@ 1947
...
As for Alchohol my Turkish cousins and our mutual ancestors were always fond of Alchohol even when we were fervent defenders of the Faith this is not a new thing... but change comes gradually :@:
I lived most of my life in UK, but never touched Alcohol, still I would not like to see ban on Alcohol in Muslim countries.
Reason is simple, that is, a Muslim should not consume Alcohol voluntarily as religious requirement, but when state bans Alcohol that freedom not to consume Alcohol using free will is denied as consuming Alcohol after ban becomes illegal activity. So, instead of religious act, after ban, not consuming Alcohol becomes legal act too, something no Muslim would like, that they are avoiding Alcohol fearing police rather than Allah.
Same is true about all religious matters, that if it gets imposed, religious matter becomes legal requirement along with religious requirement, and thus intention to fulfil those requirements becomes divided
I do get your point though... indeed voluntary commitment is better than forced one. Same as volunteers are always on the better side as opposed to conscripts, however like I have said before in these trying times you have to take drastic steps to preserve your faith.
^^^
Well, I think it is Shaitanic ploy that he tries state to impose Islamic rituals (praying, avoiding Alcohol, fasting, Zakat, and so on), then on judgment day no one can tell that a person was praying, avoiding alcohol, paying Zakat, or fasting just because he/she was scared of state police or Allah. I think, when state imposes Islamic rituals on people that is to do with Muslims and his Allah, then state forces people to do shrik (as many might follow those Islamic rituals to satisfy state then Allah).
**1947 and Kaka_in_usa: **I do not know in depth on what is happening in India, so what I wrote is my perception and belief. I might be wrong.
Anyhow, if you would read my post, I did mention that state laws in India and what happens on ground are two different things, as it seems state (India) start looking other way when persecution starts on religious basis. All those religious riots would not have happened if state was serious in this matter. We know that 1000s die in India due to riots based on religion. Can you please let me know how many people in India get prosecuted and punished on charges of Murder in religious riots?
Kaka_in_usa: I am not derailing the thread, as Munza post is question that demands mentioning different perspective regarding situation where Pakistan claims to be Islamic republic, and situation if Pakistan was country where state do not interfere with religion. So, I was answering that according to my point of view.
Well, I think it is Shaitanic ploy that he tries state to impose Islamic rituals (praying, avoiding Alcohol, fasting, Zakat, and so on), then on judgment day no one can tell that a person was praying, avoiding alcohol, paying Zakat, or fasting just because he/she was scared of state police or Allah. I think, when state imposes Islamic rituals on people that is to do with Muslims and his Allah, then state forces people to do shrik (as many might follow those Islamic rituals to satisfy state then Allah).
You have a fair point but still prevention is better than cure. :)
You have a fair point but still prevention is better than cure. :)
Bhai, preventing what? Forcing shrik in the name of Islam, where partner of Allah is state police?
For instance, if a person decides he is not going to pray Juma on any particular Juma day for any reason expecting that Allah will forgive him, but prays not because fear of Allah, but because fearing that state police would punish him if he does not. So, the Juma he prayed, is that for Allah or fear of Police? Isn’t that shirk, and if state creates this situation, are they not responsible of that shrik?
If you condone such situation, is it not that you do not care about Islam, Allah, and Allah’s giving free will to humans, but just because you like all to perform rituals you believe everyone should perform, you want to force that on others?
Look where have you got the impression an Islamic state forces people to do things like that…
Besides an Islamic state has nothing to do with a Police state and up till the 19th Century there were many Islamic states I merely wish to see Islam restored the way it was before all the nonsense secularist came out of the blue.
Where on earth you have jumped up with your shirk shirk from amazes me…
^^^
Chalyain, I might be wrong in understanding what you mean. I thought, by forcefully protecting your religion you meant imposing your beliefs and practices over others, as what Taliban was doing in Afghanistan and they also started doing in Swat when in power there. Your post gave me reason to believe what I wrote. Just read your post and think.
Sorry yaar but it's true.
I do get your point though... indeed voluntary commitment is better than forced one. Same as volunteers are always on the better side as opposed to conscripts, however like I have said before in these trying times you have to take drastic steps to preserve your faith.
From above post it seems that you agree voluntary commitments is better and forcing commitments is wrong, still you wrote that in your view, in these trying times you have to take drastic steps to preserve your faith ... now what is that drastic step in religious matters that one could do if people are not performing voluntarily, if it is not religious commitments forced on people using state force?
Anyhow, as far as I am concerned, any state that has Muslims majority, or strong Muslim head of state, and there is no restriction for Muslims to fulfil their Islamic duties peacefully, is Islamic state.
Pakistan would of been better off not being an Islamic republic and also not having the inhumane blasphemy law. I believe everyone should have the right to practice their own religion freely. No country should belong to any one religion, all should be secular. People should learn to be tolerant and respect people of all faiths, not just their own.
Islam is not just about Namaz and Roza and HAjj Islam has its own econoic system and social system and governace system whovevery in Muslims other than Islam either he doesnt know or have read Islam that mean his is a jahil or he is a traitor and secualrism and Islam are contrary to each other
Unos Blahmey law is Law of Islam and punishment for blashmey is death
Inhumane law. It's not law of Islam, it's law of Pakistan. Javed Ghamidi a popular Islamic scholar disagrees with it. And no where in the Quran is there anything about blasphemy law. All the Muslims who I know are against this law.
Take religion out of the equation for a moment. Is killing someone over saying something right? Nope. But put religion into the equation then it becomes right? How pathetic.
**1947 and Kaka_in_usa: **I do not know in depth on what is happening in India, so what I wrote is my perception and belief. I might be wrong.
Anyhow, if you would read my post, I did mention that state laws in India and what happens on ground are two different things, as it seems state (India) start looking other way when persecution starts on religious basis. All those religious riots would not have happened if state was serious in this matter. We know that 1000s die in India due to riots based on religion. Can you please let me know how many people in India get prosecuted and punished on charges of Murder in religious riots?
Kaka_in_usa: I am not derailing the thread, as Munza post is question that demands mentioning different perspective regarding situation where Pakistan claims to be Islamic republic, and situation if Pakistan was country where state do not interfere with religion. So, I was answering that according to my point of view.
I understand that having laws and actually implementing them are two different things. but i can tell u for fact that people dont care if you ask any question regarding religion or god or do actual blasphemy. majority of indian religion is non-abrahamic hence things work in a different way. there is no concept of blasphamy so riots based on blasphemy are really exceptions.
If you put together all the people died in riots in india since independence they would still be less then the number of people died in religious attacks in last 2-3 years. and yes people do get prosecuted in a huge numbers for rioting.
But then again this will become india centric discussion, the topic at hand is different.
I still stand by my opinion that pakistan would have been like india because it is just natural.
Usos only Javed Ahmed Ghamdi disagrees with it butt all the Ulemas since 1400 years ago agree with the sentence of death for the who commit blashmey
and by the way Javed Ahmed Ghamdi started his work with his yaar e aziz DR Sajid ALi who is my father
killing innocent is wrong not the blashmer and the who murders people or creates fasad
first thing is that Quran and Sunnah are both part of Islam and blashmey is in the Quran also on the orders of HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW many blashmers were killed
Usos only Javed Ahmed Ghamdi disagrees with it butt all the Ulemas since 1400 years ago agree with the sentence of death for the who commit blashmey
Wow are you serious?! Who cares about Javed Ghamdi, that wasn't the main point of my post. The point is that killing someone for any reason especially just because they said something is inhumane. It's a shame that I have to reference this at all, but in the Quran itself it says that "killing an innocent person is as if you killed all mankind".
What about the other parts of my posts where I mentioned that blasphemy law is only a law made by Pakistan, not Islam itself. No verse in Quran talks about any blasphemy law, so how can you say it's law of Islam?
It doesn't matter what Ulmeas says. Ulemas can be wrong. What matter is what Quran says & there is nothing in Quran about blasphemy.
Shamraz you want to say me all the ulemas in 1400 years are stupid sir they are in thousands and they have spent their whole life in studying and understanding of Quran and Sunnah
calling ourselves Islamic Republic is like Ibrahim Dawood adding the word Masoom to his name.
True, brother. No republic is an Islamic republic without Sharia(Nizam-e-Mustafa(saw)). We are not an Islamic republic. Truest Islamic republic is Saudi Arabia. Sharia should be the law and everything should be according to Islam. My head hangs in shame when I watch women reading news on TV or acting. A woman's role is inside the house, not outside.
