The Mullah and the Munir Report
Yasser Latif Hamdani July 11, 2004
#130 Posted by escapist on July 15, 2004 5:23:24 am
Iblees ka Farmaan apnay Siyasi Farzandoun kay Naam.
By Iqbal. (written in bhopal)
La ker barhumnoun ko siyasat kay beech main
Zunnariyoun ko deer-e-kuhen say Nikaal do!
woh Faqa-Kush kay maut say darta nahee Zara
Rooh-e-Muhammad uss kay badan say Nikaal Do!
Fikr-e-Arab ko day kay Farangi Takhayyelaat
Islaam ko Hijaaz-o-Yemen say Nikaal do!
Afghaniyoun ki ghairat-e-deen ka hai yeh Ilaaj
Mullah ko unn kay kauh-o-daman say Nikaal do
Ahl-e-Haram say un ki rawaayaat cheen lo
Aaahu ko marghazaar-e-khaten say nikaal do
Iqbaal kay nafs say hai laalaay ki aag tez
aisey ghazal siraaa ko chaman say nikaal do!
By Iqbal. (written in bhopal)
La ker barhumnoun ko siyasat kay beech main
Zunnariyoun ko deer-e-kuhen say Nikaal do!
woh Faqa-Kush kay maut say darta nahee Zara
Rooh-e-Muhammad uss kay badan say Nikaal Do!
Fikr-e-Arab ko day kay Farangi Takhayyelaat
Islaam ko Hijaaz-o-Yemen say Nikaal do!
Afghaniyoun ki ghairat-e-deen ka hai yeh Ilaaj
Mullah ko unn kay kauh-o-daman say Nikaal do
Ahl-e-Haram say un ki rawaayaat cheen lo
Aaahu ko marghazaar-e-khaten say nikaal do
Iqbaal kay nafs say hai laalaay ki aag tez
aisey ghazal siraaa ko chaman say nikaal do!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#129 Posted by einsteinwallah on July 15, 2004 5:23:02 am
[#117 by hellbound on July 14, 2004 3:02pm PT -- 00181595
in order to be accepted by the adherents of sepcific belief system a religion, cult, or a club, one has to explicitly or implicitly accept the basis of that belief system, be that a religion, a cult, a club etc. ]
But were not these people part of overall effort of Muslim League to create a brand new nation? Can one not assume that the word ``Muslim`` in the name of Muslim League Party stood for a deliberately nebuluous pan-Islamic identity? Would it not be exactly such identity which allowed Qadianis to be part of it when it was conducting crucial boundry negotiations?
If answer to both is yes then Qadianis are part of ``Muslim`` as is understood by speakers of English language and members of Muslim League but may be it is not inderstood the same way by a serious student of Islam. Why cannot it be accepted that there was an unwritten ``human`` contract when boundries were drawn? And that contract did not include any of the hair splitting and ethnic cleansing and what not that followed. Why cannot it be accepted that one party to such negotiations were British who did not understand the hair splitting that goes on in name of ``defining`` the word ``Muslim``? I bet British probably also assumed that no ethnic cleansing and killing will take place.
in order to be accepted by the adherents of sepcific belief system a religion, cult, or a club, one has to explicitly or implicitly accept the basis of that belief system, be that a religion, a cult, a club etc. ]
But were not these people part of overall effort of Muslim League to create a brand new nation? Can one not assume that the word ``Muslim`` in the name of Muslim League Party stood for a deliberately nebuluous pan-Islamic identity? Would it not be exactly such identity which allowed Qadianis to be part of it when it was conducting crucial boundry negotiations?
If answer to both is yes then Qadianis are part of ``Muslim`` as is understood by speakers of English language and members of Muslim League but may be it is not inderstood the same way by a serious student of Islam. Why cannot it be accepted that there was an unwritten ``human`` contract when boundries were drawn? And that contract did not include any of the hair splitting and ethnic cleansing and what not that followed. Why cannot it be accepted that one party to such negotiations were British who did not understand the hair splitting that goes on in name of ``defining`` the word ``Muslim``? I bet British probably also assumed that no ethnic cleansing and killing will take place.
#128 Posted by nasah on July 15, 2004 5:23:01 am
``And there is neither a mosque, a church, nor a temple in the Paradise``
in those days Iqbal may have wanted to say really is: `` And where there is neither a mosque, a church, a temple, nor a Paradise....
in those days Iqbal may have wanted to say really is: `` And where there is neither a mosque, a church, a temple, nor a Paradise....
#127 Posted by ferozk on July 14, 2004 11:04:46 pm
re:Mantolives # 113
First of all, where did I claim that the Taliban were ``secular`` or in my last post?
It seems that you have a habit to quote people out of context and if are going to quote me, then please quote me correctly and stop making up quotes or implications on my behave. :)
I do not claim the qualification of being an authority on political science and nor do I wish to be an authority on anything as such. You are the one, who has suggested that qualification and it seems that not only are you a judge, but you also act as a jury over another person`s qualifications! lol
Since you have been honest, allow me to be candid with you also. A state cannot always be well ruled by a philosopher-king in the ideals of Plato`s Republic. There is a huge gap between political rhetoric and political reality and on Chowk, we simply engage in political rhetoric, which has no significance in the real world. Pakistan`s problem has always been a dictatorship of the secular-intellectuals, who believe that they know what is best for Pakistan and their opinions are invioable. In this, the mullah is as much worthy of a blame, because he too seems to have ideas about what is good for Pakistan. Statecraft is not a process in theories, but the in the limitations of power and where the state is dysfunctional, principles have to be ignored and this is regretable. Idealism in politics offers a venue for progress and suggests a direction of political evolution, but it does not offer a subsitute for the problems that a state might face.
To seek an idealistic state in Pakistan is a noble thought, but given our retarded levels of political growth, it is at present nothing more than an utopian wish. Pakistan has suffered greatly from the past experiments in basic democracy, or controlled democracy or local bodies grass roots democracy or a populist democracy or a Islamic democracy. A political system of goverance becomes mature after years of trial and error and development of government and goverance should never be considered as creations of political fashion designing to suit the needs of a particular time period.
Even the most farsighted government in Pakistan will not be able to live up to the expections, which many of us cherish and to hope that Pakistan will give same consideration to minority rights as developed world would be attempting to go a bridge too far. The UNCHR was the product of nearly 500 years of European experience in religious wars and political bargaining (and the American experience from European political history), but the more important point was that during that time, the European political system was also developing in tandem with the political realities of Europe. In the begining, neither the French democracy after 1789 or the American democracy after 1776, were havens or the beacons of protected minority rights. It took the British nearly 300 (1400s-1700s) years of political infighting with the monarchs, for power, which turned the British politics into a constitutional monarchy capable of sharing power with the parliament.
In Pakistan, we hope to achieve this sort of result by a flawed version of ``trickle down politics`` and it will fail, because of Pakistan`s lack of political institutions to implement such a proposal. The laws, which protect minorities do not seek their their powers from a constitution as much as they rely on the independence of a judicary, which is bold enough to resist the powers of the executive or even the legislative branch of the government. In Pakistan, and this must be said with regret, all the branches of government support the power of the executive branch, but more importantly they blindly favor the person who happens to be the executive of Pakistan. The cult of personalities in Pakistan`s politics is the one of the biggest impediments in the maturity of the political process in Pakistan.
As a recent editorial in Dawn brilliantly pointed out, it is the lack or the refusal to implement those laws, which prevents Pakistan from enacting the very political safe-guards, which you seek. This revives the old point that laws have to be allowed to evolve, because the laws represent the expressions of a people, within the interests of a state`s power. You and I will disagree on this issue, but I am still of the opinion that the political process in Pakistan must be allowed to proceed unhindered. We as nation will only learn, politically speaking, from our mistakes and just a like a child, who is once burned will not touch the flame again, we have to experience a bitter and dark night in order to appreciate the glory of a new dawn.
As to your other contention, about a tyranny of the majority, Pakistan is presently under a tyranny of the minority and whether it is a majority or minority, it does not lessen the reality of a tyranny. A free and democratic government, in my opinion, which is dysfunctional and mal-intentional is better than a dictatorship or a controlled democratic government, which is efficient and good natured. If on the other hand, we opt to follow the latter half of the previous sentence, then whether there is a secular or a democratic or a theocratic or socialist or any other government in Pakistan will make no difference, because it will still be a dictatorship of the elities by the elities and for the elities.
As to Jinnah, I did not miss any point(s), which you are alluding. Jinnah in my opinion has been dead for a long time and I do not see, how a man who died in 1948 can solve the problems of Pakistan in 2004. Another point being, that the memory of Jinnah will be an inspiration to Pakistanis and Pakistan, but it can never be subsitute or a solution to our problems and that is the reality of my existence in Pakistan. Pakistan will have to solve its problems in 2004 and beyond 2004 by using its own wits and not quoting Jinnah or Iqbal or Ataturk or the Munir Report or UNCHR.
Let me share a few thoughts with you on this subject.
Suppose I am robbed and I go to my SHO and complain of the theft and he refuses to register a FIR against the robbers. What am I supposed to do then? Should I quote Jinnah and remind the SHO that the first duty of state is to maintain law and order? Should I wait for Jinnah to inform me how to recover my stolen property? Or should I conduct a vast research and by reseaching and finding the right quote to my problem, retrive my stolen goods?
Or; suppose I am walking down the street and I pass a masjid and the mullah in that particular case is offering a sermon and inciting the people to go and attack a minority who happens to live near by. What should do to protect that poor person; tell the mullah that Jinnah said that in due time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims? Or I should run to my SHO and remind him again of what Jinnah said about the state`s responsibility in maintaining law and order?
Pakistan`s problems will solved by Pakistanis themselves within their own limitations and not by relying on the memory of a dead man and that sir, is a point that always escapes your attention, as usual.
Ciao
First of all, where did I claim that the Taliban were ``secular`` or in my last post?
It seems that you have a habit to quote people out of context and if are going to quote me, then please quote me correctly and stop making up quotes or implications on my behave. :)
I do not claim the qualification of being an authority on political science and nor do I wish to be an authority on anything as such. You are the one, who has suggested that qualification and it seems that not only are you a judge, but you also act as a jury over another person`s qualifications! lol
Since you have been honest, allow me to be candid with you also. A state cannot always be well ruled by a philosopher-king in the ideals of Plato`s Republic. There is a huge gap between political rhetoric and political reality and on Chowk, we simply engage in political rhetoric, which has no significance in the real world. Pakistan`s problem has always been a dictatorship of the secular-intellectuals, who believe that they know what is best for Pakistan and their opinions are invioable. In this, the mullah is as much worthy of a blame, because he too seems to have ideas about what is good for Pakistan. Statecraft is not a process in theories, but the in the limitations of power and where the state is dysfunctional, principles have to be ignored and this is regretable. Idealism in politics offers a venue for progress and suggests a direction of political evolution, but it does not offer a subsitute for the problems that a state might face.
To seek an idealistic state in Pakistan is a noble thought, but given our retarded levels of political growth, it is at present nothing more than an utopian wish. Pakistan has suffered greatly from the past experiments in basic democracy, or controlled democracy or local bodies grass roots democracy or a populist democracy or a Islamic democracy. A political system of goverance becomes mature after years of trial and error and development of government and goverance should never be considered as creations of political fashion designing to suit the needs of a particular time period.
Even the most farsighted government in Pakistan will not be able to live up to the expections, which many of us cherish and to hope that Pakistan will give same consideration to minority rights as developed world would be attempting to go a bridge too far. The UNCHR was the product of nearly 500 years of European experience in religious wars and political bargaining (and the American experience from European political history), but the more important point was that during that time, the European political system was also developing in tandem with the political realities of Europe. In the begining, neither the French democracy after 1789 or the American democracy after 1776, were havens or the beacons of protected minority rights. It took the British nearly 300 (1400s-1700s) years of political infighting with the monarchs, for power, which turned the British politics into a constitutional monarchy capable of sharing power with the parliament.
In Pakistan, we hope to achieve this sort of result by a flawed version of ``trickle down politics`` and it will fail, because of Pakistan`s lack of political institutions to implement such a proposal. The laws, which protect minorities do not seek their their powers from a constitution as much as they rely on the independence of a judicary, which is bold enough to resist the powers of the executive or even the legislative branch of the government. In Pakistan, and this must be said with regret, all the branches of government support the power of the executive branch, but more importantly they blindly favor the person who happens to be the executive of Pakistan. The cult of personalities in Pakistan`s politics is the one of the biggest impediments in the maturity of the political process in Pakistan.
As a recent editorial in Dawn brilliantly pointed out, it is the lack or the refusal to implement those laws, which prevents Pakistan from enacting the very political safe-guards, which you seek. This revives the old point that laws have to be allowed to evolve, because the laws represent the expressions of a people, within the interests of a state`s power. You and I will disagree on this issue, but I am still of the opinion that the political process in Pakistan must be allowed to proceed unhindered. We as nation will only learn, politically speaking, from our mistakes and just a like a child, who is once burned will not touch the flame again, we have to experience a bitter and dark night in order to appreciate the glory of a new dawn.
As to your other contention, about a tyranny of the majority, Pakistan is presently under a tyranny of the minority and whether it is a majority or minority, it does not lessen the reality of a tyranny. A free and democratic government, in my opinion, which is dysfunctional and mal-intentional is better than a dictatorship or a controlled democratic government, which is efficient and good natured. If on the other hand, we opt to follow the latter half of the previous sentence, then whether there is a secular or a democratic or a theocratic or socialist or any other government in Pakistan will make no difference, because it will still be a dictatorship of the elities by the elities and for the elities.
As to Jinnah, I did not miss any point(s), which you are alluding. Jinnah in my opinion has been dead for a long time and I do not see, how a man who died in 1948 can solve the problems of Pakistan in 2004. Another point being, that the memory of Jinnah will be an inspiration to Pakistanis and Pakistan, but it can never be subsitute or a solution to our problems and that is the reality of my existence in Pakistan. Pakistan will have to solve its problems in 2004 and beyond 2004 by using its own wits and not quoting Jinnah or Iqbal or Ataturk or the Munir Report or UNCHR.
Let me share a few thoughts with you on this subject.
Suppose I am robbed and I go to my SHO and complain of the theft and he refuses to register a FIR against the robbers. What am I supposed to do then? Should I quote Jinnah and remind the SHO that the first duty of state is to maintain law and order? Should I wait for Jinnah to inform me how to recover my stolen property? Or should I conduct a vast research and by reseaching and finding the right quote to my problem, retrive my stolen goods?
Or; suppose I am walking down the street and I pass a masjid and the mullah in that particular case is offering a sermon and inciting the people to go and attack a minority who happens to live near by. What should do to protect that poor person; tell the mullah that Jinnah said that in due time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims? Or I should run to my SHO and remind him again of what Jinnah said about the state`s responsibility in maintaining law and order?
Pakistan`s problems will solved by Pakistanis themselves within their own limitations and not by relying on the memory of a dead man and that sir, is a point that always escapes your attention, as usual.
Ciao
#126 Posted by MantoLives on July 14, 2004 10:29:58 pm
Amit...
I think it was bound to happen given the intolerance of us Muslims of today... people were trying to get them to be recognized as non-muslims before partition as well... but when such a case was made infront of Jinnah to expel the Ahmadis from the Muslim League he was horrified by repercussions of such a decision... after all he himself was from the Khoja community that was a very small minority within the Muslims considered non-muslim by many in the sunni majority... furthermore some of his ablest lieutenants and brightest minds of the league were from the community... he therefore shot down all such proposals saying that anyone who professes to be a Muslim is a Muslim...
Ahmadis have done well for Pakistan ... and I think it is time Pakistan recognizes their services as such.
-YLH
#125 Posted by nasah on July 14, 2004 9:07:44 pm
``Simple reason is, Mirza Ghalam Ahmad is appointed by God in this time of need and as promissed to Muslims and whole mankind by Hadrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), so how can His followers can leave Muslims and not to present the true face of Quran and Islam to Muslims? Especially when there is a similar noble example; set by Hadrat Muhammad when he gave prayers on recevings rocks from his naiton.
It is the intention of God to show the real peacefull and beautifull face of Islam to all the nations and brigns them under His mercy.``(Riz)
mysterious indeed are the ways `the mind of God` works -- from an Arabian Camel Trader -- to a Punjabi Court Clerk -- good to know that there is another -- True Muslim Mind Reader of God -- who knows exactly as to -- what ``is the intention of God``.....
....well .. presently the conditions in which the Muslim Umma finds itself all over the world indicates -- the ``intention of God`` -- for His own Muslims -- may be anything but .......good
It is the intention of God to show the real peacefull and beautifull face of Islam to all the nations and brigns them under His mercy.``(Riz)
mysterious indeed are the ways `the mind of God` works -- from an Arabian Camel Trader -- to a Punjabi Court Clerk -- good to know that there is another -- True Muslim Mind Reader of God -- who knows exactly as to -- what ``is the intention of God``.....
....well .. presently the conditions in which the Muslim Umma finds itself all over the world indicates -- the ``intention of God`` -- for His own Muslims -- may be anything but .......good
#124 Posted by rafay_alam on July 14, 2004 9:00:31 pm
YLH,
I seem to have entered into the debate a bit late. I`ve read the Munir Report (found it in a second hand store in Defence) and also think it should be compulsory reading for every Pakistani. You`ve forgotten the most moving part of the report, the last few paragraphs, where Munir says all that was needed to avoid the 1954 riots (and the first martial law in the history of Pakistan) were two SHO`s and a DSP. Also, the augaury at the end, which I forget verbatim, but in which Munir says that if this is way Pakistan is heading, the ``Allah help us all.``
For others: The riots of 1954 were the beginning of the Blasphemy laws of Pakistan.
Rafay Alam
I seem to have entered into the debate a bit late. I`ve read the Munir Report (found it in a second hand store in Defence) and also think it should be compulsory reading for every Pakistani. You`ve forgotten the most moving part of the report, the last few paragraphs, where Munir says all that was needed to avoid the 1954 riots (and the first martial law in the history of Pakistan) were two SHO`s and a DSP. Also, the augaury at the end, which I forget verbatim, but in which Munir says that if this is way Pakistan is heading, the ``Allah help us all.``
For others: The riots of 1954 were the beginning of the Blasphemy laws of Pakistan.
Rafay Alam
#123 Posted by sattar2 on July 14, 2004 6:21:21 pm
Raw Dust (#119)
… right on … right on ... precisely ... precisely ...
Faith cannot be treated as “intellectual property” where users pay royalty to the owner. Similarly, Quran cannot be copyrighted, and the term “Muslim” or “Islam” cannot be trademarked.
The Council of smelly ullema … or whoever the hell they are … do not own Islam. And this is the simple point that seems to have escaped some …
#122 Posted by Rizwan on July 14, 2004 6:21:21 pm
Alright Urstruly, it is time that you should, get an answer composed in your own logic.
As you said:
But since you have asked a direct question and you are interested to know about our Islamic laws on apostasy, blasphemy, and prolstization etc., therefore, I am pointing you towards an article that I wrote on the subject, titled......
So explain to me what you mean by our Islam and how you got it. Is it through a Government of Pakistan contract or something. Or is it that God has made you his relative.
Why it is so hard for you to understand that God of Islam and Quran and Muhammad is the Powerfull القوى and the Mighty العزيز and that he has not delegated his functions to humans yet. So he has not placed responcibility of Islam on your shoulder or on Mulllah`s shoulders. So drop this notion that you have inherited Islam and it belongs to your personal belonigns. And if you still insist, then bring a برهان < b> as Quran says.
and if you dont do this, then sword of Quranic برهان will swipe your neck and you wont find any refuge from it. This is the time of arguments and pen, and rightfully Jihad of sword is not applicable to this world, as correctly pointed out by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian a hundered years ago.
And urstruly dont forget that as mentioned in my last post, that meaning of اقساط is equity, and you are supposed to behave equiably with non-muslims because God loves those who are equitable, and this is everlasting decree of Allah and Quran, and you and your Mullahs can never change or distort Quran. It does not matter if all of you call a convention and claim that it is unanimous Ijmah of all the Mullahs, because no Ijmah can be made against Quran, and it is Quran which states very clearly ``rult of equity``
So if Muslims can preach to non-Muslims in their lands then Non-Muslims can preach Muslims in their land.
As you said:
But since you have asked a direct question and you are interested to know about our Islamic laws on apostasy, blasphemy, and prolstization etc., therefore, I am pointing you towards an article that I wrote on the subject, titled......
So explain to me what you mean by our Islam and how you got it. Is it through a Government of Pakistan contract or something. Or is it that God has made you his relative.
Why it is so hard for you to understand that God of Islam and Quran and Muhammad is the Powerfull القوى and the Mighty العزيز and that he has not delegated his functions to humans yet. So he has not placed responcibility of Islam on your shoulder or on Mulllah`s shoulders. So drop this notion that you have inherited Islam and it belongs to your personal belonigns. And if you still insist, then bring a برهان < b> as Quran says.
and if you dont do this, then sword of Quranic برهان will swipe your neck and you wont find any refuge from it. This is the time of arguments and pen, and rightfully Jihad of sword is not applicable to this world, as correctly pointed out by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian a hundered years ago.
And urstruly dont forget that as mentioned in my last post, that meaning of اقساط is equity, and you are supposed to behave equiably with non-muslims because God loves those who are equitable, and this is everlasting decree of Allah and Quran, and you and your Mullahs can never change or distort Quran. It does not matter if all of you call a convention and claim that it is unanimous Ijmah of all the Mullahs, because no Ijmah can be made against Quran, and it is Quran which states very clearly ``rult of equity``
#121 Posted by Rizwan on July 14, 2004 6:21:21 pm
Amit in your post # 114, you mentioned that Ahmadies has made a mistake by siding with Pakistan.
Just to make your notion clear, we Ahmadies do not consider it a mistake, and probably you would not be able to grasp this perspetive. And at the time of partiion Ahamdies made this decesion, full aware of pros and cons and what could happen in future.
Simple reason is, Mirza Ghalam Ahmad is appointed by God in this time of need and as promissed to Muslims and whole mankind by Hadrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), so how can His followers can leave Muslims and not to present the true face of Quran and Islam to Muslims? Especially when there is a similar noble example; set by Hadrat Muhammad when he gave prayers on recevings rocks from his naiton.
It is the intention of God to show the real peacefull and beautifull face of Islam to all the nations and brigns them under His mercy.
Just to make your notion clear, we Ahmadies do not consider it a mistake, and probably you would not be able to grasp this perspetive. And at the time of partiion Ahamdies made this decesion, full aware of pros and cons and what could happen in future.
Simple reason is, Mirza Ghalam Ahmad is appointed by God in this time of need and as promissed to Muslims and whole mankind by Hadrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), so how can His followers can leave Muslims and not to present the true face of Quran and Islam to Muslims? Especially when there is a similar noble example; set by Hadrat Muhammad when he gave prayers on recevings rocks from his naiton.
It is the intention of God to show the real peacefull and beautifull face of Islam to all the nations and brigns them under His mercy.
#120 Posted by sattar2 on July 14, 2004 4:50:39 pm
Hellbound,
It is important to keep in mind … that the term Muslim is used in Quran by Allah for the believers. Since I follow Quran, I am well within my rights to consider myself a Muslim. This becomes a problem only when the state tries to force its definition of a Muslim … and goes on to imprison Ahmadis for “behaving like Muslims”.
Here’s some theological nit-picking: Claim that Muhammad (pbuh) is the last prophet … should be backed up by arguments, and not by mere insistence. You seem to have adopted the latter approach. Do you think it is fair for you to merely insist that Muhammad is the last prophet … and end the sentence with PERIOD …? Whatever happened to the good ol’ fashioned kalima? Several well reputed scholars of Islam have accepted continuation of prophethood. Does this make Shah Waliullah a non-Muslim? We base our position on Quran and ahadith, as well as reasoning. This indeed is Islam! Is it not?
Moving on ...
If one keeps adding to religion … there is no end to it. Islam will continue to degenerate into amalgams of fairytales … and go down the path of every other religion in the history of mankind. Review the fatwas of kuffr that have been issued against each and every sect throughout the history of Islam. Do you really want to go down further this road?
It would be far better and fairer for the state to not force its religious views on its citizens. If Ahmadis consider themselves Muslim, so be it.
#119 Posted by Raw_Dust on July 14, 2004 4:50:39 pm
Re: hellbound - 117
Your argument makes an implicit assumption. Let me make it explicit. You are assuming that a belief system CAN be owned and certified as Authentic by only a Certain group of its adherents.
Very shallow assumption, do you think that eg. roman catholic church is the sole proprietor of Christain Belief System? even the Church might assume such authority it is only self-serving on their part and hysterical for others.
Embedding this assumption was mildly assuming though.
cheers-
Your argument makes an implicit assumption. Let me make it explicit. You are assuming that a belief system CAN be owned and certified as Authentic by only a Certain group of its adherents.
Very shallow assumption, do you think that eg. roman catholic church is the sole proprietor of Christain Belief System? even the Church might assume such authority it is only self-serving on their part and hysterical for others.
Embedding this assumption was mildly assuming though.
cheers-
#118 Posted by sattar2 on July 14, 2004 4:50:39 pm
Hellbound,
Upon reading your post again … I realized that you do abide with the good ol’ fashioned kalima … albeith with an added pair of parenthesis. I guess your kalima is …
There is one GOD and Mohmmmad is His (last) messenger.
Care to elaborate when did this “(last)” become a part of the kalima? Like I said … if you keep adding to religion … there is no end to it. Here’s another form of the kalima … that illustrates the point.
There is One God (and several goddesses …) and Muhammad is His (last) messenger (who may also be worshipped on Mondays, Fridays, and some long weekends)
I hope the point is clear …
#117 Posted by sattar2 on July 14, 2004 3:02:04 pm
Malik99 (#78):
… is a well known fact that Sir Choudhary Zafarullah Khan, the First Foreign Minister, played a critical role in dragging the country into the American-British lap, preventing the non-aligned elements in the Government of Pakistan from shaping a balanced neutral policy for the newly-established country …
Strong rhetoric … that assumes a lot. But unless supported by arguments or decent references, amounts to nothing more than nonsensical ramblings of yet another ignorant mullah. Humbug!!!
#116 Posted by hellbound on July 14, 2004 3:02:04 pm
PagaalInsaan:
Sir I did not miss anything....the point is simple in order to be accepted by the adherents of sepcific belief system a religion, cult, or a club, one has to explicitly or implicitly accept the basis of that belief system, be that a religion, a cult, a club etc.
In order for a person to claim his or her membership in the Mulsim religion, one has to accept that Mohammad was the last prophet of God. Period. No argument there. One can quote and make references to everything that is Muslim but he or she cannot lay claim to be part of Muslim faith unless he or she abides by the basic contract that there is one GOD an Mohmmmad is His (last) messenger. Period
Sattar:
No disagreement about your comments about faith being between the creator and the created, and only Cretor is the best judge.
No disagreement about denying Qadianis their right to worship as they deem fit.
The only disagreement is that Qadianis must learn to live as Qadianis and forfeit their claim to be part of the Muslim belief system ( the stress is on belief system, if you know what I mean)
Manto:
That is not what I meant, read the above!
Cheers
Sir I did not miss anything....the point is simple in order to be accepted by the adherents of sepcific belief system a religion, cult, or a club, one has to explicitly or implicitly accept the basis of that belief system, be that a religion, a cult, a club etc.
In order for a person to claim his or her membership in the Mulsim religion, one has to accept that Mohammad was the last prophet of God. Period. No argument there. One can quote and make references to everything that is Muslim but he or she cannot lay claim to be part of Muslim faith unless he or she abides by the basic contract that there is one GOD an Mohmmmad is His (last) messenger. Period
Sattar:
No disagreement about your comments about faith being between the creator and the created, and only Cretor is the best judge.
No disagreement about denying Qadianis their right to worship as they deem fit.
The only disagreement is that Qadianis must learn to live as Qadianis and forfeit their claim to be part of the Muslim belief system ( the stress is on belief system, if you know what I mean)
Manto:
That is not what I meant, read the above!
Cheers
#115 Posted by amit on July 14, 2004 3:02:03 pm
Re:#113
YLH,
Based on what you have writen about Ahmadis, I feel really sorry for them as a people. Here they were, trying to escape imaginary, future domination by hindus by setting up Pakistan and they end up being worse than third class citizens in their new country. If there had been no Pakistan, Ahmadis would have been a million times better off. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
I have never been able to understand why muslims feel so strongly about ahmadis because the similarities are overwhelming while the differences are miniscule. Clearly this is a recent phenomenon because before partition Ahmadis must have felt that they were muslims in order to actually fight for Pakistan. So what changed in the past few decades?
YLH,
Based on what you have writen about Ahmadis, I feel really sorry for them as a people. Here they were, trying to escape imaginary, future domination by hindus by setting up Pakistan and they end up being worse than third class citizens in their new country. If there had been no Pakistan, Ahmadis would have been a million times better off. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
I have never been able to understand why muslims feel so strongly about ahmadis because the similarities are overwhelming while the differences are miniscule. Clearly this is a recent phenomenon because before partition Ahmadis must have felt that they were muslims in order to actually fight for Pakistan. So what changed in the past few decades?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- majumdar: Tahmed sahib, (the indian children's... Dhokha and Being a
- guru: ahmed, you are hopeless like... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: pakistan #324 agreed. A... Dhokha and Being a
- Mystic: Re: # 303 FIRST THERE... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: #328 more seriously, all... Dhokha and Being a
- Mystic: Re: # 303 FIRST THERE... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: #326 majumdar: pride is... Dhokha and Being a
- tahmed32: DM #320 So you... Dhokha and Being a
