Wahabism in Centers of Learning

khurram:
So, an islamic state (that has Allah as its source of sovereignty and His book as the prime source for legislation) is at par with a liberal-democracy. WOW!

Re: # 80

Insha-Allah???....come on man, don`t you guys get tired of this sh!t?... I mean - you are not automatons.... are you?.... :)

Okay, you Islamists and Islam`s inheritors!

Answer this simple question.

In your opinion, is Islam like any other religion - or is it something special that is better than other religions?

#74 by oak

“We are talking regarding islam`s views about secularism.”

That is taking the discussion upside down. Islam cannot have views abt secularism. The concept of secularism came way after Islam. All you can argue that Islam shares some values with secularism.

The discussion here is if you care to go back and read, that you cannot have first, a constitutional democracy and Islam at the same time and second, you cannot have both secularism and Islam at the helms of the state at the same time.

Secularism is a system that does not discriminate between religions but when you have Islam as the premier lawgiver, you start discriminating with people that are not Muslims.

Once you discriminate on the basis of religion at the state level, you basically negate the essence of the secularism. Therefore, no matter how many values secularism and Islam share, they cannot co-exist as the highest level of the state. Either you have Islamic laws or the secular laws.

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

“If it was anti-Islamic then, regardless of the politics, the Prophet (saw) would not have accepted it.”

Where did I say it was anti-Islamic? I said that it was an agreement signed by both Muslims and Non Muslims so it cannot be cited as Islamic alone. Do you understand the difference here? Both parties the quraish and the Muslims had ownership of that agreement.

The prophet`s aceptence alone does not make it Islamic. Unless in your opinion whatever the Prophet did is Islam and obviously with that pov, you eliminate any rationality from a political discussion and make it a religious discussion. Which I am not interested in.

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.

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?...

#86

Asking a VERY simple question.

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

#86 (add-on)

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

#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.

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!

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?

#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?

#92 (add-on)

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

#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.

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?

``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!