And i have already said said all are not same mostly people in the rural areas prefer madaris dan schools and if it can help in social betterment so what's bad in it.if few people are using them in a wrong manner it dosen't mean destroy them
1. they SHOULD choose scientefic schools over jahel madaris. Drowning their children future down the tar and they wonder what happened??
2. it does not help in social betterment but rather devastation and social division.
3. It cant be few when every madrassa small or big is discovered with arms and rag tag terrorists.
Those who lived through the cold war can easily recall offical Saudi doctrine of exporting madrassas as idealogical hubs of "jihad" or the so called millitant islam. One can dig the archives of saudi moral police and bring up all the brochures circa 80-90's.
@greatsequence
During Zia era lot of Pakistani ahmedis went in exile to Germany. Judging from your flags I am just curious if you have met any?
seeker said:
This is nothing new, mullahs in 1400 years sold out millions of fatwas to strong the rulers.Thousand of hadiath had invented to justify the brutality and un-Islamic acts of rulers.
This is the direct contradiction i was pointing to. Prophet never declared himself to be a monarch neither he appointed one. He strongly opposed monarchy or racial and dynastic hegemony and devised an administrative model consisting of public opinion, consultation and intellactual legistation of law making.
However there are annaul fatwas and loyality pledges taken by the "bayah" council of Arabi kingdom from all appointed religious scholars. Be be appointed in government as a scholar one must pledge loyality to house of saud. Therefore one can imagine what comes from the mouth of these materialistic scholars is what exactly the wishes expressed by monarchy.
The Arab monarchy was installed by imperial british and it was modelled on the same concept of british monarchy. So there had to be religion, a religious institute, a sect and a family vowing to protect the religious purity.
The british had christianity, church of england, protestant vs catholic and the royal family of england.
The arabis have Islam, two holy moques, sunni vs wahabi and the al-saud royal family.
the british adoped protestantism in a political move to assert their power over the mainstream catholism. The arabis adoped wahabism over mainstream sunni for the same purpose.
The political manuver of british did not change the nature of church or religion for an average joe. He would go the the same church, read the same scriptures and practice the same however the re-labeling streamlined monarchy with the church by changing its administrative structure.
The arabi switch from sunnism to wahabism/salafism did not change the doctrine or practice of islam. For an average sunni which makes the majority of muslims its the same mosque, practises, prayers and scriptures. What is did was installed new heads (house of saud) with political control of religion and indirectly asserted their power is muslims subconciousness.
Time has not changed much since the colonisation era.
seeker said:
"Does the madressas have played any postive role in well being of society and Islamic culture in our country "
No never an instance that i can recall. Muslims exceled by science not by religion alone therfore such a claim does not make sense by any angle. The term
"madrasa" is just an Indo-Persian word for place of learning. The word by itself has no association to the kind of seminary be is scientefic or religious.
As far as I can recall the so called mullahs are hypocrites quran has warned against who use religion to decieve people in their worldly goals.
pak-marine said:
why we are bringing in religion here , Quran doesnt teach keeping weapons , breaking land laws ? its straight forward its wrong to keep illegal weapons and places where such anti state activites are conducted shouldnt actually be addressed by a religious name. Infact we should address them as terrorist cell nothing more!
Quran states weapons as ornament of man in peace time and defence of man in war time. Keeping weapon by itself is not illegal in any religion or man made law. America has three times more licensed weapons than its population. The debate boils down to abuse of weapons for criminal purposes.
For meaning to be unchanged I made the point that language must be preserved. If you know arabic you will be able to tell that the language used in the sermons in the Arab world is the pure old Arabic. Arabic spoken in the Gulf and Mauritania is pretty much the old Arabic.
Excuse me but an average arabi reading quran is equivalent to an average english reading unabriged shakespear. Languages evolve over time. The current day spoken arabic has heavy persian influence where as the Arabic used in quran is the so-called pure arabic which needs some effort to understand.
