Taliban apologists: Imran Khan and Shariffs

[Viper0011.]

Islam allows for a lot of thinking room and a lot of different opinions to coexist without forming entirely different sects. But it is more profitable for clerics to form sects and hate other sects.

I never said sects themselves need to go. I said that aspect of sects needs to go. I am fine with people believing stupid things as long as they don't claim it to be 'true Islam' and try to shove it down my throat by making it part of the state's legislation or by forming political parties that do the same. Depoliticizing religion and sects is a dire need.

If I am incorrect, show me when, recently, did the protestants (for example)declare that Catholics can not rule their state? Or that their interpretation of 'divine law' needs to be implemented? Any other similar incidence would suffice..

Its interesting, we are both saying the same thing with small variations. See bold above:
1) Whether Islam allows for thinking or opinions to exist or not, its irrelevant. What's going on in Pakistan and in some other countries, with regards to terrorism, is very unIslamic. Nowhere in Koran or the Bible, God tells anyone to attack airports, trains stations, markets filled with innocent people, LET ALONE schools filled with innocent children who have no clue about the world......so whether Islam allows for something or not, is unfortunately irrelevant.

2) The sects do exist. So that's the reality. But, you are right, these sects don't need militarized wings to force their opinion down people's throats. That's where strict action needs to be taken as that is terrorism. And you are right, a State's legislation doesn't need that. But the reality is, you have it everywhere.

3) Even in modern countries like the UK and the US, religion plays a role. However, a more modern and peaceful role. But it does have a role. The Protestants and the Catholics don't like each other a lot. But they go along just fine outside of their Churches. Remember, majority of the history is filled with wars and blood shed in the name of religion. But even Protestants and Catholics and their associated denominations don't have tensions that result in human life's loss. Everyone's allowed to believe in what they want to, and so should be elsewhere. The militias, the militarized wings ALL need to go to hell in Pakistan, for once and for all.

I am not a master of theology, but things goes, like. If there are sects in a religion, the more will be argument among the sects.

If there are castes in religion of a particular sect, the clash will be comparative of lesser repulsion.

And if there is no sect in a religion but just caste difference, then repulsiveness is negligible in terms of divinity and theology.

Milita breeds among sects of one religion and religion Vs religion.

Sects are ok, the Christianity has MANY denominations. But how many times you hear about one killing the other? But in Muslim countries, Shia-Sunni's MILITIA's kill each other. So the sects are fine by themselves. But the weaponizing of sects isn't. That's creating a terrorist militia that will try to kill others with different views in the name of religion and that's how the religious based terrorism initiates. And if expanded, it will start to challenge others across the border, causing a global terrorist threat. Al-Qaeda, Talibans, ISIS are just a few examples of this.

In cast system, you may have less friction as the Divine Powers established the cast....but how about the human rights? Do you think its ok for a Shudar to always be treated like sh*it by the elite Brahman class because they were born at a higher level??? or is it ok for Brahmans to rape a Shudar or other lower casts women because they had the power on them???? So yes, you are correct, there would be less "terrorism" or militia based incidents in these cast bases system but we are also forgetting about the basic human rights abuse that comes with it. For example, take an example of RSS.....how is it ok for the highest cast Brahmans to force Hidutva down Christians and Muslims throats and forcefully change their religion by threats, force and even murder??

Now if you look at the above two paragraphs, one outlining Sect based issues and the other one Cast bast religion, what do you see? I see a CLEAR pattern of (1) Terrorism based on religion in the top paragraph (2) Gross violation of human rights, which eventually become religious terrorism when you try to force others to convert, or be killed or discriminated forever.

Back to the moral of the story, people are people. They should be able to live, breathe and follow whatever religion they want to, without a certain Sect or Cast system shoving down their belief systems down others throat, turning into bloody conflicts where innocents suffer.

 

[Screambowl]

Its interesting, we are both saying the same thing with small variations. See bold above:
1) Whether Islam allows for thinking or opinions to exist or not, its irrelevant. What's going on in Pakistan and in some other countries, with regards to terrorism, is very unIslamic. Nowhere in Koran or the Bible, God tells anyone to attack airports, trains stations, markets filled with innocent people, LET ALONE schools filled with innocent children who have no clue about the world......so whether Islam allows for something or not, is unfortunately irrelevant.

2) The sects do exist. So that's the reality. But, you are right, these sects don't need militarized wings to force their opinion down people's throats. That's where strict action needs to be taken as that is terrorism. And you are right, a State's legislation doesn't need that. But the reality is, you have it everywhere.

This has happened in the past and will happen in future. Such conflicts will always remain.

3) Even in modern countries like the UK and the US, religion plays a role. However, a more modern and peaceful role. But it does have a role. The Protestants and the Catholics don't like each other a lot. But they go along just fine outside of their Churches. Remember, majority of the history is filled with wars and blood shed in the name of religion. But even Protestants and Catholics and their associated denominations don't have tensions that result in human life's loss. Everyone's allowed to believe in what they want to, and so should be elsewhere. The militias, the militarized wings ALL need to go to hell in Pakistan, for once and for all.



Sects are ok, the Christianity has MANY denominations. But how many times you hear about one killing the other? But in Muslim countries, Shia-Sunni's MILITIA's kill each other. So the sects are fine by themselves. But the weaponizing of sects isn't. That's creating a terrorist militia that will try to kill others with different views in the name of religion and that's how the religious based terrorism initiates. And if expanded, it will start to challenge others across the border, causing a global terrorist threat. Al-Qaeda, Talibans, ISIS are just a few examples of this.

protestants, catholic and orthodox, etc sects, have fought 100 year war in Europe, and still there are conflicts. It is the economy which has reduced the conflicts the day economy trembles, this will start again.

In cast system, you may have less friction as the Divine Powers established the cast....but how about the human rights? Do you think its ok for a Shudar to always be treated like sh*it by the elite Brahman class because they were born at a higher level??? or is it ok for Brahmans to rape a Shudar or other lower casts women because they had the power on them???? So yes, you are correct, there would be less "terrorism" or militia based incidents in these cast bases system but we are also forgetting about the basic human rights abuse that comes with it. For example, take an example of RSS.....how is it ok for the highest cast Brahmans to force Hidutva down Christians and Muslims throats and forcefully change their religion by threats, force and even murder??

Now if you look at the above two paragraphs, one outlining Sect based issues and the other one Cast bast religion, what do you see? I see a CLEAR pattern of (1) Terrorism based on religion in the top paragraph (2) Gross violation of human rights, which eventually become religious terrorism when you try to force others to convert, or be killed or discriminated forever.

Back to the moral of the story, people are people. They should be able to live, breathe and follow whatever religion they want to, without a certain Sect or Cast system shoving down their belief systems down others throat, turning into bloody conflicts where innocents suffer.

There are conflicts in caste, but in larger dimension, not a lot cares about it and we don't like discussing it. The political will is the main cause of such caste difference. Otherwise we are not obligatory to follow it.

 

[Viper0011.]

There are conflicts in caste, but in larger dimension, not a lot cares about it and we don't like discussing it. The political will is the main cause of such caste difference. Otherwise we are not obligatory to follow it.

On the two other points, you are saying the same thing I said. On the above, the point is not obligatory to follow it or not. The point is also not the political will. The cast difference is dictated by a religion, the religion tells you to put people in different casts and then treat them as such, so its forming the culture. I have a few Brahman friends who think even the Americans know they are the Brahmans and should be treated with some superior treatment, better than others.

So when what you believe in, justifies to treat others differently, it may be accepted as a divine guidance.....but how badly this situation is violating human rights and putting in people's heads they are superiors or inferior. The superior ones are now forcing other religions to convert to Hinduism by force or else......

 

[Screambowl]

On the two other points, you are saying the same thing I said. On the above, the point is not obligatory to follow it or not. The point is also not the political will. The cast difference is dictated by a religion, the religion tells you to put people in different casts and then treat them as such, so its forming the culture. I have a few Brahman friends who think even the Americans know they are the Brahmans and should be treated with some superior treatment, better than others.

So when what you believe in, justifies to treat others differently, it may be accepted as a divine guidance.....but how badly this situation is violating human rights and putting in people's heads they are superiors or inferior. The superior ones are now forcing other religions to convert to Hinduism by force or else......

Well yes the castism is there, but it does not take any Milita form as every one is aware about the reality. People understand what how and why on what basis castes are formed. Similarly like in Arab world, titles, like Mirza, Sheikh, Syed have more to do with the profession and not the blood.

 

[Viper0011.]

Well yes the castism is there, but it does not take any Milita form as every one is aware about the reality. People understand what how and why on what basis castes are formed. Similarly like in Arab world, titles, like Mirza, Sheikh, Syed have more to do with the profession and not the blood.

I agree with what you are saying. I was taking this to a step further, as to where it is now. So when you go through the cast-ism, the superior cast will eventually develop a "superior being" mentality like I see in my friends who are Brahamans. Its not their fault they think this way, its been like this for thousands of years.

However, where this starts to become an issue is when the same "superior being" mentality then wants to impose its belief system on others. Like what the RSS is doing in India right now, forcefully converting others from different religions to Hinduism.

Now at this point, how do you differentiate between a cast based system and its superior cast (like the RSS) using brute force on innocent people to convert to Hinduism, vs. Sect based militias trying to convert others to Islam or killing their opponents....??? They are both doing the same thing...

 

[Screambowl]

I agree with what you are saying. I was taking this to a step further, as to where it is now. So when you go through the cast-ism, the superior cast will eventually develop a "superior being" mentality like I see in my friends who are Brahamans. Its not their fault they think this way, its been like this for thousands of years.

However, where this starts to become an issue is when the same "superior being" mentality then wants to impose its belief system on others. Like what the RSS is doing in India right now, forcefully converting others from different religions to Hinduism.

Now at this point, how do you differentiate between a cast based system and its superior cast (like the RSS) using brute force on innocent people to convert to Hinduism, vs. Sect based militias trying to convert others to Islam or killing their opponents....??? They are both doing the same thing...

The point you raised and questioned RSS is irrelevant here, but of course since you have asked me I would like to clarify is, that RSS is completely against conversions, and they have been demanding anti conversion Law. But since some organisations, funded by Arabs and Missionaries in west do it through luring and giving money, RSS has opted the same technique of conversion to force government to bring anti conversion Law. But In India, freedom of religion is a right of every citizen in the nation to follow and accept any religion freely upon his will, one cannot say that any conversion in forceful be it RSS, or Majlis or some Missionary doing it unless until there is an FIR lodged.

The Castism is not just a problem of India, but sub continent. I have a friend from Bangladesh and his name is sheikh, well it is a title, I asked him deliberately if he has his roots in Arab and he said yes. I knew, he has no roots in Arab since, Sheikhs were the titles given by Arabi to them as a friendly gesture informally called.

But, as I said, the confrontation is always high, among Religion Vs Religion and Sectarian. Cast vs Cast is quite manageable and almost very little confrontation since it belongs to the same religion.

 

[TankMan]

1) Whether Islam allows for thinking or opinions to exist or not, its irrelevant. What's going on in Pakistan and in some other countries, with regards to terrorism, is very unIslamic. Nowhere in Koran or the Bible, God tells anyone to attack airports, trains stations, markets filled with innocent people, LET ALONE schools filled with innocent children who have no clue about the world......so whether Islam allows for something or not, is unfortunately irrelevant.

Agreed with everything except bold part - it's not irrelevant, its a potential solution. If someone takes the initiative to educate people about that, and shows them that sectarian hatred etc. is contrary to Islamic teachings, the people will be less likely to join militant wings as their (militants') main narrative is that they're warriors of Islam. Destroy that narrative and you can destroy them, eventually.

2) The sects do exist. So that's the reality. But, you are right, these sects don't need militarized wings to force their opinion down people's throats. That's where strict action needs to be taken as that is terrorism. And you are right, a State's legislation doesn't need that. But the reality is, you have it everywhere.

They do exist, yes, and yes it is everywhere. That's what needs to be corrected, otherwise the sects can stay.

Even in modern countries like the UK and the US, religion plays a role. However, a more modern and peaceful role. But it does have a role. The Protestants and the Catholics don't like each other a lot. But they go along just fine outside of their Churches. Remember, majority of the history is filled with wars and blood shed in the name of religion. But even Protestants and Catholics and their associated denominations don't have tensions that result in human life's loss. Everyone's allowed to believe in what they want to, and so should be elsewhere. The militias, the militarized wings ALL need to go to hell in Pakistan, for once and for all.

That's because religion is no longer profitable in modern countries. In Pakistan, it is. That's the very reason some of the clerics exist, to exploit people's religion for political and even monetary gains. That too needs to be regulated, comes under corruption. But the context in which I was discussing the topic was different.
I was discussing Mr. Zarvan's dream of implementing Islamic Sharia in Pakistan, which would require that each and every sect and cleric come to a consensus - too impractical to be considered an option.

 

[Viper0011.]

Agreed with everything except bold part - it's not irrelevant, its a potential solution.

That's because religion is no longer profitable in modern countries. In Pakistan, it is. I was discussing Mr. Zarvan's dream of implementing Islamic Sharia in Pakistan, which would require that each and every sect and cleric come to a consensus - too impractical to be considered an option.

Its irrelevant because the sects already exist......it would be a potential solution if we were talking about stopping the first ever sect from getting formed. But that's not the case, many, many sects already exist like many denominations in Christianity already exist. The ONLY peaceful solution is to demilitarize these sects, hang their terrorist fractions and let them peacefully practice whatever version of Islam they believe in. Let it be between people and God individually, then an armed militia forcing on others to do what the extremists do. A human's relationship with God is between him and God. Not him, God, and dictated by Taliban on gun point. There is no room for religious extremism when an individual directly prays to God and God listens. Let it be this way so everyone can live a peaceful life.

Mr. Zarvan's dream about Sharia may be a dream and I don't think it is true in today's world. In the history, Muslims have lived side by side with Christians and Jews. In other words, muslims should already be USED to difference in opinion based on the history as they've always been exposed to different points of views while living in Jerusalem and other places peacefully before the 1900's.
So why the terrorism and intensity in implementing the Sharia law and all???? If one wants to be religious and wants to follow the Sharia or Christianity or whatever, its fine and good for that one person. But why enforce it on others and now a days, enforce with an automatic assault rifle in your hand????

 

[TankMan]

Its irrelevant because the sects already exist......it would be a potential solution if we were talking about stopping the first ever sect from getting formed. But that's not the case, many, many sects already exist like many denominations in Christianity already exist.

Again, you've misunderstood the argument. Its not that we'll eradicate the sects - the idea is to make them less important, and to destroy the narrative used by clerics that there is only one 'true Islam' (which ends up causing sectarian hatred). They can have sects all they want, but by making sure that the population does not fall for an extremist narrative, we end up greatly reducing the recruit base for militants and sectarian violence in general.

The ONLY peaceful solution is to demilitarize these sects, hang their terrorist fractions and let them peacefully practice whatever version of Islam they believe in. Let it be between people and God individually, then an armed militia forcing on others to do what the extremists do. A human's relationship with God is between him and God. Not him, God, and dictated by Taliban on gun point. There is no room for religious extremism when an individual directly prays to God and God listens. Let it be this way so everyone can live a peaceful life.

Mr. Zarvan's dream about Sharia may be a dream and I don't think it is true in today's world. In the history, Muslims have lived side by side with Christians and Jews. In other words, muslims should already be USED to difference in opinion based on the history as they've always been exposed to different points of views while living in Jerusalem and other places peacefully before the 1900's.
So why the terrorism and intensity in implementing the Sharia law and all???? If one wants to be religious and wants to follow the Sharia or Christianity or whatever, its fine and good for that one person. But why enforce it on others and now a days, enforce with an automatic assault rifle in your hand????

The Sharia concept is very complicated and If I was to explain it to you it'll take a long time because it involves Islamic jurisprudence, a thorough understanding of the Quran and Hadith along with scholars' interpretations - but to make that long story short, yes, Zarvan's dream is not practical but that's not because of the reasons you've described.

 

[帅的一匹]

stick with China and you will be fine, just execute those brutal terrorist. Cuase upset brothers will never kill his own familiy members. Any one who adopt sfot hands on the terrorist shall be kicked out as it will just work agaisnt your own people.

Even Allah will not tolerate killing innocent lifes to make it a paradise.

The best method is to join hands with CHina to go anti-terrorists. Any one still think that Taliban is a upset brother shall wake up, they killed Childrens!

Every one live in this planet has the right to choose his own religion, this is basic human right bestowed upon.

I will keep my eyes on Imran Khan's doing on Taliban, he is a questionable poitician in our list.

Personally I'm a Christian and i think Islam shall be respected. CO-existence is very important.

CHinese members never give any attention in this section of PDF. @cirr @Beast @Chinese dragon

 

[帅的一匹]

Pakistan goverment plans to execute 500 terrorists in detain.

 

[Beast]

It's pakistan law and we shall respect.

 

[Green Arrow]

Lets not forget that 3 weeks ago IK was openly opposing the army presence in fata.