So you banned brother yarmouk then, well it was to be expected.I didn't think anyone here could refute him, or debate with him freely and fairly so you went for the cop out, a cowardly move that does nothing to enhance the reputation of this forum.
Its obvious the mods couldn't counter yarmouk's arguments and that is why they resorted to the ban. A counter productive move for you guys.
Please enlighten us as to what such times are.
One such time is when the government/ruler does not rule in accordance with the sharia I have posted the relevant Quranic ayah's please refer to those.
This thread would not be here and we would not be arguing back and forth for the past many days if it was just about the aim and objectives. The bottom line is the means being used here. There is no room for these means to be used given the circumstances.
The circumstances are such that those who have resorted to violent means have only done so in order to defend themselves from aggression
The folks you are running interference for are misguided and are on a self-destructive path given the fact that their own understanding of the deen is lacking.
Lets try to stick with well established facts as we disagree with each others opinions, and you just stating your opinion and the me responding with mine will get us nowhere. If you say something is Islamic or unIslamic then quote texts.
You cannot provide cover for their misdeeds by claiming that their aims and objectives are noble.
Well we haven't established that their actions are "misdeeds" to begin with have we? Misdeeds according to who G.O.P? U.S.A?
If you want to discuss from an Islamic perspective you must state this is haram because of this verse or this hadith, this is how we can proceed.
This was indeed the way of the Kharijis as well. Their intention may have been noble in the beginning, but their misguided zeal took them off course and resulted in weakening of the Muslims.
Oh, a little bit of Islamic history, well done, its a shame that what you have provided by way of an example is not relevant, even though their might be some similarities.The plural of khariji is khawarij by the way.
These gents representing TTP and others are no different.
WRONG, they are different, please explain who it was the Khawarij rebelled against and for what reason,then maybe we can look at the comparison in perspective and see if the description of "kharijis" really does fit the Taliban.
When in the land of Muslims, worshippers are slaughtered, their ulema are put under the knife and then boldly claimed as the intended targets by the TTP and gents, then no matter what arguments you put up, they ring hollow. In fact you do a disservice to Islam and the rest of us Muslims by defending them.
Lets separate emotional discharges and textual proofs, you claim to be a sunni which means you follow the sunnah so bring textual proofs.
The advantage of the will of the people is you can ask them.
We don't need to ask anyone what they think Islamicly speaking the Quran is clear on the matter.The system of governance has to be the sharia
Unless i missed some thing there hasnt been a recent divine revelation that Baitullah Mehsud is the chosen of Allah.
No one has claimed he is, no one is saying he should be king of Pakistan.I am arguing for the establishment of the sharia, we have the Quran, and its just as relevant today as twhen it was revealed.Once sharia is established InshaAllah then the Ulema can decide as to who will be the leader, who will preside over affairs.BUT PLEASE NOTE THE RULER CAN NOT MOVE AWAY FROM THE SHARIA.
some of you people are confused.
You think secular means atheist.
No one has equated the two, secularism is different to atheism, both are kufr though.
Read a dictionary, and learn about countries with secular government
.
I didn't know I could find information about secular countries in a dictionary
Even though Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, we still have minorities.
Yes and your point is what exactly?
The purpose of Pakistan's creation was for religious freedom and it was to promote modern principles.
No one is suggesting that non Muslim minorities would not be allowed to live peacefully in a Islamic Pakistan under sharia law.
If you don't respect Jinnah, then you don't respect Pakistan.
If you do not want to be ruled by sharia law then you do not respect Islam
i trust somebody who is educated, can argue cogently, works hard for his/her nation and society, and who has the credentials.
I dont trust some fiery Mullah or some mediocre bigot who thinks he is proper Maulvi to tell me what is right and what is wrong.
Evidently you disregard Islamic teaching and do not judge what is right or wrong by Islamic standards, so who is a so called "fiery" Mullah in comparison?
I dream of a secular Pakistan. Religion has no business in state affairs. The sooner people realize it, the better
100% kufr. Ask any Alim about the above statement and I'm not talking about "fiery Mullah" go to any genuine Islamic scholar and ask him about the above quote.