You might think he's a cartoon - but he does have followers in Pakistan.
So here is yet another example where ALL Muslims in Pakistan cannot agree with each other - and goes to prove the point that religion must not be adopted by the State.
First of all he has very very very few followers most of whom have even left after he ran away secondly Hijab and Pardah is Farz and Islamic government can enforce it secondly Shariah is the complete LAW which has to be and will be implemented
So then would you say that the people of the country are not in a position to decide what kind of an Islamic State they want? And hence the idea of establishing one should be abandoned, and we should come back to it another 50 years from now - like Turkey?
Brother where ever in Muslim world you will try to establish secularism it will fail it can never work because Muslims believe in Islam and it has its own system and secularism denies it and that is kufr so sooner or later secularism will fail because it is a failed system
That's an unexpected response. I am hoping to get a serious discussion.
I am not an MQM spokesman nor do my views represent MQM people.
These views are my own. And they are shared by people from all parties who are weary of use of religion in Pakistan.
MQM is a party of traitors who have killed thousands of people in Pakistan and are also traitors of Islam they will be taken out very soon
as far as i know ... Islam is against of any kind of force!! so you cant force someone to wear hijab!! or force him/her to follow your religion.
“Verily, we have sent down to you (O Muhammad peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the Book (this Qur’an) for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self, and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his (own) loss. And you (O Muhammad SAW) are not a Wakîl (trustee or disposer of affairs, or keeper) over them.” (Az-Zumar 39:41)
“Verily! This (Verses of the Qur’an) is an admonition, so whosoever wills, let him take a Path to his Lord (Allah). But you cannot will, unless Allah wills. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Surah Ad-Dahr 76:29-30)
it clearly says that you can not make others to accept the guidance ... it will be the person's own loss if they do not follow the right path. and he will be answerable himself not me or you.!!!! ... If Allah swt wanted he couldve made everyone a muslim but he did not .. cuz the purpose wouldve been lost ...the purpose of this world is to test them and award them according to their good or bad deeds! ... and yes having said that .. you should always invite others to the right path ... and you can do that with your actions even .. set up a example yourself first ... but you cant force someone to wear hijab or convert to Islam!
So then would you say that the people of the country are not in a position to decide what kind of an Islamic State they want? And hence the idea of establishing one should be abandoned, and we should come back to it another 50 years from now - like Turkey?
if you remember you asked me if i would vote for islamic system or some socialist european model and i said i would go for european socialist model... and the reason is what you have mentioned, masses in Pakistan are not aware what Islam is, they are either hard-core islamists, who believes in killing of anyone not agreeing to their doctrine or we have liberal fascist, who consider it their duty to say that Islam nothing but combination of contradiction... if we implement the Islamic system in between all this, we may be looking forward to civil war...
we need to adopt a neutral ground and educate the masses about the Islam as a Science of living and once we do that, the Islamic System would be implemented automatically....
I cannot model it with Turkey because, Kamal Pasha, totally abandoned it, i would rather not take or support that extreme measure, i would take a middle road and i believe that is the way to avoid the blood-shed...
as far as i know ... Islam is against of any kind of force!! so you cant force someone to wear hijab!! or force him/her to follow your religion.
“Verily, we have sent down to you (O Muhammad peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the Book (this Qur’an) for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self, and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his (own) loss. And you (O Muhammad SAW) are not a Wakîl (trustee or disposer of affairs, or keeper) over them.” (Az-Zumar 39:41)
“Verily! This (Verses of the Qur’an) is an admonition, so whosoever wills, let him take a Path to his Lord (Allah). But you cannot will, unless Allah wills. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Surah Ad-Dahr 76:29-30)
it clearly says that you can not make others to accept the guidance ... it will be the person's own loss if they do not follow the right path. and he will be answerable himself not me or you.!!!! ... If Allah swt wanted he couldve made everyone a muslim but he did not .. cuz the purpose wouldve been lost ...the purpose of this world is to test them and award them according to their good or bad deeds! ... and yes having said that .. you should always invite others to the right path ... and you can do that with your actions even .. set up a example yourself first ... but you cant force someone to wear hijab or convert to Islam!
You are very right, Islam says that "Just advise them/ preach it to them and do not force it to them" this is Islam... i won't serve any purpose if i have longest bread and MEHRAB on my forehead, but i work against the welfare and peace of Man-Kind ( remember the word is Man-Kind and not Muslims)
That's an unexpected response. I am hoping to get a serious discussion.
I am not an MQM spokesman nor do my views represent MQM people.
These views are my own. And they are shared by people from all parties who are weary of use of religion in Pakistan.
serious discussion with the serious people who bother to read and then reply....
^ I did read your reply. And this is why I said that people can have different views on it. Sistani thinks it is permissible to get interest in case someone in living in the West. But not everyone agrees with it.
That’s the point. Maybe I should have expressed it clearly. But I was in a hurry at that time, and did not post enough comments. That’s why you thought I was selectively quoting him.
But in the next post I gave other references where people disagreed with equating interest with riba.
The Riba-Interest Equivalence:
Is there an Ijma (consensus)?
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
Upper Iowa University
June 2006
as far as i know ... Islam is against of any kind of force!! so you cant force someone to wear hijab!! or force him/her to follow your religion.
“Verily, we have sent down to you (O Muhammad peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the Book (this Qur’an) for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self, and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his (own) loss. And you (O Muhammad SAW) are not a Wakîl (trustee or disposer of affairs, or keeper) over them.” (Az-Zumar 39:41)
“Verily! This (Verses of the Qur’an) is an admonition, so whosoever wills, let him take a Path to his Lord (Allah). But you cannot will, unless Allah wills. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Surah Ad-Dahr 76:29-30)
it clearly says that you can not make others to accept the guidance ... it will be the person's own loss if they do not follow the right path. and he will be answerable himself not me or you.!!!! ... If Allah swt wanted he couldve made everyone a muslim but he did not .. cuz the purpose wouldve been lost ...the purpose of this world is to test them and award them according to their good or bad deeds! ... and yes having said that .. you should always invite others to the right path ... and you can do that with your actions even .. set up a example yourself first ... but you cant force someone to wear hijab or convert to Islam!
Islamic state gives rights to non muslims it does not force people to change their religion, proof of this is India when it was under islamic rule if everyone forced to become muslim where did the 700 million hindus come from? the sky? obviously not so if anyone tries to claim islam forces people to change religion just slap them with this evidence they will soon shut up.
Islamic state gives rights to non muslims it does not force people to change their religion, proof of this is India when it was under islamic rule if everyone forced to become muslim where did the 700 million hindus come from? the sky? obviously not so if anyone tries to claim islam forces people to change religion just slap them with this evidence they will soon shut up.
Dude, the Mughals, were hardly Islamic. Babur, Jahngir, Akbar, Shah Jehan, all the these people were very liberal. Especially Akbar, who invited Jesuits to his court. The rulers of India were Muslim in name, but their dispensation was secular. That is why they were in power for so long. They adopted Hindu traditions, married into Hindu families, etc etc.
The downfall of the Mughals and the enmity of the minorities of India creeped during the reign of Aurangzeb, the self styled champion of Islam, who instituted all sorts of Islamic laws, including the Jaziya. It was due to this distorted Islamic ethos of his that say the rise of hostility between Hindus and their Muslim leader, the destruction of cultural institutions, the demise of Architecture, art etc.
So the success of the Muslim rulers of India was due to being Secular, not to being overtly Islamic, atleast until Aurangzheb who single handidly destroyed the legacy of his much wiser an more secular predecessors. Even Aurangzeb himself on his death bed acknowledged his faults and advised his sons to look to his SECULAR ancestors for inspiration and not to hm.
The reason you didnt see mass conversions by force or other outward signs of hostility between Muslims and Hindus, was due to the adoption by the Muslim courts of the liberal Chishti school of Sufi Islamic philosophy, which emphasized Humanity over religion. This philosophy not only won many converts to Islam, but also created harmony among the people. Ofcourse, today the same sufi school of thought is frowned upon by many ultra conservative Pakistanis.
if you remember you asked me if i would vote for islamic system or some socialist european model and i said i would go for european socialist model... and the reason is what you have mentioned, masses in Pakistan are not aware what Islam is, they are either hard-core islamists, who believes in killing of anyone not agreeing to their doctrine or we have liberal fascist, who consider it their duty to say that Islam nothing but combination of contradiction... if we implement the Islamic system in between all this, we may be looking forward to civil war...
we need to adopt a neutral ground and educate the masses about the Islam as a Science of living and once we do that, the Islamic System would be implemented automatically....
I cannot model it with Turkey because, Kamal Pasha, totally abandoned it, i would rather not take or support that extreme measure, i would take a middle road and i believe that is the way to avoid the blood-shed...
Yeah I remembered that post after I'd posted a reply to your comment here.
I don't agree with your method - but since it postpones the Islamic State for at least half a century if not more if not forever - I'm all for it :D
Islamic state gives rights to non muslims it does not force people to change their religion, proof of this is India when it was under islamic rule if everyone forced to become muslim where did the 700 million hindus come from? the sky? obviously not so if anyone tries to claim islam forces people to change religion just slap them with this evidence they will soon shut up.
Muslims in India increased because of Sufi preachers - Mian Mir, Bhittai, Gunj Baksh etc - not the deoband type turban toting - shalwar above takhna types.
The 700 million Hindus are still there because the Mughals - almost all of them were not really strict Muslims (Aurangzeb was a notable exception - who went on a Temple/Stupa destroying mission).
Ever heard of Akbar and Din e Illahi? He's a Mughal - would you call him a Muslim?
Yeah I remembered that post after I'd posted a reply to your comment here.
I don't agree with your method - but since it postpones the Islamic State for at least half a century if not more if not forever - I'm all for it :D
the islamic state is inevitable
north africa and the middle east finally erupting against the brutal secular rulers and dictators
pakistan, afghanistan and the resource rich and alhamdulilah muslim central asia the western political elite so scared stiff they know when one of these goes it will be domino effect, because they all next to each other. These political capitalists and there corporations interests and interference in the region will be over inshallah!
Secular countries have fewer religious conflicts... They arent accused of undermining the rights of minority religious groups. I live in a secular country, as to do many other people with various religious backgrounds, without any tension or oppression of any kind. The social stability afforded by such a system allows for the basis of a vibrant economy. Can you say the same of Pakistan, Saudia, Iran, Afghanistan... Seems the system is success to me. It may not work in every instance, but most countries that are progressing or developed are secular, where as those calling themselves Islamic are considered clowns. Look at Saudi with their female driving ban for instances, and all their other moronic rules.
France?? As I said earlier, the so-called Muslim countries you mentioned are bunch of hypocrites in one way or the other, so I don't trust them for "Islamic" rule anyways.
Muslims in India increased because of Sufi preachers - Mian Mir, Bhittai, Gunj Baksh etc - not the deoband type turban toting - shalwar above takhna types.
The 700 million Hindus are still there because the Mughals - almost all of them were not really strict Muslims (Aurangzeb was a notable exception - who went on a Temple/Stupa destroying mission).
Ever heard of Akbar and Din e Illahi? He's a Mughal - would you call him a Muslim?
look forget the orientalist propaganda give me straight answer for once because apparently in your view islamic state forces everyone to become muslim by the sword?
So enough dancing around issue did islamic state when it ruled india force the millions of non muslims to become muslim yes or no?
No in my view an Islamic State does not force everyone to become Muslim. I oppose the establishment of an Islamic State because of the way Hadd punishments are interpreted by mainstream Ulema in Pakistan today.
No the Mughals did not force every Hindu into becoming Muslim.
Note I said Mughals - Not the Islamic State of Mughal Hindustan. BECAUSE THE MUGHAL EMPIRE WAS NOT AN ISLAMIC STATE. It was a monarchy of foreign conquerors who ruled India, who were Muslim in name. Please see Akbar and Din e Illahi Din-i Ilahi - Wikipedia
If your concept of an Islamic State is what we had under the Mughals - I would only have a problem to that because it was a monarchy, not because of the Islamic nature of the state (none whatsoever).
France?? As I said earlier, the so-called Muslim countries you mentioned are bunch of hypocrites in one way or the other, so I don't trust them for "Islamic" rule anyways.
French secularism is an anomaly not a norm.
And I dont trust the hypocrite Islamic countries either, but I dont think there will ever be an acceptable Islamic state either way. Its a futile process, hence better to leave religion alone and focus on secular governance.
look forget the orientalist propaganda give me straight answer for once because apparently in your view islamic state forces everyone to become muslim by the sword?
So enough dancing around issue did islamic state when it ruled india force the millions of non muslims to become muslim yes or no?
Islamic state never ruled India... The Mughals and their predecessors were Muslims in name, but they were essentially secular. Your asking the wrong question...
France?? As I said earlier, the so-called Muslim countries you mentioned are bunch of hypocrites in one way or the other, so I don't trust them for "Islamic" rule anyways.
Ah, France, didn't think of that. But yeah any system can be abused, my opinion would be that an Islamic State would be more prone to abuse because its easier to shut down discussion by quoting the Quran & Sunnah.
The early Mughal rulers did not impose Islamic law on everyone, nor did they oppress non-Muslims. Which is why Akbar, Shahjahan etc received acceptance and support even from the Hindu princes. Aurangzeb set about on a mission to oppress Hindus and destroy Hindu temples, and enforce Islamic rule on everyone. The result is there for everyone to see - the Marathas conquered most Mughal territory and went on to establish the single largest empire in India till the British took control. Aurangzeb died a lonely man at the age of 90, with the Mughal treasury almost depleted.