Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
^ Homosexuals are human being - unless their actions harm another person they have a right to live.
Sir they are criminals and their punishment is death only a non muslim can deny it
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
Your a very confused and ignorant person. I hope that with education and study, you will grow up, but you really are very immature at this point.
I don't need people like you who are defending the biggest crime in Islam to tell me who is immature
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
Sir it is not fun it is one of the biggest sin ALLAH destroyed a whole nation for this and this can't be tolerated
ALLAH (swt) did, not us. Live and let live, they aren't posing a threat to you. If Allah (swt) suddenly wants to rid the world of gays, He can take care of it Himself betay.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
I don't need people like you who are defending the biggest crime in Islam to tell me who is immature
Who would you prefer tell you your immature? Im sure anyone who tells you otherwise is only being nice to you.
You sound like a nice boy, but it seems you havent seen the world or read much. Inshallah, once you mature you will understand.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
interesting stuff, UN is not capable of showing any balls for stopping wars by US, so all it can do is the stuff like this.. promote hijraism, as UN has proven to be one Hijra institute... so this is the movement just to back the right of UN Officials :)
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
interesting stuff, UN is not capable of showing any balls for stopping wars by US, so all it can do is the stuff like this.. promote hijraism, as UN has proven to be one Hijra institute... so this is the movement just to back the right of UN Officials :)
That post was a bigger waste of bandwidth than mukobhai's repetitive posts - and says so much about you.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
That post was a bigger waste of bandwidth than mukobhai's repetitive posts - and says so much about you.
exactly and that is why you have to reply.. says alot about you
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
hanibal - my comment and yours are not equally reprehensible. Yours castigates/discriminates against an entire community of people - mine only castigates you.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
^^ Read again what you wrote,
I criticized a whole organization for which have basis, but what you did was got personal... would you like to go personal in such debates???
or let me put it in another way, if anyone disagrees with you or criticize the people you support, you get into personal argument.. learn to take disagreement..
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
ALLAH (swt) did, not us. Live and let live, they aren't posing a threat to you. If Allah (swt) suddenly wants to rid the world of gays, He can take care of it Himself betay.
ALLAH destroyed a nation for this crime if this was not a crime ALLAH wouldn't have destroyed that nation and its punishment is death clearly stated in the Quran and HADEES
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
Thankyou for your reply javed bhai. So have still not answered the question I asked. But I hope you at least did ask the question in your head - that you cannot write down the answer in text - is of course your choice.
You are right in saying that depending on who you hang out with - your views would change. However if you're implying by this that a person who hangs out with homosexuals will commit homosexual acts - I think that is quite far fetched and unrealistic - why? because homosexuals tend to not identify themselves as homosexuals and are in the "closet" - only they know they're homosexual - most of their friends and relatives are heterosexual - and hanging out with them clearly does not make them homosexual. So in terms of influencing opinions - the people who you hang out with - would make a difference. But in terms of actions - especially sexuality - I don't think its as simple as hanging out with homosexuals will make you homosexual - as the opposite is clearly not the case.
Your vomiting at the thought of homosexual behavior is understandable given the biased discourse on the topic.
You mention though that you won't deny any homosexual person any right until found guilty. Found guilty of what exactly? Guilty of fornication with another homosexual? If they are found guilty of the act - what punishment would you like to see implemented?
Javed bhai - you mentioned earlier that punishment for homosexuals found guilty should be the job of the courts - state - Islamic state. As of today - homosexuality - the act - is punishable by death. Would you be okay with a homosexual couple - found guilty of intercourse - to be put to death?
You assume that I am secular. You are absolutely right. I am secular - because I cannot bear the thought of an Islamic State in Pakistan. In Pakistan we don't have Muslims - we have Sunni - Deoband, Sunni Bareilve, Sunni (other schools of thought), Shia, Ahmedi, Bahai, Hindu, Christians etc. There is no way that we can have an Islamic State in this country that would be acceptable to all sects. This is why I am secular. The Taliban perhaps a very different idea of an Islamic State than you have - where women don't go to school, where you must keep a bear, where women must be more or less totally covered etc. The point is that we can't have everyone agree on the type of Islamic State Pakistan should be. Hence the idea of establishing an Islamic State should be abandoned.
We need a state which treats every citizen equally - and makes laws on the principal that what does not harm another citizen of the state is permissible.
red bhai
I answered your point on people lifestyle choice but you choose not to accept. People are molded by society and the culture around them no point repeating what i stated already.
second misunderstanding is Your comment about hanging around certain type of people this will not 100% make you homosexual, but my example was if your crowd is mainly secular orientated i.e socialists, atheists, capitalist no doubt will make idea of homosexuality acceptable behavior to you this what i am saying.
In today's time we have no islamic state only secular ones like pakistan,so in the coming islamic state a homosexual person we cannot harm them untill they commit a crime i.e fornication so in islamic state this require evidence i.e witness so if court case with witnesses and evidence find person guilty then the justice will be handed out. If no witness no evidence than no harm to homosexual person can be done. Same principle as adultury between man and woman if in doubt case thrown out this the beauty of islamic justice system we don't punish person if they found innocent.
Schools of thought in islam are permitted this not a problem for the state and non islamic sects like ahmadhi, bahi and other religions such christains, hindu, jews also have the rights which will be protected. We can look at history of islamic state for proof of this. Where did the jews run to when the spanish inquistion was happening in Andalusia? they run to capital of islamic state at time in istanbul how can you say islamic state does not provide rights to non muslims. History prooves it yet you say impossible to have it look at the evidences and you will see It is secularism that persecutes the people, and pakistan is your prime example of that even india the biggest demcoracy is the claim, is minorities like christian and muslims safe there you must be joking.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
red bhai
I answered your point on people lifestyle choice but you choose not to accept. People are molded by society and the culture around them no point repeating what i stated already.
You didn't answer the specific questions - but the mods have ruled that it is too personal a question so I cannot ask you to answer it.
second misunderstanding is Your comment about hanging around certain type of people this will not 100% make you homosexual, but my example was if your crowd is mainly secular orientated i.e socialists, atheists, capitalist no doubt will make idea of homosexuality acceptable behavior to you this what i am saying.
Which is perfectly fine, homosexuality has existed, does exist, and will continue to exist - hence the sooner people realize that its is okay, the better it will be for homosexuals - if according to you their afterlife is probably hell, why not give them a decent life in this world at least.
In today's time we have no islamic state only secular ones like pakistan,so in the coming islamic state a homosexual person we cannot harm them untill they commit a crime i.e fornication so in islamic state this require evidence i.e witness so if court case with witnesses and evidence find person guilty then the justice will be handed out. If no witness no evidence than no harm to homosexual person can be done. Same principle as adultury between man and woman if in doubt case thrown out this the beauty of islamic justice system we don't punish person if they found innocent.
Are you seriously calling Pakistan a secular state? Article 2 of the constitution says Islam is the religion of the state. The Objectives Resolution is part of the constitution. Federal Shariah Courts etc. So many of our laws are based on Shariah. We might not be a complete Islamic Static, but we're definitely not secular.
What do you mean justice will be handed out - commit a homosexual act, given enough witnesses, the state is going to kill you? Thats justice?
Schools of thought in islam are permitted this not a problem for the state and non islamic sects like ahmadhi, bahi and other religions such christains, hindu, jews also have the rights which will be protected. We can look at history of islamic state for proof of this. Where did the jews run to when the spanish inquistion was happening in Andalusia? they run to capital of islamic state at time in istanbul how can you say islamic state does not provide rights to non muslims. History prooves it yet you say impossible to have it look at the evidences and you will see It is secularism that persecutes the people, and pakistan is your prime example of that even india the biggest demcoracy is the claim, is minorities like christian and muslims safe there you must be joking.
Just because at a point in time the Islamic State was the paramount in human rights etc, does not mean the same kind of Islamic State would hold that title today.
In India minorities may be persecuted, but imagine if the RSS types were supported by the majority of the people and they made a Hindu State (which India is not).
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
^^ Read again what you wrote,
I criticized a whole organization for which have basis, but what you did was got personal... would you like to go personal in such debates???
or let me put it in another way, if anyone disagrees with you or criticize the people you support, you get into personal argument.. learn to take disagreement..
Hanibal - I said that your comment said a lot about you. And it does. I have no issues with you criticizing the United Nations. However you used the word Hijra in a derogatory context while describing the UN. You can rip apart the UN if you want, but when you use a persecuted minority in a derogatory manner to describe something you don't like - your post starts to reek. My issue with that post of yours is on the way you are using the word Hijra, you previously mention the lack of balls of the UN, followed by the Hijra statement. Which means you're prejudiced against them, don't respect them as human beings. It does say a lot about you.
To remind you, here's what you said:
interesting stuff, UN is not capable of showing any balls for stopping wars by US, so all it can do is the stuff like this.. promote hijraism, as UN has proven to be one Hijra institute... so this is the movement just to back the right of UN Officials :)
substitute - ineffective, stupid, weak, immoral, for hijraism as the word to describe the UN and your post would be totally fine.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
Hanibal - I said that your comment said a lot about you. And it does. I have no issues with you criticizing the United Nations. However you used the word Hijra in a derogatory context while describing the UN. You can rip apart the UN if you want, but when you use a persecuted minority in a derogatory manner to describe something you don't like - your post starts to reek. My issue with that post of yours is on the way you are using the word Hijra, you previously mention the lack of balls of the UN, followed by the Hijra statement. Which means you're prejudiced against them, don't respect them as human beings. It does say a lot about you.
To remind you, here's what you said:
substitute - ineffective, stupid, weak, immoral, for hijraism as the word to describe the UN and your post would be totally fine.
We were talking about gays and punishment of gays is death in Islam that is clear
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
^ yes we are - do you have anything else to add?
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
We were talking about gays and punishment of gays is death in Islam that is clear
@ red, i'll reply to u later
@ mako,please provide me with the source of this claim, if i am right, Quran clearly speaks about such punishment and death is not even near to it... so i would like you to educate me on the issue, please bring a single aya or authenticate hadees where the capital punishment has been suggested for lesbian and gays... please now i am waiting...
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
You didn't answer the specific questions - but the mods have ruled that it is too personal a question so I cannot ask you to answer it.
Which is perfectly fine, homosexuality has existed, does exist, and will continue to exist - hence the sooner people realize that its is okay, the better it will be for homosexuals - if according to you their afterlife is probably hell, why not give them a decent life in this world at least.
Are you seriously calling Pakistan a secular state? Article 2 of the constitution says Islam is the religion of the state. The Objectives Resolution is part of the constitution. Federal Shariah Courts etc. So many of our laws are based on Shariah. We might not be a complete Islamic Static, but we're definitely not secular.
Just because at a point in time the Islamic State was the paramount in human rights etc, does not mean the same kind of Islamic State would hold that title today.
In India minorities may be persecuted, but imagine if the RSS types were supported by the majority of the people and they made a Hindu State (which India is not).
If a state has laws i.e islamic state in future inshallah they implemented just because you don't like it because homosexuality is punishable is neither here or there. In parts of Europe some people also want to have fornication with their daughters and sons i.e incest and others want to have relationship with animals should we give them pass to carry on? in some european secular countries they allow this disgrace its legal! what is your view on this since you representing secularism?
The pakistan political system was created by the british raj and the system has not changed much since its inception unless you telling me the british raj based their aqeedah and laws on islam? Proof of how secular the constitution Article 31(1) the state acts only as a facilitator for its citizens "to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam" i.e it does not enforce islamic laws. article 227 allows the legislation decided upon by an assembly and whatever they decide could be anything they choose even if they toss a coin they can do it.
i can go on a dissection course of the constitution instead i will point to few sample realities of the state. Lets look at the economy along with it's complete usuary(riba) which part of shariah made riba allowed, funny didn't recall seeing that permitted from any islamic texts i read, maybe you can point it out to me? since you claim pakistan is non secular and islamic right?
what about GST and income tax under what islamic texts with evidence is this permitted?
i can point to foreign forces in the country completely going against the one of the main conditions of an islamic state which is "the security of an islamic state must be in the hands of the muslims" can you say that about pakistan again which part of the islamic laws allowed an enemy state like the americans access to every part of the state infrastructure?
Judicial system article 248 any minister, government and president is immune from prosecution from what shariah principle or law is this based? none it completely secular based and shows how corrupt the secular system is in pakistan.
I gave you evidence of justice to minorities under the islamic state your response did not even refute it, instead you insulted the current secular muslim countries of today who cannot even give rights to muslims so on this point you slapped your own secular ideology so yes i agree with you on this point about current regimes in muslim lands :)
India with 800 million people in severe poverty and minorities looking over their shoulders every minute is direct result under secular rule how can you even deny these facts if you do go ahead do it i would like to see the refutation of it.
finally hinduism is not an ideology it is just a religion with no say on life's affairs at all, so the rss or bjp or abc whoever they are if in power will simply implement a rehash of what already there i.e democratic capitalism.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
If a state has laws i.e islamic state in future inshallah they implemented just because you don't like it because homosexuality is punishable is neither here or there. In parts of Europe some people also want to have fornication with their daughters and sons i.e incest and others want to have relationship with animals should we give them pass to carry on? in some european secular countries they allow this disgrace its legal! what is your view on this since you representing secularism?
Of course if the Islamic State comes as a result of the democratic will of the people - whatever law parliament legislates would be enforced, I might not like some of those laws - so I'll vote for someone who can change them.
Incest - Parent/offspring - in my opinion would theoretically be fine - as long as a judge can determine for certain that the childs upbringing was not in such a way that predisposes them to say yes to such a union. So I guess the only case where I would actually ever be okay with this happening would be if a parent lost their child - met them after the child was 18 and then the two of them consented to their relationship - because only in such a case would you be able to ensure that the power that the parent commands over the child until they turn 18 is not abused, because otherwise that would be pedophilia and I don't think any sane person would support that - even in Europe - would love to see some links about the Europe story though.
As for bestiality. If there was a way in which the consent of the animal could be determined - and the animal was a free animal - then yes I wouldn't have a problem with bestiality either. Until that happens though - condoning bestiality because the guy/girl thinks they save love/lust in the animals eyes is not sufficient.
The pakistan political system was created by the british raj and the system has not changed much since its inception unless you telling me the british raj based their aqeedah and laws on islam? Proof of how secular the constitution Article 31(1) the state acts only as a facilitator for its citizens "to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam" i.e it does not enforce islamic laws. article 227 allows the legislation decided upon by an assembly and whatever they decide could be anything they choose even if they toss a coin they can do it.
i can go on a dissection course of the constitution instead i will point to few sample realities of the state. Lets look at the economy along with it's complete usuary(riba) which part of shariah made riba allowed, funny didn't recall seeing that permitted from any islamic texts i read, maybe you can point it out to me? since you claim pakistan is non secular and islamic right?
The highlighted part is incorrect - I said -
We might not be a complete Islamic State), but we're definitely not secular.
hence the rest of your post - which is quite an informative one - is misdirected - because you misread what I said. Currently Pakistan is in limbo - not secular because we have some laws based on Shariah, and not and Islamic State because all laws that can be based on Shariah are not.
what about GST and income tax under what islamic texts with evidence is this permitted?
i can point to foreign forces in the country completely going against the one of the main conditions of an islamic state which is "the security of an islamic state must be in the hands of the muslims" can you say that about pakistan again which part of the islamic laws allowed an enemy state like the americans access to every part of the state infrastructure?
Judicial system article 248 any minister, government and president is immune from prosecution from what shariah principle or law is this based? none it completely secular based and shows how corrupt the secular system is in pakistan.
See above.
I gave you evidence of justice to minorities under the islamic state your response did not even refute it, instead you insulted the current secular muslim countries of today who cannot even give rights to muslims so on this point you slapped your own secular ideology so yes i agree with you on this point about current regimes in muslim lands :)
India with 800 million people in severe poverty and minorities looking over their shoulders every minute is direct result under secular rule how can you even deny these facts if you do go ahead do it i would like to see the refutation of it.
finally hinduism is not an ideology it is just a religion with no say on life's affairs at all, so the rss or bjp or abc whoever they are if in power will simply implement a rehash of what already there i.e democratic capitalism.
I'm not sure what evidence of justice of minorities you gave - I also don't know what state today or in the past you consider an Islamic State because in the other thread you seem to imply that Mughal India was an Islamic State.
Are minorities in India safe? In the eyes of the state they're equal citizens, practically in the eyes of society? no.
I'd love to discuss more in the Secular Pakistan thread in Pakistan Affairs, this thread has already been derailed - once because of the morality/legality of homosexuality - and now this.
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
Of course if the Islamic State comes as a result of the democratic will of the people - whatever law parliament legislates would be enforced, I might not like some of those laws - so I'll vote for someone who can change them.
Incest - Parent/offspring - in my opinion would theoretically be fine - as long as a judge can determine for certain that the childs upbringing was not in such a way that predisposes them to say yes to such a union. So I guess the only case where I would actually ever be okay with this happening would be if a parent lost their child - met them after the child was 18 and then the two of them consented to their relationship - because only in such a case would you be able to ensure that the power that the parent commands over the child until they turn 18 is not abused, because otherwise that would be pedophilia and I don't think any sane person would support that - even in Europe - would love to see some links about the Europe story though.
As for bestiality. If there was a way in which the consent of the animal could be determined - and the animal was a free animal - then yes I wouldn't have a problem with bestiality either. Until that happens though - condoning bestiality because the guy/girl thinks they save love/lust in the animals eyes is not sufficient.
The highlighted part is incorrect - I said -
hence the rest of your post - which is quite an informative one - is misdirected - because you misread what I said. Currently Pakistan is in limbo - not secular because we have some laws based on Shariah, and not and Islamic State because all laws that can be based on Shariah are not.
See above.
I'm not sure what evidence of justice of minorities you gave - I also don't know what state today or in the past you consider an Islamic State because in the other thread you seem to imply that Mughal India was an Islamic State.
Are minorities in India safe? In the eyes of the state they're equal citizens, practically in the eyes of society? no.
I'd love to discuss more in the Secular Pakistan thread in Pakistan Affairs, this thread has already been derailed - once because of the morality/legality of homosexuality - and now this.
I clearly say as Homosexuality is a crime in an Islamic Society so it can't be tolerated at any cost simple as that
Re: UN backs gay rights for first time ever
^^ Mukhobai stop playing allah and giving one line decrees.
we dont care what you say, if you got an opinion than provide a link or reference or shup the hell up.
stop trolling.