Khuda Hafiz, Kashmir?

Another heroic assault by ``freedom Fighters``

http://rediff.com/news/2001/aug/07jk5.htm

Asif Naqshabandi,

Nothing would make me happier than to see the Muslims of India doing well. As a matter of fact they are doing pretty well for themselves and do not entertain any thoughts of migrating to Pakistan.

When you get the time just look up the census figures and checkm out the proportion of Hindus in present day Pakistan before 1947 vs. the proportion today. You will learn who is being ``xenophobic`` ``fundamental`` etc.

Don`t you think it is a big slap in your face that Muslim Indians generally give you the cold shoulder and Farzana whom you are trying to dish out kindly dollops to calls the cut-throats of Kashmir aka mujahidung ``terrorists``?

That`s the ultimate insult isn`t it?

When you visit UAE the next time visit Tiffany Foods. Ask them how many Pakistanis they employ.

Hi . . . I need to contact Farzana Versey . . . please email me at veeresh@chowk.com thanks

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Amanullah Khan

With the passage of time, the above pledges, instead of being honoured, changed into the question as to who should own the whole of Kashmir, with both India and Pakistan claiming it on different grounds. India claims proprietorship of the whole state on the basis of the Kashmir rulers` defective and conditional accession of the state to India. Pakistan, claims it on the basis of the two-nation theory, ignoring the fact that the theory did not apply to princely states, including Kashmir, as confirmed by her own founding father`s stand. Pakistan had got the Kashmiris` choice limited to choosing only between India and Pakistan (per UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949) to make sure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan as a result of the proposed plebiscite.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2000-daily/31-08-2000/oped/o2.htm

Will Pakistan agree to the concept of Kashmir being an independent state (not being part of India nor Pakistan) that includes both Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir?

Shammi!

You article only reflect who is mightier in power and who will have more destruction. But no one will be safe. Of one will be decapitated, other will have its limb lost.

The key to peace in sub-continent is peace in Kashmir according to the wishes of Kashmiri people.

The resolution of Kashmir problem will remove a big hurdle in hostilities between nations in sub-continent.

Re: Umairr # 68

``However, now I think the war between India and Pakistan would turn nuclear before India gets

anywhere near Rahim Yar Khan. The days of long drawn out conventional warfare between India and Pakistan are over. Pakistan has a solid deterence.``

I think that the Pakistani writer Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha has the best response to Umairr`s comments:

``India`s principle of `no-first-use` means that once Pakistan mounts a nuclear attack, New Delhi will respond in the same manner. One Pakistani writer recently presented a highly ambitious targeting agenda, according to which Pakistan would like to drop nuclear weapons on an area ranging from Bombay to New Delhi. This is too wide a territory to be covered by 15-20 nuclear warheads that Pakistan has right now. At best it could strike at least four or five major Indian cities.

A number of Pakistani diplomats perceive nuclear deterrence as the ability to drop at least one weapon on one Indian city to deter New Delhi from any aggressive move. Of course, this will elicit a similar response from India. An Indian defence analyst, Brigadier Nair, claims that India will carry out 17 nuclear strikes against Pakistan: six metropolitan centres, including port facilities; one corps-size offensive formation in its concentration area; three sets of bottlenecks in the strategic communication network; five nuclear-capable military airfields; two hydroelectric water storage dams. New Delhi obviously has a mix of strategic targets and

population centres on its wish-list...The

destruction would be incalculable

Kargil showed that Indian policymakers were fearful of the actual use of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, with technological advancement this fear could be reduced. In fact, such development would increase pressure on Pakistan.

Moreover, such plans depict an India more willing to decapitate Pakistan beyond redemption, and ready to take a few hits itself in this deadly process. India, it must be remembered, has more strategic depth to save it from complete annihilation. It also means that the Indian policymakers will necessarily have to get used to the idea of punishing its adversary at the cost of getting a few million of its own people killed. This makes the nuclear option deadlier.

...The proposed 17 nuclear strikes against Pakistan, carried out through a triad of Indian forces, will be sufficient to destroy the country almost completely. This makes the need for a second-strike capability against Pakistan totally redundant.

Once faced with this situation, Islamabad may consider the option to further develop its nuclear capability. The financial impact of such a development on the nuclear front would increase pressure on the already ailing economy. Although there are no cost estimates available of this type of technological development, one could learn from the American example where about $4.5 trillion

have been spent. Needless to point out, escalation is a two-way street. Unfortunately, there is a slim margin between the Indian and

Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Technological development of the nature mentioned above can reduce Pakistan`s strategic advantage.

...It is very important to stop India from embarking upon the course of technological

proliferation. Hopefully, the three Asian states (India, China & Pakistan) can agree upon a nuclear arms control formula for the region. It is important to stop

this race before it gathers further momentum.

NaqshBandi #238

I have too much respect for people who devote their time for some cause.

Ulema have their thoughts. Their strength and weaknesses.

It is not easy to put a person out of fold of Islam, if a person is saying himself Muslim.

Unless, his belief is out of whack. As Qadiani`s belief of prophet after PBUH is against the basic tenets of Islam.

You have to differentiate between Taqwa, Momin, Muslim, Munafiqeen, Kafir etc.

When Ata-Turk started to fight the Europeans, the Uthmani Caliphate was going to surrender, with humiliating terms.

As Iqbal said meaning (I forget exact wording)

Mullah kah raha hai yeh Waqt-e Duaa Hai,

Momin Ka hey ye Azn ke Hai yeh Waqt-e-Jahad.

Ata-Turk did thought that reason for the decline of Muslims was the culture of Uthmani Caliphate which was labelled as Muslim Culture.

And he went to another extreme, but with time those excesses are coming into light.

Let me tell you another Hadith meaning:

Muslims will follow the christians and jews, and if they had gone in a lizards hole, Muslim will follow this also.

Your following of your Sheikh and belief in him is not supported by Islamic teachings, but following of the same as prophet warned.

You are answerable for your own thoughts deeds and actions and on day of judgement when you will say that my Sheikh has told me such, you will not be absolved.

If you have doubt regarding my understanding, there are many Ayah in Koran, just for this point.

When God has brought Haqq (meaning Koran), why you followed your leaders. You will be punished and leaders will be punished doubly.

I think you will not mind a sinner like me telling you. But that is my understanding.

May God guide me to straight path.

YLH/KRashid...I only said Ataturk was a kafir (for insulting the Holy Prophet alayhi salaam) and I didn`t accuse you two of anything..

Krashid I KNOW what serious thing it is to call anyone a kaafir in Islam who is a Muslim which is why I myself never judge anyone; I merely relate what ulama I trust of Ahle Sunnah or those things on which there is consensus...and regarding Ataturk ask ANY scholar and he will tell you what he thinks of him...

YLH--you are right that you have 100% rights to praise whoever you want and you can carry on praising mr. ataturk all your life as far as i`m concerned...

the sickness is that here is a man who blatantly insulted the Holy Prophet alayhi salaam and yet here you are still singing his praises...as if that doesn`t matter to you.

Well sorry but if a person insults Our Beloved Messenger it DOES matter to me...and you can call me whatever names you want....

And it matters to all the Muslims from the Prophet`s time to now as well....do you know what the fatwa is on ANYONE who insults the Holy Prophet in ALL schools of thought?

But maybe it doesn`t matter to you...

And I wonder about your imaan if it is so sensitive that just because i expose a politician whom you admire that you suddenly want to apostacise (naudhu billah!)?

Asif Naqshbandi# 204

Your Ulema have once told that Allama Iqbal was Kafir.

Quaide-Azam was famously known as Kafir-e-Azam.

Are the Mullah correct.

Or as Iqbal said about them ``Do take ke Imam``

Two penny Mullah.

In one form you may be considered Kafir (because giving the Fatwa of Kufr is so easy for you)

Do you know the Hadith. It is also for you.

During a war, a Muslim Commander (I think Khalid bin Waleed) killed a Kafir, who just said Kalma. The matter was brought before Prophet PBUH. He got angry, and asked the commander, if he had seen the heart of killed person. And told him he had done wrong.

Be careful, when labelling someone as Kafir.

The problem with you is that criticism of Ulema, who have a great contribution in taking the Muslims to this stage, where they are killed and tortured and for redress look towards the Kafirs.

You think the criticism of Ulema is criticism of Islam.

One of your brother gave fatwa that printing of Koran on printing press is Haram. Did you made it Halaal for yourself yet. Another one gave fatwa that Azaan on loudspeaker is Haraam. And that Haraam is done five times a day in Haramen-ush-Sharifain. One of your brother gave Fatwa that whoever votes for people`s party will not go to heaven. One of your brother gave fatwa that fight against British is Haram.

So all the freedom fighters, and resistance movement is Haraam.

What is left. Are you going to Bosnia to stop the killing of Muslims. Or Bosnians are also Kafir in some form because they are whites or are helped by Americans. Or was there any Muslim country to protect Kosovans, except the loathed jews and christians.

If you have ability to fast, that is good. But if you have to fast because of lack of food, all your philosophy of putting people out of fold of Islam after a burp will end.

Honestly I have been a Muslim all my life and I love my religion but reading Naqshbandi`s posts makes me wanna apostasize ....

I wonder if Ataturk had his share of Naqshbandis?

He sure did ....

You said what sickness is this? I ll tell you something ... I will praise whoever I want and you cant tell me it is a sickness ...

Why do u have to impose your narrowminded interprettation of Islam on others ....

You make people repulsive to Islam ...

Oh yeh...for your information the great sufi brotherhoods are flourishing in Turkey alhamdulillah despite the efforts of your infidel ``hero`` to crush them....

Jaa al Haq wa zaahiqal baatil....

YLH--you conced he might be a kafir (the ulama have said he is and after insulting the Messenger alayhi salatosalaam how can he NOT be) but still support him and write ``zindabad!`` What sickness is this?

La hawla wa la quwwata ila billah!

Asif Naqshbandi ...

First of all I making every effort to get this book which I am sure you have not read .......

Second the grey Wolf was published for the first time during the time of the Gazi .... and Gazi is known to have rebutted a lot of it ... it was written by a British author who was Kemal because of the services he had rendered to the Turks ....

Now before you start attacking Ataturk as a Kafir ... Only Allah knows what he was ... we are no one to judge him ....

His contribution to the Turks and his inspiration to the Muslims all around the world is awesome... his theory of Kemalism stands out as a beacon of light for the Muslims of this world .....

The fact that he might be a Kafir (which I doubt)

does not over shadow the fact that he was the last truly successful military leader for any Muslim army ... hence the name Gazi ...

Prophet Muhammad`s personality remains beyond any outbursts by anyone ... his is a live revolution ..

Infidel Ataturk maybe but he did in essence purge the Muslim world of Obscuranitist elements that Prophet Muhammad himself had stood up against ...

Muslims can be thankful to Ataturk for crushing the obscuranitist Naqshbandi Brotherhood of Turkey

but I see that he couldnt complete the job .....

Ah ... well maybe someone else will ....

Till then, keep putting up your posts ... they are quite amusing ...

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

YLH--the full reference for that quote 9in cae you don`t believe me)

* The Grey Wolf, H.C.Armstrong, Capricorn Books, New York, 1961.

YLH (and other admirers of Ataturk) this is a quote from your ``hero`` about Our Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and Islam: Ataturk--may he burn in hell for ever--said:

[quote]

``For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam-this

theology of an immoral Arab-is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God`s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weaklings. No weaklings should rule!`` *

* The Grey Wolf, pp. 199-200 [endquote]

taken from:http://www.khilafah.org/phase1/history/traitors.html

Notice what the kaafir said about our Beloved Prophet. THAT YLH is why I HATE him.

Is he still your hero?