Wahabism in Centers of Learning

#44 by hamidm2
“...... you do not see the irony (i call it a two-faced hypocrisy ) in this statement”

Hamid, Irony in both statements below is so thick you can bathe in it.


#43 by Urstruly

“What I promote in Pakistan is a constitutional democracy where no law is made that contradicts Islamic injunctions.”

#41 by oak
“You can only do it through Islam. This is not a matter of spin. Islam at its core shares the values of secularism for example to Holy Prophet`s (saw) saying ``whoever hurts a dhimmi (non-believer) hurts me``.”

Now let me ask you both Urstruly and Oak, how could you possibly have constitutional democracy when you reject every law, which contradicts Islamic injunctions? Or how could you possibly seek secularism through Islam ( or any religion)?
How could you spin that with a straight face?

The constitutional democracy in essence is against Islam. In addition, you seek secularism not thru a religion but by placing a religion aside in state matters. For secularism, all religions must have the same value and must be respected the same way and enjoy equal freedom.

Islam like Christianity or Judaism claims superiority over any other religion(including each other) so how could it allow all religions to be equal to Islam, an essential prerequisite of secularism.

#49, Burpy Under {``sadna, YLH agreed with something you said. Break out the champagne girl :)))

Burpy Under,
It`s not nice to abuse Sadna like that. You are being condescending and sexually harassing when you refer to her as a ``champagne girl.`` Please apologize to the nice lady.

The nonsense #50 is not mine. Chowk djinn has in fact chewed upon my post that was an answer to oak and echo. God how would I right that again/

Re: # 49

For secularism, all religions must have the same value and must be respected the same way and enjoy equal freedom.

Exactly. This is exactly Islamic.

Case in point dictation of the treaty of Hudibya and its instances.

Bus

HP

It is not the constitutional democarcy that is against Islam but it is the Secular or liberal democracy that is against Islam. Please appreciate the diffecernce. As a matter of fact liberal democracy in its essence is a anti-human anti-social ideology. The results of its anti-humanisms are obvious as day light in West where man is so confused today that he actually does not know whether he makes a husband or a wife. As a matter of fact under secular and liberal democracy the most basic institution of marriage has absolutely no place since marriage is a religious institution. So here it breaksdown the very basic unit of sociaty and civilization i.e. family. The negetive growth rates in west have their dire effects that it is a common sense knowledge that in coming 100-200 years white race will cease to exist. That would be the extinction of a whole race of people, thanks to liberalism and secularism.

Urstruly,

Here’s a window into your democracy.

Maudoodi on apostasy …

“There are two methods of dealing with an apostate. Either make him an outlaw by depriving him of his citizenship and allowing him mere existence, or end his life. The first method is definitely more severe than the second, because he exists in a state in which ‘neither lives nor dies’. Killing him is preferable. That way both his agony and the agony of society are ended simultaneously.”

Maudoodi, Murtad Ki Saza Islami Qanoon Mein (“Punishment for Apostates in Islamic Law”), page 51.

+++

You have supported killing apostates on grounds of Islamic law. Would you like to hear more?

Urstruly,

… here’s some more from your chief, Maudoodi. Can you come clean on this one?

++++++++

Maudoodi on Apostasy and Islamic Revolution

“Whenever death penalty for apostasy is enforced in a new Islamic state, then Muslims are kept within Islam’s fold. But there is a danger that large number of hypocrites will live alongside them. They will always pose a danger of treason.

My solution to the problem is this. That whenever an Islamic revolution takes place, all non-practicing Muslims should, within one year, declare their turning away from Islam and get out of Muslim society. After one year all born Muslims will be considered Muslims. All Islamic laws will be enforced upon them. They will be forced to practice all of the obligatory duties (faraid) and optional duties (wajibat) of their religion and if anyone wishes to leave Islam, he will be executed. Every effort will be made to save as many people as possible from falling into lap of disbelief (kufr). But those who cannot be saved will be reluctantly separated from society forever. After this purification Islamic society will start afresh with Muslims who have decided voluntarily to remain Muslims.”

Maudoodi, Murtad ki saza Islami qanoon mein (“Punishment for Apostates in Islamic Law”), Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd, 1950, page 80-81.

Re: # 41 oak,

``Islam at its core shares the values of secularism .......``

You have pointed out that Islam shares with secularism the values of tolerance and equality for all. However, there is also a point of conflict between secularism and islam that you have not addressed. Secularism demands that religion be kept out of state affairs and be limited to personal affairs. Islam, on the other hand, as a `complete way of life` will not be kept out of anywhere. How to reconcile this?

Re: #43 urstruly,

``What I promote in Pakistan is a constitutional democracy where no law is made that contradicts Islamic injunctions``

Yes, but who gets to decide what the the Islamic injuctions are?

#53 by Urstruly

``As a matter of fact under secular and liberal democracy the most basic institution of marriage has absolutely no place since marriage is a religious institution.``

Aaj Rooh afza ziyada pee li kiya?

Marriage is a religious institution too. Nowhere does a liberal or secular democracy talks about marriage or ask people not to have a religious ceremony. There is no “Book of secularism” like the Quran or the bible that sets laws for marriage or prohibits it. Religions came after marriage not before that. Religions have sanctioned marriages but marriage is not something introduced by the religion.

Btw, Is that only thing you can find against secularism?
Further, No constitutional democracy can be religious in nature. The western concept of democracy treats every one equal and does not discriminate in any religion.

#52 by oak
``Case in point dictation of the treaty of Hudibya and its instances``

Since when Hudibya is social treatise? It is a peace treaty between the two warring groups and consists of agreed upon language with people who did not believe in Islam. So whatever it says is not Islamic alone.

By saying that Islam is the final religion, Islam announces it superiority over every other future or past religion. Islam claims that all religions before Islam were pagan religions and there is no need for any other religion after Islam. That is discriminatory in nature and thusly precludes all possibilities that all religions can be equal to Islam.

sattar

Apostasy is punishable by death in an Islamic polity, there are no ifs, ands, and buts about it. Not only that but prolysterization of any other religion to Muslims is also prohibited (I am not sure what is the punishment for that). However, a non-Muslim is free to practice and propagate his religion among other non-Muslims of the Muslim polity. I do not see anything morally or legally wrong with this picture.

Philosophically, the phrase ``absolute freedom`` is a misnomer in itself. It is an impossible dream. As long as human beings live in societies the social contract will always involve give AND take of individual liberties. So instead of chasing an impossible dreams we must work on building an equaitable and tolerant society.

The author says ,
``It is time to leave religion aside as being a personal exercise and to build upon the shared dreams of making Pakistan a prosperous, safe and peaceful nation, for it is only in secularism that our hope for salvation lies ...``

Well, Pakistan has been a pretty secular country for much of its existence and still got nowhere. The decline in educational standards, poverty, corruption, lack of democracy etc. have all been a feature of Pakistani life long before wahabism became the latest fashion.
Intolerance and authoritarianism can exist under secular garb as well.

Re: # 57

I used to think like you when I was an ignoramus but only two books were enough to open my eyes: One book is written by Justice (Rtd.) Mufti Taqi Usmani titled Islami Shariat ka Nifaz aur us kay Tiqazay and other was written by Shaheed-e-Islam Moulana Yousaf Ludhianivi titled Ikhtilaf-e-Ummat ke Asbab aur un ka hal. Mufti Taqi usmani has dealt the issue of sectarian difference through a judicial and constitutional perspective since he was one of the chief arcitect of Islamization process during Zia era. Moulana Yususf on the other hand addressed the issue of sectarian differences from the doctrinal perspective and it is quite an eyeopener that our differences are in fact so trivial that only thing that is keeping us apart is our very own jihalat.

From judicial point of view about 80% of population of Pakistan follows the Hanfi school of jurisprudence including Brelvis and Deobandis. That makes well over 2/3rd of majority. About 18% of the rest follow Fiqah-e-Jafria which is about 95% compatible with Hanfi school. Two percent of ahl-hadith wahabis follow Maliki school of thougt which is 99% compatible with Hanfi thought. An example of achiving this compatibility is the issue of zakat which is slightly different in case of Jafris as compared to Hanfis and Malikis. So through a constitutional ammendment shias were made exempt from the deduction of zakat from ones saving account as long as one submitted an affidavit proclaiming himslef to be a shia.

So matter of fact is that as long as you have pure Niyyat (intent) in your heart and you have unquestionable love for Holy prophet (pbuh) everything is possible.

Re: HP #58,
``By saying that Islam is the final religion, Islam announces it superiority over every other future or past religion. .......That is discriminatory in nature and thusly precludes all possibilities that all religions can be equal to Islam. ``

But that does not NECESSARILY mean that all citizens cannot be equal in an Islamic state.

Urtruly:


The Western world limits treason to political and military terms. In the USA, treason consists ``only in levying war against Americans, and in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.`` However, sometimes even the Western world stretches the concept of political treason to include things which are non-politics or non-military matters.


In England, treason includes violating the King`s consort, or raping the monarch`s eldest married daughter, as well as the sexual violation of the wife of the eldest son and heir. Even now, ``polluting`` the Royal bloodline or obscuring it is included in the definition of treason.

Diana Diana kahaaN ho tuum? Duke of Widsor Duke of Windsor..miray Mitti kay buut tuum kaisay baadshah thhay kay upnee marzee say shaadi bhee naheeN krsktay thhay.

tuum nurtid ho tuum ghaddar ho tuum say toa shatranj yaa taash kaa baadshah achhhaa.

O Price of Wales: cHul bhaaG too badshaah toa bUn naheeN saktaa musalmaan bUnnay chala hai. Are you willing to convert knowing full well that Islam has murtid laws?

``Ye shahadat g`h-i Uulfat meiN quadam rkhnaa hai
Loag aasaan smjhhtay haiN musalmaaN hoanaa``

LahauL-vilaa-Quvvat
LahauL-vila-Quvvatt
angraiz kee yeh taquat
kalloo ko dee himaquat

taleem Uus ko dai kay
naukar bana diyaa hai
vardi pinha kay Uus ko
bUnder bana diyaa hai
billay sajaa sajaa kay
kuttaa banaa diyaa hai

angraiz kee karamat
angraiz kee karamat

Lahaul Vilaa Quvvat
Lahaul Vilaa Quvvat


Why has England included such non-political and non-military matters in treason? It has done so because the Royal family and the purity of its bloodline is one of the most significant parts of the British society and culture.



In Islam, the concept of treason is not limited to political and military aspects; it also has a spiritual and cultural dimension to it.

#62 by khurram

``But that does not NECESSARILY mean that all citizens cannot be equal in an Islamic state.``

It does. All believers of Islam automatically become better than the people who don’t believe in Islam... Islamic laws would be natural to people who believe in Islam but not to other groups. So, you will have two sets of laws and that is discrimination.