Invitation to Barakzai to secularism

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Secularism indeed is a welcome move but i am afraid he won't if your talking about your qadianiat.

I Still regard Qadiani/Ahmadiya as good people as even Dr Abdus Salam was of your kind.

But I don't like Qadiani/Ahmadiya calling themselves muslims like you do.

Hmmmm.... I never considered this.... this may be the case with his backing of rabid attacks by others, on the personage of the Prophet, devoid of evidences but replete with garbage accusations.

I was wondering why he was so obsessed with not just thinking of a constitution with equivalent guarantees for minorities in sunni lands, but even more privileges than the native majority.

This would also fit with the Al Jazeera article that exposed Farhat Taj Andersen's modus operandi of data collection:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011613931606455.html

As a matter of fact, the only known survey "on the ground in FATA" at the time was carried out by a "letterhead organisation" named the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy whose conclusions can fairly be described as deeply unreliable and dubious. It claimed that 55 per cent of respondents in a survey it carried out in "parts of FATA that are often hit by American drones" (among which it curiously included Parachinar, which has never been hit and whose overwhelmingly Shia population is deeply hostile to the virulently anti-Shia Taliban) did not think that the attacks caused "fear and terror in the common people"; 52 per cent found them "accurate in their strikes"; and 58 per cent did not think they increased anti-Americanism.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I am quite sure Barakzai brother would ultimately over-power his ego and see the light. I agree he is good in some areas but the problem is, he cannot or doesn't want to see the multi-dimensionality and plurality of the reality. For him the entire truth is what he is able to see or wants to see or he has been told to see.

Consequently, most of his views are very skewed devoid of any balance or objective foresight.

If "truth" means

1) Ignoring air tight references
2) Distorting history

Then I would think that the word you are looking for to describe your approach is not "truth" but "truthiness"

This was a coined word accepted by Miriam Webster dictionary in 2006:

Merriam-Webster's #1 Word of the Year for 2006:

1. truthiness (noun)


1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)


2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

So yes, I agree that you and Badloony practice truthiness better than anyone else here!

[Badlun]

State (politics) is taken care of by the Secularism in Islam.
Church (religion) is taken care of by the Islam in Secularism.

To separate the two would be to believe in two gods.

The reason why the world is in shambles is because people believe the two are separable and thus should be separate.

How could the two be separable when society cannot run without solid groundings in ethics?

Secularism is simply separating Church and State. Church for spiritual needs while state for political aspects of life. Religion has role in ethics but philosophy and law can also cater for ethics. Religion is for ethics on individual while professional ethics and legal framework can manage ethics at state level. Islam is for faith while democracy is for politics.

[Badlun]

Hmmmm.... I never considered this.... this may be the case with his backing of rabid attacks by others, on the personage of the Prophet, devoid of evidences but replete with garbage accusations.

I was wondering why he was so obsessed with not just thinking of a constitution with equivalent guarantees for minorities in sunni lands, but even more privileges than the native majority.

This would also fit with the Al Jazeera article that exposed Farhat Taj Andersen's modus operandi of data collection:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...931606455.html

I know few members of Airra . They are doing great work. They truly present the real picture of Pashtunland. I have myself met many Pashtuns from FATA who are very much happy on drones killing Taliban in their hearts but because of fear cannot express it openly.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I know few members of Airra . They are doing great work. They truly present the real picture of Pashtunland. I have myself met many Pashtuns from FATA who are very much happy on drones killing Taliban in their hearts but because of fear cannot express it openly.

Your opinion being weighted against the authors fact based assessment once again boils down to your opinion carrying no weight. Especially after that foster sibling mistake where you maligned the Prophet of God.... I think your word now carries negative weight.

[Badlun]

You mean I am being invited to become a party to the liars and maligners of the Holy Prophet as seen here in the last few posts?:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...077#post748077

If it be amongst moderate secularists like Ron Paul and Scheuer, then that is good company.

If it is to be in the company of militant secularists who use proxy imperiums to brutalize their own people with lies and distortions (e.g. Miss Taj Andersen + AIRRA groupies)? No Thank You!

Barakzai was first a hard core religious fanatic, then Pashtun nationalist and now ready to be in good company of moderate secularists. Good metamorphosis. Truth always prevail. We are also moderate secularists and you will feel at home in our company.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai was first a hard core religious fanatic, then Pashtun nationalist and now ready to be in good company of moderate secularists. Good metamorphosis. Truth always prevail. We are also moderate secularists and you will feel at home in our company.

No, I would think you veer far far away from moderate secularism.. based on your slip ups and malignant mission to disparage Islam's most important personage that automatically qualifies you as a militant secularist. Maybe therapy is the way for you to go. It would allow a psychotherapist to tease out those child hood experiences that forged your militant secularist ideologies.

[Badlun]

No, I would think you veer far far away from moderate secularism.. based on your slip ups and malignant mission to disparage Islam's most important personage that automatically qualifies you as a militant secularist. Maybe therapy is the way for you to go. It would allow a psychotherapist to tease out those child hood experiences that forged your militant secularist ideologies.

I would like to clarify once again that I respect the personality of the Prophet Muhamamd a lot. I agree with his position of the most successful person of humanity. He was a great leader, a great religious guide, a great conqueror, a strategist who completely changed his people and made the desert dwellers to be a powerful nation.

However I divide his personality in three categories. Personal, being a political leader and a prophet. I must follow him in his prophet-hood but not always in his personal life and in his political capacity.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I would like to clarify once again that I respect the personality of the Prophet Muhamamd a lot. I agree with his position of the most successful person of humanity. He was a great leader, a great religious guide, a great conqueror, a strategist who completely changed his people and made the desert dwellers to be a powerful nation.

However I divide his personality in three categories. Personal, being a political leader and a prophet. I must follow him in his prophet-hood but not always in his personal life and in his political capacity.

Wrong. You cannot backtrack now compadre. Your own words from the prior post:

Badlun Quote 1: Denouncing the Prophet and uttering the unthinkable blasphemy

"Age of Aisha is enough to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, and critics refer to Muhammad as a pedophile."

Badlun Quote 2: Accusing the Prophet of being morally convenient to himself

"But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like"

Badlun Quote 3: Calling the Prophet unethical based on an incorrect interpretation

"But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom."

Badlun Quote 4: Calling the Prophet a criminal

"Is it not a crime to marry a child playing with dolls?"

Badlun Quote 5: Questioning the validity of obeying the Prophet based on purposefully confusing personal actions and nonexistent orders

"If we cannot follow the morality of Muhammad any more, if what he said and did do not fit in this modern day, why we need Muhammad?"

Badlun Quote 6: Claiming that the Prophet's contemporaries did criticize his marriage in the same fashion as Badlun called him a criminal in 4 above:

"there would have been a lot of criticism of this marriage but we may not have evidence of that now"

^with this above quote demanding that readers suspend the need for proof and assume that some random criticism exists somewhere that we have yet to find.

Source:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?p=748117#post748117

[Badlun]

Dr. Aabdali
I told you clearly that that I follow Muhamamd in his religious capacity not in his personal or political capacity. His marriage with Ayesha was in his personal capacity and I do not agree with this marriage. I am against it.

Then you read my post again where I clearly wrote that CRITICS SAY as all those words were not mine. I wrote this at the end of the post

Some parts of this post are taken from other sources

One source that I used was

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

This was an attempt to tell you that I am not alone in criticizing this marriage.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Dr. Aabdali
I told you clearly that that I follow Muhamamd in his religious capacity not in his personal or political capacity. His marriage with Ayesha was in his personal capacity and I do not agree with this marriage. I am against it.

Then you read my post again where I clearly wrote that CRITICS SAY as all those words were not mine. I wrote this at the end of the post

Some parts of this post are taken from other sources

One source that I used was
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

This was an attempt to tell you that I am not alone in criticizing this marriage.

It was a shoddy attempt since you took ownership of those words by not delineating in quotes where others' words began and where you words ended.

In the worst case scenario you plagiarized another's argument on this basis since you neither quoted nor referenced the exact source.

Additionally, even indirectly, you ascribed to the Prophet that which he did not say (e.g. assuming Hamza and Abu Bakr carried equivalency foster brother relationships).

Furthermore, by choosing this brand of criticism and this particular vitriol you maligned him, disobeying the Quranic edict:

O ye of Faith! Say not (to the Messenger) words of ambiguous import, but words of respect; and hearken (to him): To those without Faith is a grievous punishment.

2:104

Even a non-Muslim like Montgomery Watt knows how to better discuss the Prophet from a critical standpoint then the sort of drivel and disrespect you reproduced here.

[Tamim]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]


With all due respect, it seems you have not understood Islam.

To me it seems that you are picking and choosing when you want to subscribe to Islam and when you don't.

It seems you weigh the costs and the benefits of what Islam says, before you engage.

It would be better for you to choose another path in life and stick to it fully. Life is about full commitments. Consistency is what will perfect the human element.

Islam is the complete diet.

[Badlun]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]


With all due respect, it seems you have not understood Islam.

To me it seems that you are picking and choosing when you want to subscribe to Islam and when you don't.

It seems you weigh the costs and the benefits of what Islam says, before you engage.

It would be better for you to choose another path in life and stick to it fully. Life is about full commitments. Consistency is what will perfect the human element.

Islam is the complete diet.

OK my dear friend. If Islam is a complete diet then please do not talk of secularism. For me Islam is only a religion not a system. This is why I separate Islam from politics and am in favor of secularism. If you can present any state in the history(except few years in the beginning and that too with many problems) or today with complete Islam then I will also go for it.

[Tamim]

OK my dear friend. If Islam is a complete diet then please do not talk of secularism. For me Islam is only a religion not a system. This is why I separate Islam from politics and am in favor of secularism. If you can present any state in the history(except few years in the beginning and that too with many problems) or today with complete Islam then I will also go for it.

Those who believe that Islam and Secularism are not the same are looking for extrinsic evidence, hence, why it appears they have not grasped Islam properly. Most Muslims, their understanding of Islam is cultural. The only thing that sways their opinion is empirical evidence.

This is why Muslims are suffering.

Allah says in the Quran that do not cause disorder to society once it has been put in order.

So, whatever the Prophet Muhammad (saw) accomplished was exactly in line with the best possible form of society.

People who could not see his (saw) vision, despite being sahaba, were influenced by those who hated the fact that the Prophet (saw) ruined their political and economical hegemony. So, in turn, within 30 years they destroyed that perfectly function society where everyone's rights were preserved.

What the Prophet (saw) did was to take Islam to establish THE secular society par excellence.

Today, secularism is not at the heart of the Western political or economical or ethical endeavours. Their own philosophy is. They are misusing the term "secularism."

The modern man thinks that secularism is alien to religion, and thinks that Islam is alien to a political life.

Islam and Secularism in one and the same thing.

[Badlun]

Those who believe that Islam and Secularism are not the same are looking for extrinsic evidence, hence, why it appears they have not grasped Islam properly. Most Muslims, their understanding of Islam is cultural. The only thing that sways their opinion is empirical evidence.

This is why Muslims are suffering.

Allah says in the Quran that do not cause disorder to society once it has been put in order.

So, whatever the Prophet Muhammad (saw) accomplished was exactly in line with the best possible form of society.

People who could not see his (saw) vision, despite being sahaba, were influenced by those who hated the fact that the Prophet (saw) ruined their political and economical hegemony. So, in turn, within 30 years they destroyed that perfectly function society where everyone's rights were preserved.

What the Prophet (saw) did was to take Islam to establish THE secular society par excellence.

Today, secularism is not at the heart of the Western political or economical or ethical endeavours. Their own philosophy is. They are misusing the term "secularism."

The modern man thinks that secularism is alien to religion, and thinks that Islam is alien to a political life.

Islam and Secularism in one and the same thing.

It means political Islam only exists in books and functioned only for 30 years out of 1400 years of the history of Islam and that too with events like war of Ayesha and Ali where 30,000 Muslims were killed. So a wise person will still struggle for political Islam which could not work for the last 1400 years?