Wahabism in Centers of Learning

#99 (add-on)

Starting from the beginning, of course!

#96 Nasah

[so for heavens sake get rid of them in Pakistan in favor of liberal secularism -- for crying out loud!]

Nasah sahib, I am sure you have realized over time that if there is anything that tops the Pakistani consistency in making one foolish mistake after another - it is the Pakistani insistence that actually those are not foolish mistakes!!!

#95 by shishapa

``Can an Islamic law change i.e. could/would there be amendments to the
Islamic constitution? ``

As far I see them, they are static. Just see the problem in Pakistan. Zia put togather Huddood ordinance and when Mush attempts to change it, some start shouting that it is unislamic to change that.

That is why no country should ever have religious laws as you never can amend them to reflect the changing times and situations.

nasah, You are right. We never got to that discussion.

Re: # 96
[...get rid of them in Pakistan in favor of liberal secularism ...]

Yeah sure... may be when the hell freezes over... :))

``What I am arguing is that Islamic laws are discriminatory if the population is not 100% Muslim`` (HP)

Islamic laws are discriminatory EVEN if the population is 100% Muslim -- against Muslim women -- the `laws` overwhelmingly favor a Muslim male chauvinist pig -- so for heavens sake get rid of them in Pakistan in favor of liberal secularism -- for crying out loud!

Can an Islamic law change i.e. could/would there be amendments to the
Islamic constitution?

How about a ruler? Can a non-muslim be a ruler in a majority muslim state?
Is there any thing that stops it from happening? Are there any such examples?

#91 by khurram

``But what about a law banning adultery? or interest? How would that be discriminatory?``

If the ban on adultary is based on Islamic jurisprudence which may be contrary to other person`s beliefs or religion then the law is discriminatory. Besides, a secular society should never ban adultary. Why sex between consenting adults should be a state offense?

The same rule would apply to interest also. If the interest laws are based on Islamic principles then it should not apply to any non muslim but if you force them on all citizens then you are discriminating.

#92 (add-on)

However, cheer up. You can always drown those sorrows in more pegs of zaam! (or is that jaam?)

#89 Hip-Pee

[You brain]

Ama yaar, the truth really hurts you, doesn`t it?!! My condolences.

And how does it feel to be crushed under those martial boots like the Sindhis are - for being considered a bit less pure in the land of the super Pure?

re: HP,

``What I am arguing is that Islamic laws are discriminatory if the population is not 100% Muslim``

You need to elaborate on this because it is not clear to me at all. Why would a law be discriminatory just for being Islamic unless it is actually discriminating among citizens.
For example, a law equating 2 non-muslim witnesses with one muslim would indeed be discriminatory. But what about a law banning adultery? or interest? How would that be discriminatory?

Prophet was not a Wahabi -- to say that is `shirk`.

Abdul Wahab was not born before prophet -- prophet was fun lovingb -- Abdul Wahab was a joyless sour puss Grinch who stole the merriment from a joyfully creative Islam and put it in an Oxcart rut of a praying ``BaelGaaRee`` -- the remaining vestiges of fun were stolen by another son of Wahab the other killjoy -- Leroy Maudoodee -- who dug and dug the wahabi rut deeper and deeper to a point where even the Islamic `BaelGaaRee got stuck` -- with his total submission of the Umma to the Maudoodee owned interpreted Allah -- and thru Him submission to the clever Maulana.

Liberal secularism is not a religion -- but it is the most humanistically humane Shangri la that comes closest -- if any -- to the professed aspirations of any religion including Islam -- that all religions aspire to but could never reach -- because of their compulsive mixing of politics and the statecraft with their religions -- turning the mix into highly explosive witche`s brew -- not ``the elixir of blissful emancipation``.

Liberal secularism is not against Islam -- it is against Islam in politics -- same way it is direly against Christianity in politics -- because the Christians have been badly burnt by Christianity in politics in the past

now they are watching how the Muslims are imitating Christian`s horrid PAST and calling it Islamic resurgence -- walking in the foot steps of the Christian travellers of 100 years ago -- brimming with fratricidal decadence -- and calling it Islamic Ijtihad!`.

what theChristians did 100 years ago -- the Muslims are self-immolating themselves in every `Islamic` country in the same way in 2006 -- by pouring the sectarian kerosene of extremist wahabism over the cultural, politcal and economic fabric of their societies -- in a bonefire of fraricidal killings -- and calling it emancipation.

There is nothing special about Islam and its Islamist Wahabism -- it is just the Bedouin version of Christian Calvinism that must shed its own share of Muslim sectarian blood before it gets tamed and civilized into modern liberal secularism -- which will be around........................................................ 2050!

#88,
Khasi,
You answer to people who you think would understand. You brain never left Antarctica and it is still frozen along with your IQ numbers.

#86 (add-on)

Of course, I have (strong) opinion and words regarding those who lack the guts to answer simple questions.

#86

Asking a VERY simple question.

Hopefully should not be too difficult for this crowd of ``intellectuals``!

Re: # 83

Yeah pakis, answer it now... let`s settle that right here, once and for all... whose daddy is better?... My daddy or your daddy?...

+++

BJ man - what are you doing?...

mohar:
indeed, it could be termed as Islamic Automata having a tree structure where every baby-node is connected to the root node: Mohammad through an umbilical link going through its parent node.