Indian lies exposed over mumbai attack.

[Norwegian]

Finally a sane Pakistani voice. Wait someone will say say you are an infidel. Thumbs up for your honesty. Appreciated.


Finally a sane Pakistani voice. Wait someone will say say you are an infidel. Thumbs up for your honesty. Appreciated.

You forgot a "Like" up there? You think I am a Hindu Banya?

 

[gslv]

You forgot a "Like" up there? You think I am a Hindu Banya?

I did that while you were posting that.

 

[ranjeet]

I did that while you were posting that.

Nah .. he is a fan of IK
@Norwegian no offence bro ..... but still don't agree with you on that one. I wish you are right about him but my opinion wouldn't change unless I see some mature steps from him. I wish you luck though.

 

[Norwegian]

Nah .. he is a fan of IK
@Norwegian no offence bro ..... but still don't agree with you on that one. I wish you are right about him but my opinion wouldn't change unless I see some mature steps from him. I wish you luck though.

IK is right. See this thread:
Massive Vote Fraud Found In NA-122 Audit!

We might be the ONLY "loser" nation on the planet which is willing to probe entire election results after 2 years into the government. Funny people, aren't we?

 

[TankMan]

As I said I cannot argue to an who cannot see or deny reasoning

I am not denying any reasoning, I am denying a false basis for said reasoning. If the basis was true and unbiased, I'd gladly accept the reasoning.

I am against those mideval practices of all religion

And so am I, the point I disagree on that Sharia is medieval and can not be adapted to the modern world - it can be, quite easily.

As for being sharia fair, a woman has half as weightage than a male witness.

No, the circumstances for that are very specific. Women are biologically different (Scientifically proven and agreed upon fact), thus they have different responsibilities and abilities, which is what accounts for the difference between men and women in Islamic Law - one can not argue that men and women are equal, because they are not physically or biologically the same as men. However, they have equal rights based on their responsibilities. It's a bit complicated but it is very logical if you study it.

Now, one can argue that a woman's biological differences do not impede her ability to be a witness,(presumably you're saying the same) which is an argument that I recognize, understand and believe is perfectly valid.

Equality and justice are two very different things. Islamic law aims for Justice more than equality.

I can quote few authentic Islamic pages for my argument but that's not allowed in pdf.

Name them so I can have a look myself.

f I put some authentic Islamic scholar's reference then you will tell me that you dont agree to that and ask me to not consider that truth and everything should be taken as stated by quran.

Scholars are humans and can make mistakes (and are prone to politics and lying for the sake of said politics), which is why they should give references from the authentic sources, Quran and Sahih Hadith.

f I post passage of quran that's available on net for my defense then you will ask me to read quran in Arabic as the true meaning comes out in that language.

No, I wouldn't. You're assuming too much, and assuming wrong. I would, however, ask for context - but that shouldn't be a problem because it is easily available on the internet, The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

I know the tactics of islamists.

You don't know anything about Islam, you just think you do because of all those anti-Islam websites. Guess what, I know the tactics of Anti-Islamists.

As anjem chaudhary staying in UK but demand sharia citing weird reason, you also doing the same.

Anjem Chaudhry is a nutcase, and no, I am not demanding Sharia in the UK. Read my reply to @Norwegian, post #135
I said:

I agree that it won't be practical to try and implement it..

I'm perfectly happy with a Democracy....

in our own countries at least.....

You are assuming too much and arguing too less.

As for losing the debate that doesn't happen to logical people like me who thrive on science and humanity.

That means it either happens or you're not being logical enough. Oh, science, I suppose you'd also oppose the germ theory if there were no microscopes or the heliocentric model if there were no telescopes. Science can not prove everything, yet. Nothing wrong in people speculating or holding beliefs that are not proven by current science - after all, that is how science started in the first place, with a hypothesis.

What you're displaying here is not 'logic' or 'science', it's close-mindedness.

no thanks on your sharia implementation

Do you intend on moving to Pakistan soon? If not, then what are you even talking about? Because I'm saying:

in our own countries.....

how you think there will be any better interpretation

There's already a better interpretation, that's how. As for implementing it, I don't (think it'll happen). I'm not counting on it, which is why I've written paragraphs detailing why I'm not counting on it.

 

[ranjeet]

IK is right. See this thread:
Massive Vote Fraud Found In NA-122 Audit!

We might be the ONLY "loser" nation on the planet which is willing to probe entire election results after 2 years into the government. Funny people, aren't we?

nope I won't go as far as to call the genuine people out here that, but democracy takes time to mature ... like an aged wine. it takes patience to master the art. Heck we have been a democracy for 60+ years yet we aren't sure if we elected the right people or not. All we know is they are the lesser evil out of other option available.

 

[Norwegian]

However, they have equal rights based on their responsibilities

And there we have a HUGE problem. Sharia Law tries to IMPOSE women's responsibilities on them like bearing children, caring for them, while at the same time serve their husbands willfully or forcefully. Its an extension of same old Arab culture where women were treated like concubines. Sure, no doubt, advent of Islam did give them more rights but they have farway to go before they reach Western levels of equality and justice between sexes.

@TankMan I am not saying Sharia Law is BAD, only its outdated and incomplete for modern age. Those who are trying to impose or wish it was implemented are nothing but romantic fanatics. We cannot live our lives on Islamic romance of the glorious past and try to emulate it today. All you end up like is Iran or Saudi Arabia with this Sharia system's obvious hypocrisy. Only way this system can work currently is by brutal force and exemptions. In Iran top clerical leadership is exempt from Shariah laws because they are lol; divine until the appearance of Hidden Imam. In Saudi Arabia, monarchy of Al-Saud family is exempt from all Shariah laws. There you have it

 

[Developereo]

No western democratic, secular country ever put ban on practice of religion. In fact the western concept of tolerance is directly attributed to judeo-christian ethics

Factually incorrect.

Any number of European countries have laws which discriminate for or against one religion or another. France's hijab law; France's law against "conspicuous" religious symbols; Switzerland's law against minarets; speech laws in various European countries.

It is also incorrect that the relative religious freedoms in Western countries have anything to do with Judeo-Christian values. Jewish history is filled with bloody conquests where the Hebrews massacred nonbelievers. Christian history is also filled with periods of extreme intolerance and persecution of non-believers.

The reason the West has greater religious freedoms is not because of respect for Islam or Hindus, but purely for self-preservation. Western countries, and developed countries in general, realize that law and order, and a certain amount of individual freedoms, are essential for society to function properly.

 

[Adecypher]

This is a question to my esteemed Indian fellow PDF members. Why India did not allow Pakistani investigative team to talk to Ajmal? There must me some calculated reasons behind that; I mean Jab "Aman Ki Aasha Ho" to "Mill key Kaam Karney Mein Kya Problem Hey"...wondering.

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

I don't think it's him. There is no link, they're just using his name to add 'credibility' to the drivel.

He had posted it on his fb page. You can check if you want....
Moeed Pirzada | Facebook

 

[TankMan]

No western democratic, secular country ever put ban on practice of religion. In fact the western concept of tolerance is directly attributed to judeo-christian ethics and its part of their broader culture. You will find severe restrictions placed on certain religious people in all Islamic countries and I have yet to find a Muslim majority country with COMPLETE religious freedom. In Sunni states, minority Shiites are persecuted. In Shiite states, its the other way around. Certain Islamic or non-Islamic sects and recent new religions are persecuted more than others such as Baha'is and Qadianis. You know all this, YET you say this system is or was perfect? If this was perfect, how come it collapsed completely after the assassination of fourth caliph Hazrat Ali? Not to mention two other rightly guided caliphs being assassinated before him? Our greatest Muslim leaders and companions of our holy prophet being assassinated in broad daylight and no one, even today, questions why adequate security was never provided? God alone is not the guarantor of life and guardian of death if you wanna play suicide by not taking any human protection at all??? Therefor I do not believe Caliphate system to be the most perfect one as Jews of Arabia were forcibly moved out during caliph Omar's reign which I see as totally unacceptable as he justified it as being done on the orders of late holy prophet (SAW).

Plenty of Western countries did ban (or at least try to) religious practices like the Hijab. That shouldn't happen in Muslim countries, which is what I'm saying.

There are pretty many Muslim countries with a decent amount of freedom of religion, for example Azerbaijan, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan, Gambia; I could name several more. Mostly those quiet little countries you don't hear much about.

The reason I say this system is perfect is because I have independently studied it in reasonable detail and ended up admiring it - not for any evil reasons, but simply because of how good it is. That's the problem with it, it's too good - too good to be implemented properly, because it'd mean that all those who benefit from injustice won't be able to. It was very effective during the Islamic Golden age period, but times changed and Muslims didn't keep up (not Islam - Islamic law is a means of doing so, like a tool, not a sentient entity on its own. It'll only work if Muslims use it)

If this was perfect, how come it collapsed completely after the assassination of fourth caliph Hazrat Ali? Not to mention two other rightly guided caliphs being assassinated before him? Our greatest Muslim leaders and companions of our holy prophet being assassinated in broad daylight and no one, even today, questions why adequate security was never provided? God alone is not the guarantor of life and guardian of death if you wanna play suicide by not taking any human protection at all???

It was the medieval era. Providing security in those times was VERY different from nowadays, and not at all as easy. You seem to be under the impression that they didn't take any human protection at all, which is not true. There were guards and companions, but it simply wasn't enough. And it didn't collapse entirely after Hazrat Ali's assassination, it continued quite well up till the 13th century, and remained powerful up till the 16th century when it began declining, slowly.

Therefor I do not believe Caliphate system to be the most perfect one as Jews of Arabia were forcibly moved out during caliph Omar's reign which I see as totally unacceptable as he justified it as being done on the orders of late holy prophet (SAW).

Firstly, like I said before, it was the medieval era. The entire point of a nation-state, during those times at least, is so that people sharing similar beliefs and a consensus can rule their own state. Also your information isn't exactly accurate, the Jews weren't expelled entirely and what did happen was not just because of the Prophet's alleged wish. According to many sources, including the Sahih Bukhari, the Jews broke their contract with the Muslims:

“No doubt, God’s Apostle made a contract with the Jews concerning their properties, and said to them, ‘We allow you (to stand in your land) as long as God allows you.’ Now Abdullah bin Umar went to his land and was attacked at night, and his hands and feet were dislocated, and as we have no enemies there except those Jews, they are our enemies and the only people whom we suspect, I have made up my mind to exile them.”
Bukhaari, Volume 3, Hadith #890
Also, a relevant source: Jerusalem and Umar ibn al-Khattab | Lost Islamic History

Secondly, how does any of that have anything to do with they system itself? Sharia doesn't dictate how many guards a ruler should take or what tactical positions they should be in, for example. The system is a system, it's not sentient. Humans have to use it.

Sharia Law tries to IMPOSE women's responsibilities on them like bearing children, caring for them, while at the same time serve their husbands willfully or forcefully.

Your point is perfectly valid. It's a religion, of course it'll have some restrictions on free will. Serving husbands is not forcefully, by the way - and it's the other way around, HUSBANDS are supposed to serve their wives. They're supposed to do the work, remember?

@TankMan I am not saying Sharia Law is BAD, only its outdated and incomplete for modern age. Those who are trying to impose or wish it was implemented are nothing but romantic fanatics. We cannot live our lives on Islamic romance of the glorious past and try to emulate it today

It isn't incomplete, it's just outdated - we're supposed to update it. But yes, It isn't practical to do so anymore, which is precisely what I meant when I said:

I agree that it won't be practical to try and implement it nowadays, not because it's unfair but because of the huge differences between different sects and Imams and their interpretations (which are usually greatly influenced by politics).

In that situation, I'm perfectly happy with a Democracy as long as it doesn't go too extreme on the other side, banning Hijabs and Qurans and all - It's part of our culture and should remain so in our own countries at least.

In Iran top clerical leadership is exempt from Shariah laws because they are lol; divine until the appearance of Hidden Imam. In Saudi Arabia, monarchy of Al-Saud family is exempt from all Shariah laws. There you have it

You are right and I already agree with the point you're trying to make here (always did) - more pathetic politics corrupting the religion and more reasons it isn't practical to have a Sharia-based legal system anymore. My list is already big enough.

 

[Norwegian]

Any number of European countries have laws which discriminate for or against one religion or another. France's hijab law; France's law against "conspicuous" religious symbols; Switzerland's law against minarets; speech laws in various European countries.

Were these laws made before Muslims at large started behaving conspicuously on the streets or after? Muslims never faced any discrimination in Europe until extremists started blowing up innocents, threatening their citizens, preaching shariah openly and started actually enforcing it at the local level. To prevent these Western nations from becoming another al-Bakistan, their lawmakers HAD to make certain laws that seem to go against only Muslims as only Muslims are unfortunately found behind 90+ percent of major terrorist attacks!

It is also incorrect that the relative religious freedoms in Western countries have anything to do with Judeo-Christian values. Jewish history is filled with bloody conquests where the Hebrews massacred nonbelievers. Christian history is also filled with periods of extreme intolerance and persecution of non-believers.

Not sure if you are following around, but read this source, then come back to me:

Judeo-Christian (in British English, Judaeo-Christian) is used by some to refer to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity.[1] Others--usually Jews[2]--consider it a "contradiction in terms" that "appeals to a nonexistent historical unity and calls for a banal, modernist theology." [3] It is nevertheless a common term in American cultural and political rhetoric. One definition appeared in a Washington Post editorial in 1991:

In our country, "Judeo-Christian values" is shorthand for a complex idea: the common culture of the American majority. The values are called Judeo-Christian because they derive from the complementary ideas of free will, the moral accountability of the individual rather than the group, the spiritual imperative of imperfect man's struggle to do what is right and the existence of true moral law in the teachings of Christ and the Jewish prophets. Along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they are the political and cultural heritage of the Founding Fathers. The Declaration and the Constitution define the source and the limits of state power. But they do not tell us how a moral life within this society should be led. While they have provided a durable structure for America's success, only Judeo-Christian values, freely held by the majority, explain its continuing realization. These values are not identical with the Christian religion, although they manifest its universal insights. Americans, as the Founding Fathers hoped, uphold the Constitution, but live according to "Judeo-Christian values".

Judeo-Christian

America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, so it comes as no surprise why its so supportive of Jews, Israelis
@Solomon2 @LeveragedBuyout

The reason the West has greater religious freedoms is not because of respect for Islam or Hindus, but purely for self-preservation. Western countries, and developed countries in general, realize that law and order, and a certain amount of individual freedoms, are essential for society to function properly.

Partially true as advanced countries like South Korea and Japan do have certain religious minorities that are persecuted and not treated equally since their value system is not judeo-christian.

 

[Bang Galore]

David Headly was an american, he lived his whole life in USA, just tell me how can an attack be planned inside Pakistan (as per indians) if a person who was affiliated in this attack, was not even in Pakistan?

And mate Abu jundal was indian! who was living in saudia. Later on he was deported by saudi arabia and now he is under indian custody..

You should read more, nobody is fooled by denials. Here's something you need to watch if you want a complete picture of the attack, you can hear the terrorists talking to their handlers. You can discuss language used better.

 

[TankMan]

He had posted it on his fb page. You can check if you want....
Moeed Pirzada | Facebook

FB and Twitter accounts of Journalists etc are being fake or hacked a lot nowadays, so that's a possibility. Not saying you're wrong, it does seem authentic - still, not that reliable of a source.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

He had posted it on his fb page. You can check if you want....
Moeed Pirzada | Facebook

Well, there goes one Pakistani I admired. I guess when you live in a land where Lal Topi lives, its just a matter of time before you come under the influence.