Fight Hudood, Protect Women

kal ke munh mein ram ram ;)
what he means is muslims are normal (i.e. human like all others)..ergo the message needs to be questioned.

ref#220

Please read it as

Kabira teri jhopari, hai gul-katiyan ke pass
Jo kare ge so bharen-ge tu ko bhayo udaas.

ref#218

Dear Tahmed

Once I got rid of Mullahs, I don`t go to any priest any more.

Like Kabir I have reconciled with my predicament.

Kabira teri jhopari, kai gul-katiyan ke pass
Jo kare ge so bharen-ge tu ko bhayo udaas.

ramchandar:
permit me: most of the times Señor Kaalchakra is employing a sorta socratic ironic mode so what you read in his posts is not what it means. His posts are nice, clean, little setups and most of the time he gets away with it. If you really wanna see his take on Islam, read posts he wrote under his another moniker: Ralph

ramchander: and what is the message your religious priests give you? it is obvious from the stupid muslim-obsessed posts of hindus like you.

Dear Kaal

Many muslim listen to their relegious men to know about their relegion. It is quite normal activity.

Problem is with message and idol of Mohammad (pbuh).

Problem is with message of Jihad = sex + violence.

My dear brorther in your humane stupor you gloss over these points.

zeemax: dont play Allah. that`s blasphemous.

Raw_Dust,

Like someone said ... we`re only loitering around on the sands before the ocean. Kaalchakra goes a bit further than that.

I don`t blame you. You do not know, and do not understand. Perhaps you will, or perhaps you won`t. I do not know. I just hope you will.

to support #213, here is a gem from a certain country`s constitution:

``Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;

And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order

Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;

Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;``

kaalchakra:
don`t mix up things here. by generically stating ``democracy``, you gave zeemax so much excitement, he is ready to go down on you.

Please, also distinguish that when you talk of ``democracy``, you are talking about a muslim-democracy that subjects the will of the people to the will of Allah, i.e., Islamofascism.

A standard off-the shelf democracy, liberal-democratic one, DONOT have any dilemmas regarding Minorities. Minorities are not defined in terms of limitations on their basic rights compared to Majority. No way.

To preclude misunderstanding....``terrible and horrendous`` for existing systems, not in any absolute sense.

Zee, nameless one....what can I say?! I will be back soon...thanks :)

#209 by kaalchakra

Haha ... Now you`re being merciless ...

#206 by dotty,

Why`re you trivializing Kaal? I have never seen him ONCE changing his position or loading it. Like what he just said about Sufiism, he`s alway said that and has been castigated for it but this is one person who KNOWS Islam being a non-Muslim ... with all its warts and stuff .. and I fully agree with him. So please let him state his position in his own way without hinderance about what other just cannot see ....

Tehsinabbasi

True, any democracy must institute protections for minorities, but these protections can never be limitless. Hence, you will increasingly find many hitherto `proud` democracies awaken to the realization that offering minorities practical blank checks is a terrible and horrendous idea.

Ending discrimination against Ahmedis (or anyone else) is a noble goal. However, before that can happen, we might have to do a lot more thinking beyond traditional (leftist) argumentation.

For instance, there may be a need to convince ourselves (and then others ) whether the following two are fundamentally different statements, or are they practically the same? Or can one or both of these suggestions be implemented simultaneously, and how?:

``The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion.``

``The Constitution should have clauses like no law can be passed which violates the intent/spirit of Islam.``

---

beej, abu sahib, brothers, please, you guys are going way over my head. Thanks, anyways :)

Re: # 198

O Wheel O Time, greetings friend.

Your #198 is interesting. Interpreted another way are you suggesting that there is a growth of papacy and or brahminism within Islam? Your para 2, indicates that this might be the case.

BY brahminism I mean interpreters of religion and texts associated with it.

This happens with all religions. Esp when they become complex and convoluted. Where every word is debated and interpreted to kingdom come. Hair splitting comes to mind. What was simple, and straight forward is no longer the case. Since everyone wants their flavour on the interpretation. The powerful, use ``learned people`` to reinforce their prejuidices and flavours. The more the number in this group, the greater the convolutions and contortions, and reliance on obscure sources. This then becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.

Would you not agree?

#199 by abu_safwaan

My friend, Kaalchakra is one in a few million. You`ll be lucky if you can nearly approach the depth of his mind.

Thank you Kaalchakra ... for keeping the `faith` in `reason` alive. Both are not mutually exclusive as you and only you know.