Bull!! He was no where near ... not even a drop of bloods worth shaheed .. Shaheed by definition can only be one who fights or dies trying ONLY in the way of Alllah for Allah ..and here this dude .. was just not right esp with his coments .. he shud have thought about em before he said em .. he d been still alive .. they say ... you reap what you sow .. and he sowed 27 bullets .. if there were more am sure or the guy got a chance he d have emptied many more magazines into him...but lets not get over excited about calling him shaheed in this world .. Allah can decide for the hearafter and certainly not a shaheed in the virtual world ..
im not sure what gradual steps you think are possible. for those who opposed Taseer, any modification to the law is unacceptable. Can you be more specific on what you mean by a gradual change.
Well, forming organizations and conferences so that scholars and leaders of different faiths and sects can involve and work together in order to get a better understanding of each other's belief, encouraging more tolerance toward minorities using the power of media, and by banning any hateful lectures about other sects or faiths in mosques and other public gatherings. And also by listening to "whackjob molvis" and responding to them without calling them jahils(even if they are jahil) before making a show of changing the law.
I know it probably sounds far from reality. To be honest, I don't know how a majority with mob mentality should be handled.
Bull!! He was no where near ... not even a drop of bloods worth shaheed .. Shaheed by definition can only be one who fights or dies trying ONLY in the way of Alllah for Allah ..and here this dude .. was just not right esp with his coments .. he shud have thought about em before he said em .. he d been still alive .. they say ... you reap what you sow .. and he sowed 27 bullets .. if there were more am sure or the guy got a chance he d have emptied many more magazines into him...but lets not get over excited about calling him shaheed in this world .. Allah can decide for the hearafter and certainly not a shaheed in the virtual world ..
I can't find anything blasphemous in what he said anywhere.
Well, forming organizations and conferences so that scholars and leaders of different faiths and sects can involve and work together in order to get a better understanding of each other's belief, encouraging more tolerance toward minorities using the power of media, and by banning any hateful lectures about other sects or faiths in mosques and other public gatherings. And also by listening to "whackjob molvis" and responding to them without calling them jahils(even if they are jahil) before making a show of changing the law.
what change to law would be included in this gradual change? the only change to the law I see is banning hateful lectures about other sects/faiths, and you'll have the same whackjob molvies on your case again.
what change to law would be included in this gradual change? the only change to the law I see is banning hateful lectures about other sects/faiths, and you'll have the same whackjob molvies on your case again.
So there is no way out then?
may be they should be given some money to stay quiet, I mean you can buy them. (I sound so Machiavelli)
Whatever his views were, whatever his lifestyle was, killing him was a crime and the criminal needs to be seen as a criminal. People are debating about who was the hero and who was the villain here. How are people even debating it? Don't they see who killed whom?
About the justification given by people in favour of Qadri, when the prophet (S.A.W) was cursed in his life time, he would not respond with anger or killing that person. He was rather good to them. So if we can grow beard because he had, use misvaak, because he would use it, why can't we follow his good behaviour as well? Why can't we be good to people even if they curse our prophet?
As all the muslims reflect the image of Islam to others, would we not be presenting Islam in a better way if we are forgiving, tolerant, and nice to all those who attack Islam or even our prophet? Atleast, thats what I know was the demeanour of our prophet (S.A.W).
'I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill' ........Mohandas Gandhi
Nothing can justify Taseer's cold-blooded murder but he should have probably chosen his words wisely in public and dealt with the nuisance (aka maulvis) with tact. Openly calling mullahs jaahil (we know they are) and the blashemy law 'kala qanoon' was always going to land him in big trouble with the religious fundos even if he was essentially saying the same thing as Imran and most other sensible Pakistanis
Mullahs being mullahs (or jaahil to the core. 99% of them are halwa maulvis and not educated in the real sense) as long as they have infectious influence over the masses, there is no hope of Pakistan ever becoming a progressive and tolerant society
And barelwis are supposed to be more moderate than deobandis or wahabis!!
Mujhe nahi pata ke salman taseer ko shaheed kaha ja sakta hai ya nahi. but is tarah se qatal ker dena sara sir ghalat hai. salman taseer ne asia bibi ke haq main ja ker kuch ghalat nahi kiya tha. mujhe lagta tha ke pakistan main sirf education ki kami hai lekin nahi pakistan main religious education ki bhi kami hai. too sad
everyone can judge and everyone can have their point of view. just dont get hurt when it isnt acknowledged as God's own truth.
to your point Archangel, Im surprised it took you this long to figure out that I am saying its an individual viewpoint... given that my first reply to you was:
Also note that I do not think that individual viewpoints cannot be debated and meaningfully agreed and disagreed upon. Merely that the sphere of subjectivity is extended when it includes you and me, it is not escaped from.
What took me long to figure out was the mentality I was dealing with. Just like the Taliban you and those purporting the idea of the Governor being Shaheed use religion as a weapon. There is little I can say or do that will change that mentality and as the Borg say Resistance is futile. You warp the idea of Shaheed from the original notion as stated in the Quran to fit your personal agenda of what you believe, regardless of what the faith says. That is exactly what the Taliban does as well.
If one took the concept of Shaheed as defined in Hadis and the Quran only Edhi would qualify as a man worthy of the title. The values and method by which you designate the value of a shaheed means if a serial rapists dies protesting against green house gasses he can be a shaheed because that is your opinion. You value subjective emotions over logical reasoning and the statements of the Quran.
At the end of the day those who are using the notion of Shaheed to strike back at the religious fundamentalists who are happy with his death are using the notion as a weapon against them. The day religion becomes a weapon for political agenda is the day we lose the essence of our faith and its virtues.
Opinions are never wrong or right. They are based on subjective experiences and not on facts and only facts can be argued.
Nice line, but I dont think either I, or Taleban in general, use religion outside its intended goals. I have no basis to say that faith is instrumental for them just because I dont like them or agree with them. I dont need to believe they are insincere in their belief in order to oppose them.
At the risk of being circular, you appear to suffer from an explanatory urge that clutches at simplistic, assumption-laden explanations for behaviour you dont agree with.
Nonsense. You make a distinction between ‘personal agenda of what you believe’ and ‘what the faith says’ as if that were a dichotomy. You have a particular view of what a shaheed is, and that is then the ‘original notion’. I just happen to be more modest than you, or the taleban, in acknowledging the status of my interpretations. You are one of the dogmatists who believes that every other sect has got point X wrong because they dont believe in Quran and/or Sunnah.
Heh. More than a little hyperbole going on there.
I will demonstrate to you, given my stance on various issues, how Taseer is shaheed. You may not agree with the specific stances, and that is where the subjectivity lies. In what follows, I’ve bolded in the original definitions where subjectivity may arise, due to differing opinions on ST’s actions and stances.
Lets begin with a definition. Mufti Taqi Usmani says:
ST was a Muslim, and was killed unjustly (in my opinion). I could end it at that. However, I also believe that he was killed during “Jihad”. Specifically, Jihad-bil-Lisan. Taking a definition from here:
Now whether it is ‘supporting good’ to stand up for Asia bibi and ‘correcting what is wrong’ to oppose a regressive law promulgate din the name of Islam is obviously dependent on your point of view on those things to begin with. However if you grant those priors (as many in this thread do) ST’s shahadat logically follows from the definition and the circumstances of his death.
There is no striking back going on. I have been arguing with fundamentalists for quite a few hours yesterday, without deploying the shaheed weapon. The designation is a reflection of our beliefs, and reflective of our religious sensibilities. That it happens to irk religious fundamentalists is just gravy.
You’re probably begging the question. Presumably what I say is ‘opinion’ and what you argue with are ‘facts’. At any rate, you notice I did say that opinions can be agreed or disagreed with. Furthermore, opinion may be debated as right or wrong (see here, for instance), with the often unstated context of a shared methodology and axioms. I have reason to believe that there are people on this thread here who would be able to meaningfully discuss and debate, what will still remain opinion even if it is consensus, taseer’s shahadat.
Lets try another tact. It will make my life easier due to a lack of time.
Every view point is subjective, thus an interpretation of what we believe and accept. I base my definition of Shaheed on the Quran and various hadis. You base yours only on one, which promotes your agenda.
You have already ignored other hadis that say otherwise because you did not agree with their source.
Thus going back to my point that you are using religion as a tool to further a political agenda.
Lets try another tact. It will make my life easier due to a lack of time.
Every view point is subjective, thus an interpretation of what we believe and accept.
Great, we agree on that.
[quote]
I base my definition of Shaheed on the Quran and various hadis.
[/quote]
As yet, unspecified Quran and unspecified various hadis.
edit: Ah. Hizb-ut-Tahrir links. Well so be it, what we have is different sources for evidence then. You are citing what I regard as whackjobs as evidence. I am rejecting them offhand.
[quote]
You base yours only on one, which promotes your agenda.
[/quote]
Heh. So now my interpretation is tainted by definition. What is the point of you asking me to give logical argument if you will ignore it and say you have an agenda.
[quote]
You have already ignored other hadis that say otherwise because you did not agree with their source.
[/quote]
What hadis did I ignore? And assuming I were to reject a hadis because of source, what is the basis for implying that I really reject it because of an agenda? And what is your rationale for ignoring the evidence presented to you?
edit: Ah. Now I remember... you posted links from Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Well yes then, I consider them a fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream Muslim society, and my rejection of them has absolutely nothing to do with Salman Taseer and this specific agenda. I have posted from much more mainstream sources, even though I am not of Usmani's sect I happen to agree with his description of shaheed. My own sect (shia) has similar opinion on what shaheed is defined as.
[quote]
Thus going back to my point that you are using religion as a tool to further a political agenda.
[/QUOTE]
There is no thus about it. You have made a claim and repeated it twice, once with a Thus prefacing it. Your argument reads as follows: