VIEW: Success lies in secularism —Dr Irfan Zafar

[Guest01]

Sir Quran is the only book which is present in its original form ask your own scholars about your books they will say many things have been included by man so Quran is the only book which now humanity has to follow

Without getting in to the authenticity of any of the books (for me all are same), so then how did the British forumulated blasphemy law finally appeared to be necessary. I mean the law should have been originally in the Qoran right?


.

 

[Janubaba]

Without getting in to the authenticity of any of the books (for me all are same), so then how did the British forumulated blasphemy law finally appeared to be necessary. I mean the law should have been originally in the Qoran right?


.

Sir British were not Muslims so it was obvious they were not going to make the LAW according to ISLAM

 

[Guest01]

Sir British were not Muslims so it was obvious they were not going to make the LAW according to ISLAM

So then you agree my friend that Blasphemy law which was enacted by the British is UNISLAMIC and has no place in Islam?

 

[ashokdeiva]

Guys, what ever we argue here with the so called blind followers, there is no way that we can make them understand how beautiful each of the relogions and its preaching including Islam is. and finally its like we say in my language "After hearing all the stories of Ramayan, these guys will say Rama is the father of Sitha", we can not argue with dumbs like them preticullarly on this issue

 

[muse]

we can not argue with dumbs like them preticullarly on this issue

Welcome to my world

 

[Guest01]

Guys, what ever we argue here with the so called blind followers, there is no way that we can make them understand how beautiful each of the relogions and its preaching including Islam is. and finally its like we say in my language "After hearing all the stories of Ramayan, these guys will say Rama is the father of Sitha", we can not argue with dumbs like them preticullarly on this issue

Well one way is to give up Ashok. But more importantly we need to understand that Pakistani youth has been severely conditioned to the comforting extremist version of Islam through the Pakistani Army Zia regime in particular. Because there was nothing inherently wrong with the tangent on which Pakistani Islamic thinking occured after the separation from India. Even though the call to separate was on the basis of religion but they were quite moderate and liberal. Large majority of them.

So it is a matter of the conditioning that they got via the extremist Mullah Military nexus which Army used for legitimizing its rule over Pakistan.

In the light of all that, best way is to engage the Pakistani youth who have been fed a Pakistani militarized version of extremist Islam rather than giving up.

And then you know that one only needs to do the karma and not wish for the result.

But mostly good karma will get good result and bad karma will fetch not so good results. Bottomline engage with an open mind. Who knows may be there is something good that we can learn from the individual.

Certainly this Janubaba fellow even with the (mis)version of Islam that he is fed, is quite polite in his posts.



.

 

[Bang Galore]

Welcome to my world

Thanks but no thanks. Much better to live in our world where these chaps disappear with the closure of a page. In your world they never go away.

 

[muse]

Point.

Can't argue that

 

[Porus]

if the european notions of 'secularism' are true secularism, then yes it has indeed failed.......

I personally like the Turkish model. Officially they are secular, but in PRACTICE --people openly practice their faith free of any problems. You see on one side of the road someone drinking a beer at a cafe; and down the road there are faithful people going to offer prayers. Nobody bothers eachother. Maybe deep down inside they may have different views and different ideologies but everyone lives and lets live. A Muslim majority country with some other sects as well.


whereas in europe, they simply just ban religious symbols --and it is usually Muslims the first one they have in their cross-hairs


as for india and secularism --well! They have a LONGGGGG way to go, so no need to even talk about india

European secularism has failed? How did you come to this conclusion? What is the difference between the Turkish and the European forms of secularism?

What do we understand by Secularism? Secularism means human rights, protection of everyone's individual rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and opinion, tolerance etc. Now tell me if the modern and secular European states don't guarantee these things.

Turkey, like France, is a laicist state whereas most of the Europe is secular. Both the secularism and laicism are basically same but there is still a subtle difference between them. France has been the role model for Turkish laicism but there is also some minor differences between the French and Turkish forms of laicism. For instance, in France religion is strictly kept away from state affairs whereas in Turkish laicism the state must control the religion. The French form of laicism has its roots in the French revolution whereas Turkish form of laicism is known in Europe as the prerequisite of Westernization.

 

[EjazR]

Kuran was NOT written immediately in the time of Mohammed.

It was written roughly 140 years after his death by various others as "his" word.

So you can imagine how many clauses were inserted later on to suit the situation then.

Actually the Quran in its entirety was memorised by heart by many people during the life of the Prophet itself. And it was written down in various parts during his life too.

In Abu Bakr'rs (RA) time, the first caliph and just a a year or two years after his death of the Prophet PBUH. It was compiled into one book by Zaid bin Thabit who himself was a Hafiz - a person who completely memorises the Quran.

This copy was kept with Abu Bakr and then Umar. Finally in the time of the third caliph Uthaman (RA), the single copy was copied again and sent to other parts of the world who needed a source copy. From which later more copies were made locally. This was only 24 years after the Prophets death. So to say it was written 140 years after for the first time is a misconception.

Infact, even the vowelisation, which was basically marks to help non Arabic speakers to correct their pronunciation was applied in the time of Muwaviyah (RA) which is pretty much exactly what we have today. And this was done within 50-60 years after the death of the Prophet.
HISTORY OF THE QURAN COMPILATION

But the point is not this here, its completely different, some people are confusing the issue and not responding. No one is able to point to any prominent Islamic scholar advocating their point of view or a verse from the Quran for the same and all they can do is deviate the topic. Others are bringing in Muslim civilizations like the Ottomans or Ummayads and what not which on their own were very advanced for their time and made significant contributions towards the science and technology. But were they theocracies? Did they come about by a "revolution" where clerics became the head of state? They did not.

Don't fall for the deviation tactic. Keep on track on what the topic is like a laser focus.

 

[EjazR]

@Janubaba

Will you be responding to the points raised in my posts above. If not, then that in itself is a response enough for people to understand. And don't respond with the same old rant, please put some thought and respond to the specific points raised with backing.

 

[muse]

For God's sake man - those are not his rants -- mullah online got many fires to put out

 

[ashokdeiva]

Actually the Quran in its entirety was memorised by heart by many people during the life of the Prophet itself. And it was written down in various parts during his life too.

In Abu Bakr'rs (RA) time, the first caliph and just a a year or two years after his death of the Prophet PBUH. It was compiled into one book by Zaid bin Thabit who himself was a Hafiz - a person who completely memorises the Quran.

This copy was kept with Abu Bakr and then Umar. Finally in the time of the third caliph Uthaman (RA), the single copy was copied again and sent to other parts of the world who needed a source copy. From which later more copies were made locally. This was only 24 years after the Prophets death. So to say it was written 140 years after for the first time is a misconception.

Infact, even the vowelisation, which was basically marks to help non Arabic speakers to correct their pronunciation was applied in the time of Muwaviyah (RA) which is pretty much exactly what we have today. And this was done within 50-60 years after the death of the Prophet.
HISTORY OF THE QURAN COMPILATION

But the point is not this here, its completely different, some people are confusing the issue and not responding. No one is able to point to any prominent Islamic scholar advocating their point of view or a verse from the Quran for the same and all they can do is deviate the topic. Others are bringing in Muslim civilizations like the Ottomans or Ummayads and what not which on their own were very advanced for their time and made significant contributions towards the science and technology. But were they theocracies? Did they come about by a "revolution" where clerics became the head of state? They did not.

Don't fall for the deviation tactic. Keep on track on what the topic is like a laser focus.

Then Janubaba, should also accept that the rest of the holy books are also from the God himself
Hinduim - Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian - Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sikhs - Guru Granth Sahib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so do not mock others as illegitimate.

 

[ashokdeiva]

Actually the Quran in its entirety was memorised by heart by many people during the life of the Prophet itself. And it was written down in various parts during his life too.

In Abu Bakr'rs (RA) time, the first caliph and just a a year or two years after his death of the Prophet PBUH. It was compiled into one book by Zaid bin Thabit who himself was a Hafiz - a person who completely memorises the Quran.

This copy was kept with Abu Bakr and then Umar. Finally in the time of the third caliph Uthaman (RA), the single copy was copied again and sent to other parts of the world who needed a source copy. From which later more copies were made locally. This was only 24 years after the Prophets death. So to say it was written 140 years after for the first time is a misconception.

Infact, even the vowelisation, which was basically marks to help non Arabic speakers to correct their pronunciation was applied in the time of Muwaviyah (RA) which is pretty much exactly what we have today. And this was done within 50-60 years after the death of the Prophet.
HISTORY OF THE QURAN COMPILATION

But the point is not this here, its completely different, some people are confusing the issue and not responding. No one is able to point to any prominent Islamic scholar advocating their point of view or a verse from the Quran for the same and all they can do is deviate the topic. Others are bringing in Muslim civilizations like the Ottomans or Ummayads and what not which on their own were very advanced for their time and made significant contributions towards the science and technology. But were they theocracies? Did they come about by a "revolution" where clerics became the head of state? They did not.

Don't fall for the deviation tactic. Keep on track on what the topic is like a laser focus.

Then Janubaba, should also accept that the rest of the holy books are also from the God himself
Hinduim - Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian - Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sikhs - Guru Granth Sahib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so do not mock others as illegitimate.

 

[Xestan]

No use of arguing on this baseless issue, Pakistan can never be a secular state, those who have these dreams should GET A LIFE, seriously, Pakistanis are much more into the religion than Turkish people were in Pre-Attaturk era, you try to change the constitution of Pakistan, next day that Parliament will be blown up, this is not to be confused with Terrorist of TTP of religious fanaticism but it's a common Pakistani who feels this way, just see, for example, the Government was forced to compromise on the Blasphemy law issue and it backed off, even after their own man was killed because of the same issue, actually their two leading politicians were killed. See the result? The way is very simple, Implement Islamic laws in Judiciary, Economy and Government, you'll feel the difference, the solution of Pakistan's every problem is true implementation of Islam.

Then we'll surely get rid of these foreign funded so called Taliban (TTP) and other religious extremist groups, becase then, they will have no reason to fight, this is just one aspect, there are many more problems which can be solved by this, i.e corruption, terrorism and injustice.