PAKISTAN WAS EST.......

[quote]
Originally posted by Adnan Ahmed:
My Uncle just arrived from Pak, and has been telling me all about how "pious" the Pakistanis are... I myself had many a chance to witness the piety of our great nation. My conclusion... Everyone from the bottom of society to the top are as corrupt and unIslamic as they come.
The question begging to be asked, who are we trying to fool?????

[/quote]

Apparently ourselves.

Rather than focusing on systems… what we should really look at is means of improving the society.

[quote]
Originally posted by google:
**
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Adnan Ahmed:
My Uncle just arrived from Pak, and has been telling me all about how "pious" the Pakistanis are... I myself had many a chance to witness the piety of our great nation. My conclusion... Everyone from the bottom of society to the top are as corrupt and unIslamic as they come.
The question begging to be asked, who are we trying to fool?????

[/quote]

Apparently ourselves.

Rather than focusing on systems… what we should really look at is means of improving the society.**
[/QUOTE]

Salaam

This naturally poses the question, What makes a society.

Google and the rest of the guppies, what do you think?

i will give my view after i've recieved your answer but what needs to be pointed out is that the system being applied in a society is one of the components of a society.

Salaam

why pakistani expexts all their problems
can only be solved by religen?
where you go when you get sick your doctor
or local mullah?

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
why pakistani expexts all their problems
can only be solved by religen?
where you go when you get sick your doctor
or local mullah?

[/quote]

.. I expected a better logic from u.. Islam never stops us to go to doctor..even Prophet Muhammad used to consult a doctor .. check the post again..never try to budge in all posts with ur stereotype interuptions!

[quote]
Originally posted by Khilafah1422:
** Salaam
This naturally poses the question, What makes a society.

Google and the rest of the guppies, what do you think?

i will give my view after i've recieved your answer but what needs to be pointed out is that the system being applied in a society is one of the components of a society.
Salaam**
[/quote]

Well...I didn't put much thought at this but..What I am looking for is a system that takes care of human being without any ideology (Islamic, secular, democracy khilafah, etc ...).

I am sure what you are proposing might work well with perfect/ideal human being but what we have now are people who wont be able to resist misusing any system.


If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's great disappointments.

Salaam

To keep everyoneon the subject, pls comment on the statement below.

Pakistan has adopted a secular and democratic system. Can secularism and Islam coexist?

[quote]
Originally posted by Khilafah1422:
**Salaam

To keep everyoneon the subject, pls comment on the statement below.

Pakistan has adopted a secular and democratic system. Can secularism and Islam coexist?

**
[/quote]

pakistan is not seuclar . it does not believe
in euqlity of all religen before the law.
all religens are equal before the goverment
that is imcompatible with islam.
islam seeks superiority over all other faiths

muslims only believe in secularism when they are in minority.

comon sense says when you are among majoity
you dont say my religen is superior you say only when you are majority. so when you are minority religen muslims seek equality whaen majority impose superiority on minority religen.

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited July 31, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited July 31, 2002).]

[quote]
Originally posted by Khilafah1422:
**Salaam

To keep everyoneon the subject, pls comment on the statement below.

Pakistan has adopted a secular and democratic system. Can secularism and Islam coexist?

**
[/quote]

Salaam

com on guppies, what do you think

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
**

pakistan is not seuclar . it does not believe
in euqlity of all religen before the law.
all religens are equal before the goverment
that is imcompatible with islam.
islam seeks superiority over all other faiths

muslims only believe in secularism when they are in minority.

comon sense says when you are among majoity
you dont say my religen is superior you say only when you are majority. so when you are minority religen muslims seek equality whaen majority impose superiority on minority religen.

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited July 31, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited July 31, 2002).]**
[/quote]

Can u clarify your statements

Khalifah, rvikz is an Indian, and even he says our system is not secular, so why do you guys insist its secular? If it were secular, we would not have seen the lack of rights we give to non-Muslim Pakistanis...

Pakistan is an Islamic republic, and no where does the Holy Quran specify that the only system was have to follow is that of the Caliph. That system was good, but only upto the four pious caliphs. We also need to consider the need of the hour and consider a viable system. We also have to respect the opinion of the people through democratic means, andif we succeed, we finally get to make the Pakistan the great Qauid-e-Azam dreamt of...

should india and pakistan get as non-secular as saudi arabia to make the two nation
theory 100%. but that makes india hindu state
pakistan mulims state where there is no room for minority religens. two nation theory itself does not accept any religious minorities.

khalifa supporters - i'd like to ask you guys what the status of minorities (non-muslims, and muslims of a different minority sect, like shias) is in the supposed caliph state you support.

Also, that's a good statement - Pakistan is not secular. I personally think Pakistan is confused right now as to what system to adopt and its still experimenting with different system arrangements.

Oh and another thing - perhaps minor to men, but major to women, the claim you made that the caliph, or leader, must be male is erroneous. The hadith that supports that women can't be leaders is shady in authenticity and muslims like you ought to know better than advocate women not being leaders. Furthermore, the Quran recognizes the leadership of Queen Sheba and encourages her leadership.

So, you see - how would an Islamic system in Pakistan possibly work? We dont even know what an Islamic system is.

Also, when I talked of democracy earlier, I didn't mean democracy in the sense that most people seem to understand it - as in rule of the people. The rule of the peoople can mean a lot of things

  1. The people actually decide upon the rules - as you said, if the majority thinks homosexuality should be legal, then its legal. This form is almost never seen, except in small population societies.

  2. The people elect the leaders, and the leaders do the leadership work - in terms of an Islamic society, the work of carrying out the laws described in the Quran.

  3. The people get to decide on certain issues, and otherwise , for more serious issues - like foreign policy - the leaders make decisions.

So dont think that democracy is necessarily haraam in any way. I was under the impression that muslims are permitted to at least elect the caliph and department heads, and other leaders - like the treasurer, etc.

I agree though - Pakistan is not secular right now.

Neither is Pakistan democratic right now.

[quote]
Originally posted by Khilafah1422:
Salaam

W'salaam

Pakistan has adopted a secular and democratic system. Can secularism and Islam coexist?

Secularism is a Christainity concept. And majority of Pakistanis are Muslims, not Christian. Therefor, no question of Secularism

Democracy and Islamic System are different.

Democracy means Govt. of the people, for the people and by the people.

Islamic Way of Liviing means Muslims should spend their lives according the rules, teachings of Allah(SWT) and traditions of Prophet Mohammad(Peace Be Upon Him)

Personally, I believe Pakistan should adopt the system of like Muhgal Empire, as it never had pure Islamic and Democracy system.

Just my opinion!

[/quote]

[quote]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia:
khalifa supporters - i'd like to ask you guys what the status of minorities (non-muslims, and muslims of a different minority sect, like shias) is in the supposed caliph state you support..

if you read my answer to your question before, it is answered. But in simple, in Islam there is no such concept as minority as all shia, sunni, hindu, christian, jew are seen as citizens of the Islamic state and the laws are applied equally upon them all. In fact it was this non recognition of the minority concept that brought alot of people into Islam as they were treated the same way as the muslims.

Pakistan is not secular. I personally think Pakistan is confused right now as to what system to adopt and its still experimenting with different system arrangements.

Even though the statements of Mushrraf show that pakistan is not secular, the reality shows something else. The fact that there exists a Shariah court and a regular law court shows that islam (in the Shariah court) is only dealing with marriage, inheritance and a few other rules but the regular court, which does not use the Quran and Sunnah as thier reference, delas with the rest of the issues like criminal offence etc. The fact that women are allowed to walk in the street with our covering, the showing of non islamic programs, the entrance of western curriculam into PAK education system and the non usage of the gold standard as a currency all point to the fact that Islam is not allowed to interfere in these matters. This is because the women who walk without a cover are accounted in Islam in shariah courts and in Pakistan they are not, the fact that in TV dramas women are shown without cover whereas islam does not allow this, the recent education reforms in Pakistan where boys and girls were given a script of chatup lines and then they had to practice with each other, again Islam forbids this and finally, islam obliges the use of the silver and gold standard as a backup for currency, something which Pakistan or any other muslim country does not apply. All these examples and many more indicate the non existence of Islamic rules. This means that Islam is restricted to rituals and is not allowed in the political domain, which means that it is secularised.

the claim you made that the caliph, or leader, must be male is erroneous. The hadith that supports that women can't be leaders is shady in authenticity and muslims like you ought to know better than advocate women not being leaders.

In islamic history (1400) never has a women been a leader for the muslims neither did any of the women at the time of the Prophet ever stand to be a leader. All the classical scholars have agreed that women are not allowed to be the leaders all though other posts are given to them. Some silly people have made up reasons saying that the reason for this is because women dont have the capability-this reason is false and the texts have not given a reason for why they are not allowed. the hadith is used by many scholars and is not shady but it's definitely acceptable. The Prophet (saw) said "Lun yuf liha Qawmun wallow amra humumra a" "The people who appoint a women as thier leader will never succeed"
This is the clear evidence.

*Also, when I talked of democracy earlier, I didn't mean democracy in the sense that most people seem to understand it - as in rule of the people. The rule of the peoople can mean a lot of things *

No it cant, democracy is a word which is not open to interpretation as it means that people are soverign in all fields i.e. even making rules. It maybe that u mean something else, well in that case you should not use this word as it is calling for the people to be soverign and not Allah.

The people get to decide on certain issues, and otherwise , for more serious issues - like foreign policy - the leaders make decisions.

Your right, the people are allowed to have a say in issues which the shariah has allowed such as where schools, hospitals and roads should be built. This is called consultation and not democracy. Also, the forign policy is laid out in the Quran and sunnah and the leader has no option but to implement this. The foreign policy being to propagate islam. Allah (swt) says "we have not sent you except as a mercy to MANKIND".

So dont think that democracy is necessarily haraam in any way. I was under the impression that muslims are permitted to at least elect the caliph and department heads, and other leaders - like the treasurer, etc.

Like the i told you Islam does not allow man made rules something which democracy enforces and electing a leader is called ELECTIONS and this is a style allowed in Islam and elections is not democracy, it is called elections.

The Prophet foretold the return of the Khilafah state and that it will return after the the muslims have been through persecution. He never said that the Presidential system will return nor the secular system but he said "the Khilafah state".

Who will deny this?
**
[/quote]

[This message has been edited by Khilafah1422 (edited August 03, 2002).]

Im sorry khalifah, even though I am a male, but I do not endorse your views on women... They are just like what the Taliban believed in...

[quote]
Originally posted by Spock:
*Im sorry khalifah, even though I am a male, but I do not endorse your views on women... They are just like what the Taliban believed in... *
[/quote]

Salaam

Spock, if you are a muslim then my discussion with you would be on the obedience towards Allah and the Islamic viewpoint of women. But if you are a non muslim then this discussion will be fruitless.

If you are a muslim then we can easily agree to the fact that the Quran and sunnah are the basis from which we take our views and not the mind as that would be worshipping our intellect and desires rather than Allah (swt).

R U A MUSLIM?

[This message has been edited by Khilafah1422 (edited August 05, 2002).]

Khalifa, this is ONE thing I dont understand about us Muslims.

Why is it taken that Al-bukhari and Al-Muslim found all the erroneous hadith and threw them out and that all the remaining hadith are 100% correct, beyond all doubt???

I mean, there are A LOT of essays and papers written on this particular hadith about women not being able to lead. First of all, there is no scientific proof prooving that NO WOMAN that has the capability of leading a nation. SECONDLY, the Quran itself talks about the leadership of Queen Sheba. Now isn't this hadith contradictory to the Quran if the Quran promotes Ms. Sheba's leadership (unless if Queen Sheba was really a man - in which case, provide me proof and I'll step down)?

I've heard people say things here that leads me to believe that only the people that were muslims in the few centuries after the prophet's death and during the prophet's life were TRUE MUSLIMS and highly intelligent as well!

Its as if every commentary that makes you think a little today and somehow contradicts conventional knowledge taken from Hadith (which is not God's word by the way, and any muslim would be idiotic to equate the Hadith as God's direct word) is not worthy of even consideration. All I'm saying is that there may be some hadith out there which were not disproven beyond all doubt and some which can't be proven authentic or unauthentic because there is simply not enough evidence to prove it false or true.

Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim weren't perfect and if they themselves acknowledged that they only did their best and they may have made mistakes, like any human, then why are we so afraid to challenge their way of thought?

Maybe today's muslim sees something that yesterday's muslim did not! That doesn't mean they are a heretic, but just making sure they're not believing in falsehoods.

For the record, I do accept the vast majority of the hadith as authentic, although I do not give them the same value as I give to the Quran which is God's word. I think that if I did give both the Quran and Hadith equal value, that I would be, in a way, worshipping the Rasul as equal in intelligence to God. And I'm not going to insult God like that.

[quote]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia:
**Khalifa, this is ONE thing I dont understand about us Muslims.

Why is it taken that Al-bukhari and Al-Muslim found all the erroneous hadith and threw them out and that all the remaining hadith are 100% correct, beyond all doubt???

I mean, there are A LOT of essays and papers written on this particular hadith about women not being able to lead. First of all, there is no scientific proof prooving that NO WOMAN that has the capability of leading a nation. SECONDLY, the Quran itself talks about the leadership of Queen Sheba. Now isn't this hadith contradictory to the Quran if the Quran promotes Ms. Sheba's leadership (unless if Queen Sheba was really a man - in which case, provide me proof and I'll step down)?

I've heard people say things here that leads me to believe that only the people that were muslims in the few centuries after the prophet's death and during the prophet's life were TRUE MUSLIMS and highly intelligent as well!

Its as if every commentary that makes you think a little today and somehow contradicts conventional knowledge taken from Hadith (which is not God's word by the way, and any muslim would be idiotic to equate the Hadith as God's direct word) is not worthy of even consideration. All I'm saying is that there may be some hadith out there which were not disproven beyond all doubt and some which can't be proven authentic or unauthentic because there is simply not enough evidence to prove it false or true.

Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim weren't perfect and if they themselves acknowledged that they only did their best and they may have made mistakes, like any human, then why are we so afraid to challenge their way of thought?

Maybe today's muslim sees something that yesterday's muslim did not! That doesn't mean they are a heretic, but just making sure they're not believing in falsehoods.

For the record, I do accept the vast majority of the hadith as authentic, although I do not give them the same value as I give to the Quran which is God's word. I think that if I did give both the Quran and Hadith equal value, that I would be, in a way, worshipping the Rasul as equal in intelligence to God. And I'm not going to insult God like that.

**
[/quote]

Salaam

Can u pls give me the part where queen sheeba is mentioned and where are the Qara'in (indications) in the text where they point out the permissability of women being leaders.

Also, do we sincerely admit the fact that an Islamic state is the need of the time?

Khalifa says in a post above: if you read my answer to your question before, it is answered. But in simple, in Islam there is no such concept as minority as all shia, sunni, hindu, christian, jew are seen as citizens of the Islamic state and the laws are applied equally upon them all. In fact it was this non recognition of the minority concept that brought alot of people into Islam as they were treated the same way as the muslims.

Khalifa, I donot know about the rest of your assertions but your assertion about minorities in Islamic countries is just downright false. I quote one paragraph from the book by L.M. Alphonse " Triumph over Discrimination: The Life story of Farhang Mehr". (page 11). ISBN 0-9709937-0-6

"In accordance with Islam, citizens of Iran are still divided into two groups: Muslims (known as Momen) and Non-Muslims (kafer). Non-Muslims are divided into two more groups: Zimmi and Harbi." Zimmi or dhimmis are the Ahle-kittab (jews, christians, Zorastrians) and the Harbi are the panthesitic religions like Bhuddishts and hindus. The book goes on to say " .. gave Muslims the freedom to enjoy every privilige and to hold any and all positions in society. The Harbi are essentially social non-entities, but the Zimmis are allowed to practice their own religion, though they must pay "Jizya", and are forbidden from holding a high political, judicial, or military positions. They were not allowed to touch food in the market places, or to even go to market on rainy days, because it was believed that they were "najiss," or dirty, and they would contaminate what they touched. If a muslim and a non-muslim lived on the same street, the non-muslims entryway could not be as high as the Muslim's. If a Zorastrian converted to Islam, all assets of the deceased parent would go to the newly converted person, regardless of the number or situations of siblings, regardless of the wishes of the deceased." Anyway he goes on to illustrate some other differences.
In India, the Hanafi fiqha eventually allowed hindus to be recogonised as Dhimmis although the other three fiqha have never accepted that and hindus are still classified as Harbi.
So please do not falsely claim that minorites and muslims are the same under your concept of Sharia. That is a lie. There is just too many sources showing otherwise.
And so you can pigeon hole me: I consider myself a muslim. I am an American and proud of it. However, feel free to call me a kafir, or a hindi, or a jew or etc. whatever makes you comfortable.

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited August 06, 2002).]