Salman Taseer's Daughter Speaks Out.

[Mutee]

no come here to read forums but everytime I come here Tum may
say koi Apna shur phela Raha hota hai gtg

 

[Mutee]

Yes surah 109 verse no 6 I know Quran more than u do

 

[T-Faz]

It's a joke mate. Of course, inability. I like the idea of a God - of some Supreme Being - I am just not religious.

Here is a quote from Hazrat Ali ibn abi Talib (RA)

The foremost act in religion is the acknowledgment of Him. The perfection of acknowledging Him is believing in Him; the perfection of believing in Him is acknowledging His oneness; the perfection of acknowledging His oneness is pledging loyalty to Him and the perfection of pledging loyalty to Him is denying attributes pertaining to Him, because of the qualities of His creation that could be attributed to humans. Everyone of them is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever assigns attributes to Allah recognizes His like, and who recognizes His like regards Him as dual, and who regards Him as dual recognizes parts of Him, and who recognizes parts of Him has mistaken Him.

Nahj al-Balagha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Myth_buster_1]

He was not the trial lawyer, Jinnah was merely brought as the lawyer in appeal based on the fact that the evidence against Ilam Din was from biased sources.

And so "freedom" of speech does not apply here? Why did Jinnah except to fight for a man who murdered another man for merely practicing his right of Freedom of Speech even if evidences were biased or not! A MURDER IS A MURDER! Did Jinnah then ever said that the Indian publisher has his right of freedom of speech and the carpenter should have never touched him?

From the same link..

He was arrested and jailed. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to death. Punjab Muslims appealed the verdict, and, to protest his death sentence, they gave him the honorary name "Ghazi." The Pakistan daily Jang reported that the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, worked on Ilmuddin's behalf free of charge.

Muhammad Iqbal, one of the key founders of Pakistan, personally placed Ilmuddin's body in the grave with tears in his eyes. "This carpenter left us, educated men, behind," he said.

Either your secular team statement is contradictory or either Secular Jinnah merely misusing the context of Islam in his Politics. Nice game.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You keep commenting on my religious beliefs you won't get any respect from me.

Like I said I dont care which religion you belong to and neither I want any respect from you, I dont care.

 

[President Camacho]

But the taliban and the other dozen militant groups are already here.

We cannot change what happens?

All that we can do is counter in the best way possible.

See, because people have carried out violence against others in the name of Islam, Islamophobia became prevalent. Now, we know very well that terrorism is against the tenets of Islam, hence what they did was un-Islamic. However, the general public which is not so aware, may take them as Muslims, and their actions as Islamic. And I think that is what happened in 9/11 and in the case of Times Square stupid bomber. Even I do not remember his name, all I remember is he was an American, and a Muslim.

But the Ulemas (like JUI et al) that you mentioned, did not call a press conference to term him/his actions as un-Islamic. And everyday, in the US, so many face discrimination in one form or the other, simply because they are Muslims, and no one is loud enough in calling the terrorists un-Islamic. That is one reason I feel there should be a law to keep a visible distinction between Muslims, and non-Muslims.

May be I am unable to put down my thoughts here properly, but I hope you understand I do not want to sound divisive.

And this is what I conclude: If the JUI/other Islamic organizations/Ulemas are quick and loud enough to term the un-Islamic people as un-Islamic, then there won't be a thing as Islamophobia.

You know, I am saying all this related mainly to terrorism than anything else, because I know entities such as Bajrang Dal and the RSS are trying their best to hijack Hinduism, and portray their own version to the world. I am an affected Hindu, and feel there is an urgent need for a separate entity with rights, that lets the world know that organizations like the RSS and Bajrang Dal are not following Hinduism.

That is the reason why I think just any non-Muslim should not be given the right to call himself a Muslim.

 

[T-Faz]

And so "freedom" of speech does not apply here? Why did Jinnah except to fight for a man who murdered another man for merely practicing his right of Freedom of Speech even if evidences were biased or not! A MURDER IS A MURDER! Did Jinnah then ever said that the Indian publisher has his right of freedom of speech and the carpenter should have never touched him?

Even if Jinnah won the case, it was merely to get something less than harsh sentence. This was done in order to prevent further escalation of tensions between the Hindus and Muslims.

Jinnah also said this:

“We must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected.”

From the same link..

He was arrested and jailed. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to death. Punjab Muslims appealed the verdict, and, to protest his death sentence, they gave him the honorary name "Ghazi." The Pakistan daily Jang reported that the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, worked on Ilmuddin's behalf free of charge.

Muhammad Iqbal, one of the key founders of Pakistan, personally placed Ilmuddin's body in the grave with tears in his eyes. "This carpenter left us, educated men, behind," he said.

Either your secular team statement is contradictory or either Secular Jinnah merely misusing the context of Islam in his Politics. Nice game.

Like I said, Jinnah wanted to save Ilam Din from the death sentence but not punishment because the death sentence would have caused more problems between Hindus and Muslims.

Similarly, Jinnah did not attend Ilam Dins funeral.

Iqbal on the other hand did all that he liked.

 

[T-Faz]

See, because people have carried out violence against others in the name of Islam, Islamophobia became prevalent. Now, we know very well that terrorism is against the tenets of Islam, hence what they did was un-Islamic. However, the general public which is not so aware, may take them as Muslims, and their actions as Islamic. And I think that is what happened in 9/11 and in the case of Times Square stupid bomber. Even I do not remember his name, all I remember is he was an American, and a Muslim.

But the Ulemas (like JUI et al) that you mentioned, did not call a press conference to term him/his actions as un-Islamic. And everyday, in the US, so many face discrimination in one form or the other in the US, simply because they are Muslims, and no one is loud enough in calling the terrorists un-Islamic. That is one reason I feel there should be a law to keep a visible distinction between Muslims, and non-Muslims.

May be I am unable to put down my thoughts here properly, but I hope you understand I do not want to sound divisive.

And this is what I conclude: If the JUI/other Islamic organizations/Ulemas are quick and loud enough to term the un-Islamic people as un-Islamic, then there won't be a thing as Islamophobia.

You know, I am saying all this related mainly to terrorism than anything else, because I know entities such as Bajrang Dal and the RSS are trying their best to hijack Hinduism, and portray their own version to the world. I am an affected Hindu, and feel there is an urgent need for a separate entity with rights, that lets the world know that organizations like the RSS and Bajrang Dal are not following Hinduism.

That is the reason why I think just any non-Muslim should not be given the right to call himself a Muslim.

You are free to believe what you want but why do you want to impose your view on others through state law.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

You guys are mincing words, I'll say it for you. There's no difference between you guys and the Taliban. You can't stop the Taliban from trying to call themselves Muslims, you can't stop them from killing you guys and declaring you all Kaffirs. The same way you guys are in power over Ahmedis so you use force and your weapon is not logic, not religion and the imaan factor is soooooooooo far away, the only thing you have is might is right.

Do you think by accusing others of being Taliban actually helps you win any arguments? No not at all it actually makes you on the losing side! Anyways its your style of argument.

 

[T-Faz]

This is what Jinnah said about Blasphemy Laws:

“But, Sir, I make bold to say that if my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘You had better ask somebody else to represent you’…if we are going to allow ourselves to be influenced by the public opinion that can be created in the name of religion when we know that religion has nothing whatever to do with the matter, I think we must have the courage to say, ‘No, we are not going to be frightened by that.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C01%5C03%5Cstory_3-1-2011_pg3_5

I am out, good night.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Even if Jinnah won the case, it was merely to get something less than harsh sentence. This was done in order to prevent further escalation of tensions between the Hindus and Muslims.

Jinnah also said this:



From the same link..



Like I said, Jinnah wanted to save Ilam Din from the death sentence but not punishment because the death sentence would have caused more problems between Hindus and Muslims.

Similarly, Jinnah did not attend Ilam Dins funeral.

Iqbal on the other hand did all that he liked.

Admit it you have lost the argument big time.
What about Iqbal? He cried by his grave and Iqbal happened to be Jinnah's father in Politics (according to Pakistani education).
So what makes you think by removing blasphemy laws in Pakistan will not result in violent riots knowing the depressing state Pakistani Muslims are in today? You will give them another good reason to come out in street and start creating chaos!
And just to let you know I myself dont support Blasphemy law and I have given my good reason in previous post. And I personally believe these laws must be removed gradually with education and not the secular education because you will P1ss them off even further.

 

[President Camacho]

You are free to believe what you want but why do you want to impose your view on others through state law.

Well, if not law... then what else is there to make sure that people with malicious intent do not 'mis-portray' the religion? Such wrong portrayal, or any display of practices that go against the religion will play important role in the society, because we are still not at the stage where we are not judged by the religion we follow.

And any sort of imposition is wrong, but we are still not in the perfect world where we will not be judged for being part of a particular group.

All I am advocating is, let the state law be the police to make sure the religion is neither diluted, nor misused.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

See, because people have carried out violence against others in the name of Islam, Islamophobia became prevalent. Now, we know very well that terrorism is against the tenets of Islam, hence what they did was un-Islamic. However, the general public which is not so aware, may take them as Muslims, and their actions as Islamic. And I think that is what happened in 9/11 and in the case of Times Square stupid bomber. Even I do not remember his name, all I remember is he was an American, and a Muslim.

But the Ulemas (like JUI et al) that you mentioned, did not call a press conference to term him/his actions as un-Islamic. And everyday, in the US, so many face discrimination in one form or the other, simply because they are Muslims, and no one is loud enough in calling the terrorists un-Islamic. That is one reason I feel there should be a law to keep a visible distinction between Muslims, and non-Muslims.

May be I am unable to put down my thoughts here properly, but I hope you understand I do not want to sound divisive.

And this is what I conclude: If the JUI/other Islamic organizations/Ulemas are quick and loud enough to term the un-Islamic people as un-Islamic, then there won't be a thing as Islamophobia.

You know, I am saying all this related mainly to terrorism than anything else, because I know entities such as Bajrang Dal and the RSS are trying their best to hijack Hinduism, and portray their own version to the world. I am an affected Hindu, and feel there is an urgent need for a separate entity with rights, that lets the world know that organizations like the RSS and Bajrang Dal are not following Hinduism.

That is the reason why I think just any non-Muslim should not be given the right to call himself a Muslim.

Well said thumbs up!

 

[53fd]

I personally believe the Blasphemy Law is an inhumane, man-made unIslamic law that should have no place in Pakistan.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I personally believe the Blasphemy Law is an inhumane, man-made unIslamic law that should have no place in Pakistan.

100% agree
But the timings are really really bad which GOP has chosen.