Indian lies exposed over mumbai attack.

[ranjeet]

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.

I was shocked to see Dr Shahid's Fire worship video about Peshwar ... Hassan Nisar is with IK so he can't be taken seriously too... only two left for me are Najam Sethi and Nusrat Javed.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I was shocked to see Dr Shahid's Fire worship video about Peshwar ... Hassan Nisar is with IK so he can't be taken seriously too... only two left for me are Najam Sethi and Nusrat Javed.

I never had any great respect for Shahid Masood, he's quite kooky frequently. But Moeed Pirzada- very sad. He was the best of the lot and was well trained (Columbia) so didn't expect this from him. Sad.

 

[TankMan]

Hassan Nisar is with IK so he can't be taken seriously too

His political affiliation (or rather, beliefs - he isnt a part of PTI, IK's party, in any way) doesn't discredit the rest of his arguments. Being with IK doesn't mean you'll be wrong about everything else, being with IK isn't wrong either.

 

[ranjeet]

I never had any great respect for Shahid Masood, he's quite kooky frequently. But Moeed Pirzada- very sad. He was the best of the lot and was well trained (Columbia) so didn't expect this from him. Sad.

Yeah Moeed Pirzada was a huge let down. he was balanced but I guess IK Dharna took it's toll on some people.

 

[Developereo]

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!

Utterly shameless case of blaming the victim.
By your logic Nazi persecution of Jews was 'justified' by self-proclaimed rationalizations.

The fact is that YOUR bombastic claim of no religious restrictions was shown to be false, so now you are dancing around trying to justify why your claim was wrong.

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

What does this have anything to do with my comment, and how does it refute anything I wrote about the history persecution in Judaism and Christianity?

Do you have the faintest clue what you are typing or do you just cut and paste?

 

[Norwegian]

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.

Hijab was only banned in public places after some evidence surfaced that it was forcefully imposed on little girls. And also because it wasn't easy to identify the person wearing hijab for public servants. Not sure if this ban is still enforced though. Same is the case with male circumcisions which were banned after a Muslim baby died of improper operation in Germany. Both Jews and Muslims were affected by this ban. So you can see these anti-religious reforms were only enacted for the greater good of the society and not to harm Muslim or Jewish religious feelings
So far, only Germany, France and Switzerland have made such laws out of so many Western countries. These laws are not necessary anti-Islamic but pro-humanist.

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)

Not sure WHERE you have studied it all. A good source of reference would be helpful. Islamic Golden age is a time of no return. Western nations and their East Asian allies have gone at least 1000 years ahead of collective Muslim world already

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.

These were various forms of monarchies, sultanates, war-kingdoms all titled as Caliphates. Real caliphate, the rightly guided one ended after Ali's assassination

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?

True. And again we are back to Shariah law imposing its social roles on human sexes. That's where the West clearly differ from Islamic viewpoint. The decision of who will work and who will serve the other is a individual one, couple's can decide this before or after they get married. So in a way, Western culture liberated woman to seek parity with men in workforce and other walks of life, to become truly independent from men's former economic dominance and servitude. The women in the west are therefore more free and less dependent on their husband's wealth than other cultures as they are not bound to continue a burdensome relationship if it goes extremely wrong half-way already

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:

Updating needs continuous ijtihad. Sadly, its doors were permanently shut 1000 years ago

 

[ranjeet]

His political affiliation (or rather, beliefs - he isnt a part of PTI, IK's party, in any way) doesn't discredit the rest of his arguments. Being with IK doesn't mean you'll be wrong about everything else, being with IK isn't wrong either.

I lost respect for him when IK made that takrir of how Punjabis didn't put up a fight against invaders who came through Khyber Pass in earlier times. This is something which sound good coming from a person like Hassan Nisar not a politician. I am not doubting him or his political inclination everyone has a right to support one or the other. But there are certain topics better left to people who have knowledge about it rather than politicians to score brownie points.

 

[Norwegian]

The fact is that YOUR bombastic claim of no religious restrictions was shown to be false, so now you are dancing around trying to justify why your claim was wrong.

What? Hijab is a cultural thing. Its not like you are observing religion 24/7 and are bound to wear it whenever you go outside. Also this ban was enacted for some valid reasons and was not only restricted to Islamic Hijab, but other religious symbols as well!

What does this have anything to do with my comment, and how does it refute anything I wrote about the history persecution in Judaism and Christianity?

Have I denied any history of persecution in Judaism and Christianity? Today's christians and jews are not fighting for to impose their religious laws on everyone as they have undeniable evidence that religion and politics never worked, thus invoking only religious-cultural values in politics, while leaving rest of the package behind in Churches. Problem with political Islam is that it wants to take entire religious package out from the mosque and into the society at large. That's where things go wrong, very wrong.

 

[LaBong]

I lost respect for him when IK made that takrir of how Punjabis didn't put up a fight against invaders who came through Khyber Pass in earlier times. This is something which sound good coming from a person like Hassan Nisar not a politician. I am not doubting him or his political inclination everyone has a right to support one or the other. But there are certain topics better left to people who have knowledge about it rather than politicians to score brownie points.

But isnt it a historical fact? Most invasions met their first resistance at panipat. There hasnt been any muslim punjabi empire as well, only punjabi kingdoms were made by hindu khatris and sikhs!

It becomes more significant on the backdrop of brit invented martial race theory.

 

[Developereo]

What? Hijab is a cultural thing. Its not like you are observing religion 24/7 and are bound to wear it whenever you go outside. Also this ban was enacted for some valid reasons and was not only restricted to Islamic Hijab, but other religious symbols as well!

The "cultural" Trojan horse is a well-known tactic to impose religious discrimination. The Hindutva crowd in India is catching on fast and is working hard to impose Hinduism as a "cultural" construct on all Indians.

Have I denied any history of persecution in Judaism and Christianity? Today's christians and jews are not fighting for to impose their religious laws on everyone as they have undeniable evidence that religion and politics never worked, thus invoking only religious-cultural values in politics, while leaving rest of the baggage behind in Churches.

Spare me.

You wrote that religious tolerance in the West was due to their "Judeo-Christian" background. You threw in that phrase to sound fancy but you had no clue that both Judaism and Christianity have their own history of persecution and the relative tolerance of the developed countries is not due to Judaism or Christianity, but despite it. It is because the religious zealotry of Judaism and Christianity has been subdued to some extent that the secular forces can keep them in check.

 

[ranjeet]

But isnt it a historical fact? Most invasions met their first resistance at panipat. There hasnt been any muslim punjabi empire as well, only punjabi kingdoms were made by hindu khatris and sikhs!

It becomes more significant on the backdrop of brit invented martial race theory.

Well we will have to detach the discussion from Muslim/Hindu Punjabis then .. for example Ghouri was killed near Jhelum by Gakhars/khokhar. People might have had an easy pass through Punjab with a huge army but while returning their caravans were always ambushed.

 

[TankMan]

Not sure WHERE you have studied it all. A good source of reference would be helpful. Islamic Golden age is a time of no return. Western nations and their East Asian allies have gone at least 1000 years ahead of collective Muslim world already

Multiple places, some seminars, lectures, books etc and I haven't studied it all, but the basics. One can never learn all of something as complicated as this. I'm pretty sure you can study most of what I have through the internet alone.
I gave a few links in my previous posts, and they have references to Hadiths and books by historians, have a look if you're interested
Yes, the Western nations have gone ahead but I wouldn't say 1000 years since it's only been about three hundred years since the West gained political superiority over the Muslims, but it's significant enough. Every empire has its sun set, eventually.

These were various forms of monarchies, sultanates, war-kingdoms all titled as Caliphates. Real caliphate, the rightly guided one ended after Ali's assassination

Many, if not most of the following Caliphates, like the Ummayads and the Abbasids, kept most Islamic rules and were pretty close to the rightly guided ones, though admittedly they had plenty of flaws.

I agree with pretty much the rest of what you've said, yes, Ijtihad has been politicized (not shut down, per se, but made pretty much dysfunctional unfortunately) and it is no longer practical to apply Islamic law the way it was done a thousand years ago.

 

[Norwegian]

The "cultural" Trojan horse is a well-known tactic to impose religious discrimination. The Hindutva crowd in India is catching on fast and is working hard to impose Hinduism as a "cultural" construct on all Indians.

BS. Both minaret and hijab ban were both passed after intense debates regarding what is culture and what is religion practice. Lawmakers brought in reputed Islamic scholars of history to advise on the issue and they all testified in parliament significance of hijab and minarets in Islam. Hijab was found to have religious needs during prayers, so it was allowed everywhere but public places where praying is not allowed. Regarding minarets, they were banned as they had no religious significance. First minarets were built 80 years after prophet Muhammad (SAW) death, imitating Persian architecture.

You wrote that religious tolerance in the West was due to their "Judeo-Christian" background. You threw in that phrase to sound fancy but you had no clue that both Judaism and Christianity have their own history of persecution and the relative tolerance of the developed countries is not due to Judaism or Christianity, but despite it. It is because the religious zealotry of Judaism and Christianity has been subdued to some extent that the secular forces can keep them in check.

Again, more BS. In my entire school life I studied horrors of Christianity and Judaism in Europe and elsewhere. Both are despicable religions when applied politically. And Islam is no different. Religious zealotry is still there, but its not a majority any more, unlike most Islamic countries.

 

[ito]

you have your own people to thank....everyone knows it was a false flag attack

Pakistan stood NOTHING to gain from machine gunned civilians....india had everything to gain.



p.s. the ISI did have intelligence about attacks on jewish targets in mumbai....the ISI tipped off the Mossad. Surely india knew as well...why didnt india act on that lead?


oh wait - silly question!

did i say pakistani government? it was terrorists from pakistan. and they certainly don't need to have pakistani interests in mind while carrying this act . certain fringe elements of pak army might have helped them too

as i said before the whole world believe in this. if you don't believe you would look like fool before the world

 

[Developereo]

BS. Both minaret and hijab ban were both passed after intense debates regarding what is culture and what is religion practice. Lawmakers brought in reputed Islamic scholars of history to advise on the issue and they all testified in parliament significance of hijab and minarets in Islam. Hijab was found to have religious needs during prayers, so it was allowed everywhere but public places where praying is not allowed. Regarding minarets, they were banned as they had no religious significance. First minarets were built 80 years after prophet Muhammad (SAW) death, imitating Persian architecture.

Sure, anyone can have intense debates and come to the desired conclusion.
Pakistan also had "intense debates" about Ahmedis before coming to a conclusion.

The fact remains that, contrary to your assertions, European countries have laws that discriminate for or against specific religions. They are just couched as cultural issues.

Again, more BS. In my entire school life I studied horrors of Christianity and Judaism in Europe and elsewhere. Both are despicable religions when applied politically. And Islam is no different. Religious zealotry is still there, but its not a majority any more, unlike most Islamic countries.

The only BS here is yours who got caught out trying to use the phrase "Judeo-Christian" to sound fancy without having a clue. YOU wrote that religious tolerance was due to Judeo-Christian background, which is a ludicrous assertion.