What's new

Homes of Christians burnt

Originally Posted by Developereo View Post
Good point.

The problem is many of our firebrand mullahs don't preach this message.

We need to make sure our mullahs preach about respecting law and order. How much easier it would make the police's job if the mullahs cooperate!
^ I agree Developereo Thats the basic point of it all

If Mullah is not preaching the right message of Islam, then whose fault is it? Madrissah, that is producing such type of character. Madrissah needs reform, if not in curriculum but in the way it is educating its disciples, instead of educating in the right Islamic way. These Madaris are not perfect if this sort of intolerant, ignorant, and un Islamic character continues to be produced from here.
 
Two problems with this:

1. It's not part of the religiosity of the Mullah to preach law and order, don't you know that a good Muslim is a Muslim who protests in the streets and is convinced by conspiracy theories?

2. The political game in Pakistan is essential the same game that the Mullah plays - it about total power, not laws, rules or order, it's about vengance and terrorizing the populace.

We have to be more realistic about the kindof Islam that is motivating these people, we have to be realistic about who these people are - one cannot have a society that is tolerant and clergy and the Islam they preach as intolerant, there is just something worng with that formulation - Pakistan is a largely intolerant society, if only because vast majorities simply are apathetic.

Then what's the solution?
We cannot keep on going like this.
We are not going to, nor do we want to, give up Islam.
The only other choice is to reform the mullahs.
Just like eliminating feudalism, some one has to be brave enough to tackle these guys. I don't see any hope from PPP or PML-X.
Even Imran Khan has formed an alliance with the mullahs, although that might be our best hope if he can use the moderate mullahs to reform the system from within.
 
Then what's the solution?
We cannot keep on going like this.
We are not going to, nor do we want to, give up Islam.
The only other choice is to reform the mullahs.
Just like eliminating feudalism, some one has to be brave enough to tackle these guys. I don't see any hope from PPP or PML-X.
Even Imran Khan has formed an alliance with the mullahs, although that might be our best hope if he can use the moderate mullahs to reform the system from within.

Understand brother, there is a Huge difference between the Ulema and the so called Molvi. As an example, Fazlur Rehman is a Maulvi :tsk: you have seen what good his hands have achieved :tsk::disagree: and the Ulema include the Mufti e Azam and many other noble beings like him, both Shia and Sunni. Whereas a Maulvi abuses Islam because of his ignorance The Ulema dont and never have misused it. In Gojra, maulvis were calling for the heads of the Christians (some intentionally and other not so) whereas a prominent Alim of that area was educating the people to calm down and leave it to the Law.

Sadly the Maulvis won :tsk: and the Alim (who the Prophet PBUH has called as the heirs of the Apostles and Messengers of God himself) lost :frown:

Understand this difference bro :eek:
 
I would add in terms of Mullah's mentality to disobey the civil laws by an example almost all the Pakistanis witness personally or in news papers every year.

Two major religious gathering are seen in Pakistan every year. One in Raiwind, and the other in Multan. You will never see any one abiding by traffic rules while approaching or leaving those gatherings. The participants look worst than a herd of sheep, especially when the gatherings are over. Does, Islamic gathering means having no discipline at all? No, bazurg, peer or sheik has ever made speech on these gatherings, I suppose, about the importance of discipline and traffic rules, looking at the pathetic mob-like condition of the participants.

It shows that our so called religious personalities have never have a deep thinking about the core of Islamic doctrines, worship, ethics etc. They have, instead, chosen the easy way, a short cut I would say, by making themselves Muslims apparently and they require the same from their followers. The result is hypocrisy, not Islam.
 
Then what's the solution?
We cannot keep on going like this.
We are not going to, nor do we want to, give up Islam.
The only other choice is to reform the mullahs

The problem is a particular kind of religiosity - A religiosity that is focused on certitude, not faith, a religiosity focused on outward appearances of piety, that is to say a religiosity of hypocracy, read below and see if this applies to what we are witnessing :

Distinguishing different types of religiosity is certainly not a new or innovative idea. When the Holy Koran speaks of the yamiyn (the ones on the right) and the sabiqun (the vanguards), it is offering a way of distinguishing different types of religiosity. And religious scholars, who speak of legalistic, methodistic and idealistic religion or of the religion of initiation, the median and culmination, are touching on this same truth.

This article, too, will present, in brief, a categorisation of different types of religiosity which has differences and similarities with the above-mentioned divisions.

We will call these three types of religiosity, respectively: 1. Pragmatic (or utilitarian) religiosity; 2. Gnostic religiosity; and 3. Experiential religiosity.

First: Pragmatic (utilitarian) religiosity
In this type of religiosity, a view or an action’s ultimate purpose, utility and outcome (this worldly or other worldly) are of paramount importance to the believer. It is a religion for life (not synonymous with life or higher than life). In its purely other-worldly forms, it wears the garb of asceticism and Sufism (Khajeh Abdollah Nesari) and, in its this-worldly forms, the garb of politics and statesmanship (Seyyed Jamal Afghani, etc.). Its central axis is emotion and practical rationality. Among the general masses, the emotional aspect gains the upper hand and, among learned people, the practical rationality (that is to say the capacity to match means to ends).

Pragmatic religiosity is mundane, causal (not reasoned), hereditary, deterministic (not arising from choice or free will), emotional, dogmatic, ritualistic, ideological, identity-bound, external, collective, legalistic-juristic, mythic, imitative, obedient, traditional and habitual. Here, the volume of deeds is the measure of the intensity or otherwise of conviction: performing the hajj numerous times, visiting shrines, praying frequently and so on. Through these actions, the religious person feels more successful and closer to God. Mass rituals and rites nourish this religiosity more than anything else. The frequency of collective prayers, mourning ceremonies, Koranic recitations, retreats, Friday prayers, gatherings and preaching sessions, crowds of believers at shrines and mosques, hordes of fighters in the arenas of jihad amount to the glorification and splendour of this type of religiosity and serve as a source of pride to it. It both stirs up emotions and draws strength from them. Since this type of religiosity is hereditary and not based on reasoning, since emulation and obedience play the biggest role in perpetuating it, since it devotes itself to deeds rather than thought and reflection, and since it is constructed upon emotion and excitation rather than rational endeavour and inquiry, it gradually becomes tainted by dogmatism and prejudice and loses the capacity to tolerate dissent. It defends set habits and traditions dogmatically and sees people who tend to raise questions and reflect upon things as crooks and heretics. Hence, slowly but surely it goes down the path of casting out and excommunicating people.

This is the religiosity of the clergy, and clerics like to emphasise the importance of submission and emulation and religious passion and the performance of rites and rituals to believers. In this way, a believer’s religion becomes their identity and they defend it in the way they would defend their homeland or property or life, not in the way a scientist would defend a truth. In other words, they want religion so that they can feel like somebody and distinguish themselves from others, not because they want to arrive at some truth.

Believers, in this type of religiosity, are the slaves and God is the master and the sultan (not the God of wisdom, nor the Alluring Beloved). And the Prophet wears the cloak of a commander, issuing orders about what a believer may and may not do, and speaking of glad tidings and ominous portents (not an insightful man of knowledge with exalted experiences, nor a wise and brilliant thinker). And sin amounts to disobeying his orders rather than being something that causes a contraction of the heart. And obedience is part of a deal aimed at accruing some gain or benefit, not something that causes an expansion of the heart, nor yet a participation in a spiritual experience. And following the Prophet means carrying out his commands. Morality is always relegated to second place in this religiosity and is considered to be decorative at best, entailing no religious burdens or duties in itself.

Since imitative believers do not have the courage and strength to look at the Exalted for themselves or to tackle difficult concepts, they look for mediators and they find what they are seeking in the form of religious personalities past and present, such that they spend more time visiting shrines than going to mosques.

In this type of religiosity, personalities are transformed into myths and lose touch with human history and geography... Dogmatic distinctions drawn between us and them and believers and infidels, the firm and unyielding categorisation of people, the simplification of the world and the refusal to see the complexities, subtleties and variations of human existence, and, subsequently, engaging in unsubtle behaviour inappropriate to the elaborate and mysterious nature of life, creating strict ideological divisions, seeing people as either heavenly or hellish, viewing God as an impatient avenger, imagining God as one’s own God and the Protector of one’s own sect who is uncaring about everyone else, narrowing the definition of truth and broadening the definition of falsehood, highlighting the differences between sects and seeing one’s own sect as the axis and measure of truth and falsehood and the creator of the true human identity, ignoring the common attributes of human beings and emphasising every small difference in belief, and compartmentalising humanity into so many different sects are some of the characteristics and defining features of this kind of religiosity.

But learned, pragmatic religiosity is itself of two types: this worldly and other worldly; and, of course, it has important differences with the pragmatic religiosity of the general masses. Here, the central axis is practical rationality, not emotion. And practical reason engages in planning and measures means against ends. But, whatever it does, it is practical and it wants religion for its utility.

Since this-worldly, learned, pragmatic religiosity acts rationally, it has no affinity with myths, it does not blow the horn of emulation, it does not rouse blind emotion, it does not spare tradition the rod of criticism, it has no particular fondness for the clergy; nonetheless, and most importantly, it seeks movement rather than truth, which is precisely the main attribute of ideologies. It sees religion as the servant of politics or revolution or democracy, etc. And, concentrating on the ultimate goal or purpose, it tries to pick out what it finds useful in religion and to set aside anything in it that is of no use.

The God of this kind of religiosity is an observing, supervising God who expects people to act responsibly. His servants are hardworking, shrewd, reward-minded and responsible employees. His Prophet is a prudent politician and a methodical planner. The other-worldly joy or wretchedness of his followers depend on their this-worldly joy or wretchedness. Its religious personalities are historical and non-mythical, and as subject to criticism and analysis as anyone else. There is no element of wonder or secrets or the inner world in this type of religiosity. Seeing human beings, the world and history in simple, ideological terms remains the order of the day.

The collective and demonstrative aspect of religion (apart from its ritualistic dimension) is firmly in place. Political, social, revolutionary or democratic religions are products of this kind of religiosity. Sin is like breaking the law and reward is synonymous with achieving the goal or reaching the desired destination. And obedience to the Prophet is like the shrewd obedience of an employee to a superior, not of a devoted follower to a master, nor of a lover to the beloved. The element of practical endeavour is still prominent, but here it is purposeful endeavour directed towards a this-worldly goal. Religious law and jurisprudence [fiqh] are justified in rationalistic terms. Morality, too, takes on a revolutionary or democratic sense and, ultimately, neither morality nor fiqh are seen as possessing any mysterious qualities or secret and hidden aims. Most modern religious intellectuals and reformers fall into this category and distinguished personalities such as Seyyed Jamal, Shariati, Seyyed Qutb and Ubdah are its prominent representatives in this century.
 
^ That is so true! I agree but I wouldnt go so far as to label this hypocrisy on all the people related to Islam, but in essence you are right about a great deal of them :)
 
Understand brother, there is a Huge difference between the Ulema and the so called Molvi. As an example, Fazlur Rehman is a Maulvi you have seen what good his hands have achieved and the Ulema include the Mufti e Azam and many other noble beings like him, both Shia and Sunni. Whereas a Maulvi abuses Islam because of his ignorance The Ulema dont and never have misused it. In Gojra, maulvis were calling for the heads of the Christians (some intentionally and other not so) whereas a prominent Alim of that area was educating the people to calm down and leave it to the Law.

Sadly the Maulvis won and the Alim (who the Prophet PBUH has called as the heirs of the Apostles and Messengers of God himself) lost

Understand this difference bro

I am afraid, but it is misguiding. All the maulvis are produced by the Madaris run under the Ulema, as you call them. I see no difference, I rather say so-called Ulema as Dekhne kay daant, while maulvis are Khane kay daant of the same body. Would you please give any proof of any maulvi like Fazlur Rehman being condemned publicly by any Alim? They rather take part in religious events together and, as usual, praise each other for each other's services to Islam. Have you any proof that any chain of Madaris has ever said that we disown such and such maulvi and we are taking all the certificates back from him issued by us? It has never happened. Fazlur Rehman, Masood Azher, Azam Tariq, Riaz Basra (though not a maulvi, but he was buried by warping his body in Sipahe Sihaba flag), Hanif Jalandhary, Taqi Usmani are the same in the eyes of a follower of a particular sect. Same is true for other sects too. To be a blind follower of a particular sect is given more importance than to be a true Muslim. What does this mean? Prem Sigh and Natha Sigh, one and the same thing. Instead of dying for making the whole world their blind followers, it was better for Ulema to produce at least one batch of exemplary Muslims from any one Mudrissah.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

The problem is that in Islam, almost anybody can become a maulvi and start leading prayers and preaching. In one way it is good and very democratic, but the problem is that now anybody can start preaching under the name of Islam without being a knowledgeable Ulema. Question is how to control these uneducated, power-hungry maulvis?

Thanx bro for that one! you have said it in a whole new and beautiful way :enjoy:
 
Wrong comparison. Not sure if Hitler was a practicing Christian. At least he never used the Bible to justify genocide. His reasons for the genocides were racial and political, and not based on any particular religion. Hitler even targeted the church.



"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

Going back to topic when was the last time somebody was charged and hanged for killing christians in pakistan?
 
Understand brother, there is a Huge difference between the Ulema and the so called Molvi. As an example, Fazlur Rehman is a Maulvi :tsk: you have seen what good his hands have achieved :tsk::disagree: and the Ulema include the Mufti e Azam and many other noble beings like him, both Shia and Sunni. Whereas a Maulvi abuses Islam because of his ignorance The Ulema dont and never have misused it. In Gojra, maulvis were calling for the heads of the Christians (some intentionally and other not so) whereas a prominent Alim of that area was educating the people to calm down and leave it to the Law.

Sadly the Maulvis won :tsk: and the Alim (who the Prophet PBUH has called as the heirs of the Apostles and Messengers of God himself) lost :frown:

Understand this difference bro :eek:

Not really.

Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’

One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.

Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.

His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.


He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.

Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.

The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.

For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”

He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”

These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece
 
Qur'an says;

Lakum deeenokum wa liya deen

Your deen is for you and theirs is for them.

Islam is just live and let live. It is peace, not anarchy.[/QUOTE]

Beautiful thought.

Sorry for the tragic incident..

Thanks
 
Pakistan rights group: Christian riots planned
4 AUGUST 2009

ISLAMABAD – An independent Pakistani human rights commission said Tuesday that rioting that killed eight Christians last week was not spontaneous but was planned by the attackers, some of whom belong to an al-Qaida-linked group.

The findings were released the same day Pakistani police began questioning more than 200 people to determine if the attacks were premeditated, said Punjab province Law Minister Rana Sanaullah. Another top official suggested militants fleeing an army offensive in the northwest Swat Valley were also involved.

Hundreds of Muslims attacked a Christian neighborhood in the eastern Pakistani city of Gojra on Saturday after reports that Christians had desecrated a Quran. The assault, in which dozens of homes were also torched, underscored the precarious existence of religious minorities in this Muslim-majority nation where extremist Islam is on the rise.

Sanaullah told The Associated Press that members of the banned Sunni group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and its al-Qaida-linked offshoot Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were arrested as suspected attackers.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said its fact-finding team interviewed the families of victims, residents, witnesses and officials. Commission head Asma Jahangir said in a statement that announcements made from mosques the day before called upon Muslims to "make mincemeat of the Christians."

The statement said many of the attackers came from a neighboring district, Jhang — the birthplace and stronghold of the banned militant groups.

"The attackers seemed to be trained for carrying out such activities," she said.

A Pakistani intelligence report some two months earlier suggested militant groups may be switching from suicide attacks to creating sectarian strife in cities, Sanaullah noted.

"We need to locate and arrest those who were wearing masks during the carnage," he said, referring to the attackers who were covering their faces during the rioting to avoid being identified.

The demonstrations began Thursday but reached their violent zenith Saturday, allegedly after hardline clerics began making speeches against the Christians. Authorities say an initial probe had debunked the claims that the Muslim holy book was defiled. Christians in the community attended special church services for the victims Tuesday.

Separately, Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer, on a visit to Gojra, said "those who were evicted from Swat have a hand in this incident." Taseer offered no evidence to back up this claim.

Pakistan's army is engaged in a three-month-old offensive in Swat, a northwest valley that was once a prominent tourist destination. The military claims to have killed 1,800 suspected militants in the operation.

Christians — including Protestants and Catholics — make up less than 5 percent of Pakistan's 175 million people, according to the CIA World Factbook. They generally live in peace with their Muslim neighbors.

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif promised Tuesday that the government would cover the cost of rebuilding the charred houses and pledged to bring the perpetrators of the weekend attack to justice.

"There couldn't be any cruelty more harsh than this," he said in an address to Christians in Gojra.

Pakistan has also been fighting militants in its semiautonomous tribal regions in the northwest. In the latest violence, four security forces and 11 civilians died, two intelligence officials said Tuesday.

Suspected militants fired rockets at a military base camp in the North Waziristan tribal region late Monday, killing the four security forces. Also late Monday, mortar shells fired by an unknown source hit two homes in two villages of the same region, killing 11 civilians, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.



Source: Associated Press
 
Then what's the solution?
We cannot keep on going like this.
We are not going to, nor do we want to, give up Islam.
The only other choice is to reform the mullahs.
Just like eliminating feudalism, some one has to be brave enough to tackle these guys. I don't see any hope from PPP or PML-X.
Even Imran Khan has formed an alliance with the mullahs, although that might be our best hope if he can use the moderate mullahs to reform the system from within.

Quicker and easier solution is to get rid of whatever non-muslim minority is left...
 
Quicker and easier solution is to get rid of whatever non-muslim minority is left...
Oh, it's done to Muslims in India only where you try hard to reduce Muslim Population.We don't want to do that with minorities in our country.They have every right to live as a Pakistani.
 
Quicker and easier solution is to get rid of whatever non-muslim minority is left...

You mean the way you guys in India killed 3000 muslims in Gujarat, or 12000 Sikhs in Punjab?

Or do you want us to burn Christians the way you guys do in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere?

Perhaps you are forget the wholesale killing and eradication of Buddhism from India all those centuries ago...
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom