My religion is not the business of the state: YLH

[Joe Shearer]

the constitution is also given to the people, by the people. its also formed by the majoritarian view. each "law" passed in the GOP/house forms part of the constitution - which is again formed by the opinion of the group winning the election - decided by the majority.

Not correct, not for India. Look it up for yourself. There is a core that cannot be disturbed by subsequent generations with different thoughts on specific issues.

Also not correct for the original framing of the constitution, in a way. The majority did not act in the interests of the majority alone, but left ample leeway for the protection of the minorities, even for affirmative action that in subsequent years, a generation later, with the increasing squeeze on opportunities, became a conflict zone. But it remains.

But what of a Constitution that codifies discrimination?

Actually, the Indian Constitution does codify discrimination - in a back-handed kind of way. It defines a set of people as deserving favour and distinction in matters of education access and job access.

 

[Kompromat]

* Ahmadis declare Takfeer on Muslims by decree for over 100 years!

* The 1973 law was a response to ^

* Ahmadis isolated themselves, they are religiously forbidden from marrying into Muslim families unless they convert to the "community"

* Ahmadis are forbidden from praying funerals of Muslims, being buried in our graveyards, attending our Mosques and praying behind our imams. Not by us but by their cult leader.

Their victimhood is false. They must address the religious, doctrinal issues before we address the political ones.

 

[I.R.A]

its the matter between them and god.who are we or state to judge.

Seriously ?????????

Your liberty to profess your beliefs should never display lack of your knowledge of "Why". That sheer display of ignorance is when you cross the red line .......... I have repeatedly said our only conflict with Qadiyanis is identity theft ....... Muslims, Jews, Christians clearly know that every Messenger, Prophet or Messenger Prophet was given a separate book, the people who believed them are called Muslims in Quran ........... but it never happened that Muslims by having belief in Moses and Jesus to be true would start calling themselves Jews or Christians ........ apples and oranges are two very different things. By every sane logic Qadiyanis should be opting their new identity and stop with this identity theft for political, social and financial benefits. You won't see Muslims going after Bahai's ..... that is because they own their identity.

You most probably don't even know that one of their religious head didn't attend funeral of his own son because that son wasn't qadiyani ......... study what Ghulam Ahmed Mirza has been professing and believing, do you even know that he was suffering from loss of memory?

Again any educated Qadiyani can try explaining the term "Khatamun Nabiyeen" ........ is it a seal i.e. finality of messenger ship and prophet hood or a stamp? Whichever way you look at it G.A.Mirza fails the test.

As regards to the whining of this writer (assuming he is Qadiyani) ......... I am sure he understands why their new religion needed a separate place of their own ........ Rabwah ......... I am sure he being Qadiyani won't be tolerant of any alien practices being professed in Rabwah in name of Qadiyani religion ......... If he understands why Rabwah was needed then he should perfectly understand why a majority Muslim state without Islam is anything but Islam.

And ignorant Muslim liberals (or whatever they wish to call themselves) ........ they tread a very thin line when they keep uttering "My faith is my individual matter" be careful you are advocating an alien concept that has no place in Islam .............. I am all up for a debate on this with a Muslim so called liberal in light of Islam and its preachings.

 

[Musafir117]

^ need Hakeem khatra e Jan
Neem molvie khata e Islam

 

[I.R.A]

^ need Hakeem khatra e Jan
Neem molvie khata e Islam

At least have the courage to quote me directly ...........

I see you have no valid argument and are a usual insecure soul ....... with same mentality that of terrorists like TTP and sectarians, feeling insecure in their undies ........ refute my statements by presenting valid arguments ........ your smileys and up arrows are not going to change anything .........

 

[Musafir117]

^ there is different between hate and debate debate bhi bannda logon se karta hai not with zombies

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@Horus,

Ahmadis declare Takfeer on Muslims by decree for over 100 years!

I am not very conversant with comparative religions so I cant comment on whether Mirzais indulge in takfeer or not. But I will assume that you are correct on this.

The difference as you can see is that the takfeer of Mirzais has no legal/constitutional backing, while those of regular Muslims has.

Regards

 

[I.R.A]

^ there is different between hate and debate debate bhi bannda logon se karta hai not with zombies

You must be high on some Afghani weed ........... I don't hate Qadiyanis for goodness sake. You are insecure that's why you don't want to get serious about debating it properly, leave aside the reality that you have no grounds to claim what you claim i.e. The truthfulness of G.A. Mirza and the stolen identity. You even disowned the Lahori group who claim G.A. Mirza to be Mahdi only. That is how much insecure you are.

And as regards to rights of Qadiyanis or Lahori group ......... killing them, persecuting them for their beliefs, has no basis in Islam (Where Quran is supreme over everything else). I find it utterly disturbing when I hear the news of killing ...... my question (as regards to violence) always has been how can you justify killing a born Qadiyani under your already false belief of killing apostates (the killing of apostate itself is neither commanded nor even hinted in Quran).

The real contention is identity theft and that is all ..........

Now any lulloo punjoo Qadiyani living in Japan can take it as hate ......... all I would say is that Japani Qadiyani is insecure.

 

[Sliver]

The majority did not act in the interests of the majority alone, but left ample leeway for the protection of the minorities,

in terms of the US constitution - did you forget about the racial divide that had to be corrected later? "all men are created equal" - but the guy who coined that owned slaves.

the subsequent generations abolished it because they wanted to. if the majority decide to honor minorities - thats how it will be. but if a country decides not to (as in case of KSA - not allowing public practice of non-islamic religions) either through its monarchy or through democracy - then what can anyone do about it?

 

[The Sandman]

So much hatred in this thread... mods should close it already as such debates always ends with name calling and declaring each other kafir western agents etc. We need to realize that today Pakistan is where Europe was in 16th century. Let's just close this thread it will only spread hate and nothing else. No point in having such debates when one party is not ready to listen to others and is fast in giving them labels.

 

[Joe Shearer]

in terms of the US constitution - did you forget about the racial divide that had to be corrected later? "all men are created equal" - but the guy who coined that owned slaves.

The 'guy' who coined that owned slaves, and it was not illegal at that point of time. Also, if you pay careful attention - make that attention - to what that phrase said, it said '...all men are created equal...' and there is nothing contradictory in that and in their freedom being lost later. I am not defending slavery, just pointing out that your particular example is flawed.

the subsequent generations abolished it because they wanted to. if the majority decide to honor minorities - thats how it will be. but if a country decides not to (as in case of KSA - not allowing public practice of non-islamic religions) either through its monarchy or through democracy - then what can anyone do about it?

Nobody can DO anything about anything that another people does, short of military attack. That is not what the point was. It was about constitutions, and what they did.

It was about one south Asian constitution building in inequality, and reviewing it later to remove the disadvantages and relieve those disadvantaged, and another south Asian constitution similarly building in inequality, and using it to relieve the oppressed of thousands of years. Both ennobling instances, but opposite in nature.

The point being that, here, and now, some of us wanted to express our support for the ameliorative measures sought to be taken in the first case.

I have nothing to say about your hypothetical example; the fact is that it is the intent that matters, not the original format, and we can see as many variations on these as there are constitutions. If, as you say, it is argued that a country can do what it wants, of course I agree that nobody can do anything about it, short of bombing them into good sense.

 

[Musafir117]

So much hatred in this thread... mods should close it already as such debates always ends with name calling and declaring each other kafir western agents etc. We need to realize that today Pakistan is where Europe was in 16th century. Let's just close this thread it will only spread hate and nothing else. No point in having such debates when one party is not ready to listen to others and is fast in giving them labels.

lol umm sorry to laugh but admin himself enjoying it:sar Khujaeing: let it be bro everyone have stress frustrations let them put out. Bechare

 

[El Sidd]

So much hatred in this thread... mods should close it already as such debates always ends with name calling and declaring each other kafir western agents etc. We need to realize that today Pakistan is where Europe was in 16th century. Let's just close this thread it will only spread hate and nothing else. No point in having such debates when one party is not ready to listen to others and is fast in giving them labels.

Are you an expert on European history?

 

[Imran Khan]

yes religion is personal matter

 

[Sliver]

If, as you say, it is argued that a country can do what it wants, of course I agree that nobody can do anything about it, short of bombing them into good sense.

"short of bombing them into good sense" - values like democracy and freedom of speech and thought are "good sense" in some countries.
and in some countries.. any use of freedom of speech against religious figures is considered enough for death sentence (blasphemy) and that is "good sense" for the majority of the people in that particular country.

will you be able to convince the people believing in blasphemy by bombing them to "good sense"? do they even think that free speech is "good sense"?

I hope you can see my conundrum. the definition of "good" is made up by the majority (or by whoever in power). the rest have to either bend or be called "bad" and maybe punished.