain themselves how they translate the verse in 33:40. Just a hint: I think they say there is a difference between Prophet and Nabi. I may be wrong there, so I'd better keep quiet.<<
I agree with you that this is not the place may be to discuss Ahmadies. But I would like to add to your point that in addition to what you described, they also believe that 'Khattam' does not mean 'last', but to them it is a 'stamp', so any devote person who gets hold of this stamp can affix it on his so called 'prophethood' and off he goes!!
May I ask you the same question, what logic do you have in your Islam. How would you justify killing of minorities in Pakistan, especially in the name of Islam. Remember both souls were created by Allah, they were created not to be killed but to stay and live together. Believe me or not, I was created by same God who created you and he will not allow you to kill me.
** Now prove it to me that it is logical to kill somebody just because of his believes. **
johnd:
Greetings! Let me correct one misconception at the onset. If any member of a minority community is killed in Pakistan, even in the name of religion, in most cases, religion has nothing to do with it. AMNESTY International and many other organizations are on record as saying that a majority of such killings are just personal confrontations and vendettas of miscellaneous nature, where, once the minority member is killed, the name of “religion” is used to counter the charges. This is very unfortunate and is condemned by all educated muslims.
Having said that, let me say that under a muslim government, minorities have all the rights to live a normal, peaceful life. All that is required is that they pay “jizya” (also commonly called known as tax). This is not something extraordinary, as all muslims, at the same time, are required to pay zakat.
The only two things which the minority can not do under an Islamic government are:
The above two can not be allowed in a muslim government. Not even in the name of personal freedom.
Adios!
PS. By the way, the government of Pakistan, since inception can not be termed as Islamic government, since almost all the laws enacted and enforced in Pakistan are basically the legacy of British rule and consequently, even the penal code, for most part is inspired of British model.
These are my personal views, feel free to disagree
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Cheers!
** Let me correct one misconception at the onset. **
Where is the correction.
** 1. Can not propagate its religion to other people, meaning they can not invite muslims to
join their religion. However, they do not have any restrictions in following their religion as
and how this wish. **
SO, where is the justice. A muslim can do anything but in return non-muslim can't do any thing. And just to clarify you claim that they are free. Ahmadies are not allowed to hold their Annual meetings in Rabwah, thats also part of you so called islam and freedom in Islam.
** 2. Can not insult Islam, our Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), our religious text and our
history. This is same as in Eurpoean countries, they have blasphemy laws enacted to
safeguard the sanctity of christian beliefs. **
But muslims are allowed to say, write and do anything against any minority. They can burn, destroy and take away their places of worship. They can kill anybody in the name of Allah.
You want to know the stories of mob attacks on Ahmadies homes and familes...... In the name of Islam and Allah...
johnd: The misconception which I tried to clear is that Islam does not condone killings of anyone, including religious minorities. Lots of press stories which we read about are personal vendettas where a muslim simply tried to hide behind blasphemy laws and religious emotions, to conceal his misdeeds. As I said these are unfortunate and can not be accepted by any educated muslim.
You are complaining that a muslim can do anything and non-muslim can not. If you mean propagation of one's religion then Yes, this is true in an Islamic state. A muslim can propagate but a non-muslim can not. However there is complete freedom to practice your own religion. If a christian country enacts similar law, no muslim will complain, as long as the muslim minority is allowed to practice their religion (Islam) peacefully.
You had written "But muslims are allowed to say, write and do anything against any minority. They can burn, destroy and take away their places of worship. They can kill anybody in the name of Allah.". That is not at all true. Even if this happens, I can safely say that Islam has nothing to do with it. Infact Islam accepts all divine religions as truth, as I have explained several times, so how can a true muslim burn a place of worship for a religion which is also divine? I don't say that these acts have not taken place. My contention is simple. Those who do such acts are ignorant people, deviated from Islam, and uneducated to know any better. They are led by religious leaders who have their own petty interests, which have nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teachings.
Re: Blasphemy: As the love of Islam and our Prophet )|(PBUH) is instilled in all muslims since a very early age, to insult them, can ignite serious emotions. However, it is the responsibility of Islamic state to take care of any transgressions. In the absence of a true Islamic state, unfortuately, miscreants try to lead uneducated people themselves, take law into their own hands and create mischief. This is regrettable and should not be condoned.
Re: Ahmadiyya sect: I won't comment because it is quite a complex issue. Legal position is that they are free to hold their meetings etc, if they accept that they are non-muslims and then they will be accorded all the rights available to non-muslims. For instance, christians have regular gatherings for christmas, easter etc and there are no laws to stop any of that. The problem is that followers of Ahmadiyya sect insist that they are muslims. This is not accepted by laws of Pakistan, at present.
Adios!
[This message has been edited by Pristine (edited October 04, 2000).]
On second thought, let me rephrase my first sentence. Islam does not condone the killings of anyone, including religious minorities, except in accordance with Islamic jurisprudence".
I know this will make it a loaded statement once again, on which you might want to pounce, but this is important. As has been discussed in world media for a long time, Islam allows death penalty for certain crimes, most importantly murder. Islamic jurisprudence is derived largely from Quran.
If we just take the example of 'murder', while Islam allows that the murderer be executed by the state, it also allows that if the family of the murder victim agrees, the murderer can pay a certain minimum amount (known as qisas) and be set free. Similarly other penalties have been prescribed for some other crimes in Quran. Islamic jurisprudence is a very thorough subject in its own, and it is not possible to cover even its preface in such forum discussions. You can search the internet if you wish to know more.
Bottom line: In an Islamic state, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce sharia laws according to Islamic jurisprudence. An individual muslim must not be allowed to take law into his own hand, as it will cause anarchy in the land. In the absence of an Islamic state, this becomes all the more difficult to control.
Adios!
Pristine Bhai
why are you wasting your time with people like johnd. all they want to do is shut their ears to whatever you are saying. you will never be able to convince people like him. They will just carry on trying to do nit picking against Islam. what they don't know is that they can do what they like and say what they like, But it is the will of Allah (swt) that one day Islam will be accepted by the whole of human race as Islam is the only way forward.
Pristine.....>>Re: Blasphemy: As the love of Islam and our Prophet )|(PBUH) is instilled in all muslims since a very early age, to insult them, can ignite serious emotions. However, it is the responsibility of Islamic state to take care of any transgressions...............<<
This discourse is to exchange ideas and learn from one n other and not to hurl insults. Unfortunately most, if not all discussions before on these threads end up in utter disappointment. I am here to discuss the issue and NOT personalities. So I beg to disagree with few of your points re blasphemy. I state my case as follows:
Blasphemy is defined in section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code in the following words:
"Use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) by word, either spoken or written or by visible representation or by importation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine..."
It may surprise you that this concept of blasphemy and the prescribed punishment are both contradictory to the Qur'aan and the Prophet's conduct. The Qur'aan prescribes restraint, and distancing from the blasphemous persons or situations. The emphasis is on restraint and forgiveness. A study of the following verses should bear this out.
04:140 When ye hear the message of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme.
28:55 and when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: 'To us our deeds and to you yours: peace be to you'.
07:199 Hold to forgiveness, command what is right, but turn away from the ignorant.
73:10 Have patience with what they say and leave them with noble dignity.
25:63 And the servants of Allah . . . . are those who walk on the earth in humility and when the ignorant address them, they say 'peace'.
16:128 Allah is with those who restrain themselves
09:74 . . . but they uttered blasphemy. . . . if they repent, it will be best for them, but if they turn back, Allah will punish them.
The emphasis in all cases, including murder, is on forgiveness and reform.
My question to you......Does our blasphemy law touch even the outer fringes of the letter and the spirit of the Qur'aanic position on the subject?
regards!
Bakhtyar:
These are good points. I agree with your position, that punishment for blaspehmy provided in Pakistan Penal Code may not be in compliance with Islamic jurisprudence. Rather it was added on tremendous pressure exerted by the clergy. 295-C is severly criticized in legal and educated circles for its punishment, especially because this punishment may not be substantiated by Islamic jurisprudence.
Importance of Law and a Framework:
My point was different. I was referring to the fact that under no circumstances, should an individual be allowed to decide himself what punishment, if any, should be given to any member of religious minority. These things should be addressed in a framework of law and carried out by the state. As you have pointed out there may be defects in law itself. These defects should be removed. Your point reinforced my continuous contention that laws in Pakistan can not be termed 'Islamic', neither the government be termed as 'Islamic government'. Paksitan, can at best, be called a 'muslim land'.
The other side of 295-C:
Historically speaking, due a number of factors, muslims in general, and in sub-continent in particular, are very sensitive to the issue of blasphemy. You must remember the case of Ghazi Ilm Din in this context. In order to avoid "mass hysteria", which creates anarchy in land, the government wants to avoid any case where muslims feel that no action is being taken. This was probably the rationale behind enacting 295-C.
Forgiveness:
Re: your point about "The emphasis in all cases, including murder, is on forgiveness and reform", I agree. However, in case where the aggrieved (victim's family) do not agree to qisas then the prescribed penality is death. So it is entirely on a case-to-case basis.
Adios!
[This message has been edited by Pristine (edited October 05, 2000).]
Pristine…>>The other side of 295-C:…<<
Contrary to popular belief this lagislation was designed by Raja Zafar ul Haq, the religious minister of Nawaz regime and he was the opening batsman of General Zia ul Haq when the anti-blasphemy law was promulgated as a part of general’s determined efforts for ‘his’ Islamisation during 1977-88.
Blasphemy in Pakistan is a game of communal passion, played in the name of religion, in which innocent Christians are used as pawns, often with disastrous consequences. Gujranwala, the city of milk and yougart is usualy in forefront of such tactics by ulema. To appease these ulema, General Ziaul Haq amended the Penal Code to provide for the punishment of the offence of blasphemy in 1980.
But frankly, this voilates the spirite of Islam.
PS…my sn is Baykhatr and not Bakhtyar!
Oops…Sorry, it was unintentional Baykhatr.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Re: 295-C. You are proly right on all counts.
Adios!
Salam
I didnt reply back intentionaly as I was gaining prestigious knowledge about the beliefs and religious masail through the impressive knowledge of brother Prestine. And on the same hand I didnt want to interrupt the debate between Pristine and johnd. That was really thought provoking and after all that I still remain more thirsty for the greater knowledge.
asalam-o-laikum free. read a post titled ‘has anyone heard of ahmed deedat’. it might clarify a few things. dont know for sure though. oh i just found something - http://www.islam-qa.com/index_eng.html
check it out.
ok it isnt tht great of a site. i just checked.
check this site - http://www.islamfaq.com/
maybe this is worth a look see - http://iio.org/irc/
another - http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/complinkisl.html
i suppose this too http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/complinkisl.html
last site - http://www.harunyahya.org/Eng/articles/12truth02.html
i got a class to go to
[This message has been edited by usmansalim (edited October 13, 2000).]
thanks usman ali for these links
I appriciate your effort!!