Paki Islamist, Ikhwani Sirajul Haq doesn't know how to preform Salah

[Samandri]

It's not bravery that keeps people in afpak. Especially if you are serving the corrupt and criminal regimes there.

Cant blame some Afghans for running away from their country, its war-torn. But still they have abandoned the country as instead of residing there as temporary war refugees, they have permanently settled there. Those who are staying and coping the situation, instead of picking garbage in Pakistan or washing dishes in Europe, deserve every kind of respect and are certainly brave if they have the chance of getting out of country yet decide to stay. Life in West is comfortable and easy, none of you people want to return back to your mud houses in Afghanistan and each is making his own excuse. You came up with this Dar-ul-kufr excuse.

[Manzareh]

Please explain why having a pasport means one is not free from an Islamic perspective. Explain having a passport conflicts with Islam.

Because it means you are a citizen of the country, being a citizen means you promise to uphold the laws of the land before any other laws (yes even shariah law). Having passport is an alleigence to your ruler, you obey them. Isn't that by your logic haram and an act of kufr?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Because it means you are a citizen of the country, being a citizen means you promise to uphold the laws of the land before any other laws (yes even shariah law). Having passport is an alleigence to your ruler, you obey them. Isn't that by your logic haram and an act of kufr?

No, that's your logic.

You have to prove that it is mandatory to swear allegiance to the constitution in order to get passport. As far as I know, that is not the case in every country.

But let us assume that what you are trying to say is that the allegiance is implied by merely applying for the passport. I'll go along with your line of reasoning.

In that case, one can opt out of it by simply refusing to get a passport. But even that is not the case in every country.

Let us carry your line of reasoning even further, in Mekkah, the law of the land was the law of the polytheists. In Abyssinia, the law of the land was the law of the Christian Nagus.

By your logic, all Muslims who lived in those regions are kaafirs. That is not the case. Merely deciding to live somewhere where the people are governed by kufr doesn't mean one becomes a kaafir.

The problem is that you are confusing two different things with one another here. If a person chooses to go along with fellow citizens and take part in a religious festival where people sacrifice to their idols, that person is actively taking part in an act of worship.

If a person happens to live among polytheists but refrains from taking part in their rituals, that person is not one of them.

If a person chooses to take part in democratic process and become a member of a political movement which is actively engaged in kufr, that is active participation.

It's the same in criminal law. A criminal who takes part in gang activity is a criminal, one who simply lives in an area dominated by a criminal organization is not.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Cant blame some Afghans for running away from their country, its war-torn. But still they have abandoned the country as instead of residing there as temporary war refugees, they have permanently settled there. Those who are staying and coping the situation, instead of picking garbage in Pakistan or washing dishes in Europe, deserve every kind of respect and are certainly brave if they have the chance of getting out of country yet decide to stay. Life in West is comfortable and easy, none of you people want to return back to your mud houses in Afghanistan and each is making his own excuse. You came up with this Dar-ul-kufr excuse.

Preservation of life is an obligation. Even if a Muslim has a conflict with a legitimate Islamic state and is unable to live there because he or she might get persecuted, that particular person can choose to move out in order preserve his own life.

Human beings generally make rational decisions when they choose where to live. If a person chooses to stay in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continue his life by avoiding risk of war and persecution, that would be perfectly logical decision.

If a person is no longer able to live in his own country and chooses to escape to foreign lands, that would be as rational as the one who chooses to stay.

In both cases, there is no bravery involved. In fact, bravery would be to do something and risk ones own life for a greater good.

I have worked with Afghan, Iranian and Pakistani refugees for 4 years. I've consulted and helped thousands. All of them who fled their own homes did so because they chose rationally. They felt they couldnt continue living as they use and therefore, they chose to seek a better life elsewhere.

From what I have learned, most people who decide to stay, dont' choose to stay in order to be heroes. The risk of dying while escaping to Europe is quite big. Furthermore, most people don't have the money to live their own homes.

I respect the decision of those who are staying for rational and logical reasons. I also respect the decision of people who choose to escape, if their decision is rational. If they move to Europe following their dreams of having blonde big breasted girl friends, free cash and lots of free time, then, I would say that they are not being rational. Because that's not what life is like here. Aks him, he knows https://twitter.com/pakalupapito

[Manzareh]

No, that's your logic.

You have to prove that it is mandatory to swear allegiance to the constitution in order to get passport. As far as I know, that is not the case in every country.

But let us assume that what you are trying to say is that the allegiance is implied by merely applying for the passport. I'll go along with your line of reasoning.

In that case, one can opt out of it by simply refusing to get a passport. But even that is not the case in every country.

Let us carry your line of reasoning even further, in Mekkah, the law of the land was the law of the polytheists. In Abyssinia, the law of the land was the law of the Christian Nagus.

By your logic, all Muslims who lived in those regions are kaafirs. That is not the case. Merely deciding to live somewhere where the people are governed by kufr doesn't mean one becomes a kaafir.

The problem is that you are confusing two different things with one another here. If a person chooses to go along with fellow citizens and take part in a religious festival where people sacrifice to their idols, that person is actively taking part in an act of worship.

If a person happens to live among polytheists but refrains from taking part in their rituals, that person is not one of them.

If a person chooses to take part in democratic process and become a member of a political movement which is actively engaged in kufr, that is active participation.

It's the same in criminal law. A criminal who takes part in gang activity is a criminal, one who simply lives in an area dominated by a criminal organization is not.

No you've said yourself before being a part a democratic system is shirk, no? Therefore you being a citizen of that democracy is belonging to it (being a citizen means you belong to it) the passport is the same as an ID card proving you are at one with the head of state. You need to strip your citizenship and move to where ISIS are or Taliban and aid them in creating a khilafah. Instead you hold their same views but want to sit comfortably and securely in your democratic country enjoying their freedom and at the same time talk negative about them. I might be wrong about what your views are but this post to you is based on what is apparent in regards to the stance you demonstrate in the forum.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

No you've said yourself before being a part a democratic system is shirk, no? Therefore you being a citizen of that democracy is belonging to it (being a citizen means you belong to it) the passport is the same as an ID card proving you are at one with the head of state. You need to strip your citizenship and move to where ISIS are or Taliban and aid them in creating a khilafah. Instead you hold their same views but want to sit comfortably and securely in your democratic country enjoying their freedom and at the same time talk negative about them. I might be wrong about what your views are but this post to you is based on what is apparent in regards to the stance you demonstrate in the forum.

Being part of a democratic system of government as a politician is different than being a citizen.

If you dont see any difference in that tegen it is not my problem. I dont feel obliged to explain this to you.

[Bengal_Tiger]

No you've said yourself before being a part a democratic system is shirk, no? Therefore you being a citizen of that democracy is belonging to it (being a citizen means you belong to it) the passport is the same as an ID card proving you are at one with the head of state. You need to strip your citizenship and move to where ISIS are or Taliban and aid them in creating a khilafah. Instead you hold their same views but want to sit comfortably and securely in your democratic country enjoying their freedom and at the same time talk negative about them. I might be wrong about what your views are but this post to you is based on what is apparent in regards to the stance you demonstrate in the forum.

The guy is a clown, don't take him seriously and certainly don't learn "Islam" (Wahabism) from him.


1. His whole existence on this forum is to show off and belittle others regarding what a great "Muslim" he supposedly is and how inferior everyone is to him to the point that they are "Kafir" (infidels).

He uses the word Kafir liberally and takes great joy in it.

It reminds me of the difference between someone from a traditionally rich family and what we call "nouveau riche" (newly rich).

The nouveau riche have never seen big money before and go cuckoo showing off how rich they are, whereas the traditionally rich consider it normal or even unimportant.

The guy was apparently some alcoholic, sexually deviant, rapper and loser in Amsterdam who became a born-again Wahabi and is now declaring people "infidels" on the internet.



2. His perverted definition of "Islam" means that these people whom he labels as infidels (which probably includes the site owner, and if you know anything about Salafism it's almost certain they would consider the owner a disbeliever) should "ideally" be executed by an "Islamic state".

Though he may deny it and try to play games, he basically believes those who disagree with his version of "Islam" are infidels who should be killed.

Maybe not killed at his hands, but by a supposed "Islamic" government.



Amsterdam, where Shame-less Khurasani lives.


3. No one on this forum who has some proper Islamic knowledge takes this clown seriously who is getting excited because he has learnt some Arabic and some dubious theological concepts and now going ga-ga over it.

According to Wahabism or "Salafiyaa" being on this forum itself is "haram".

Wahabi "Logic"

"The forum is based on nationalism and tribalism. It allows people to express disbelief without banning that (e.g. atheists), thus it is allowing the expression and promotion of kufr (disbelief). This is not only haram but actually an act of Kufr.

It is obligatory to tell the owner to stop this and if not then to abandon the forum, as participation sustains its continued existence, whereas abandoning the site after giving these "apostates" warning and admonition is the manhaj (way) of the Salaf (pious predecessors) who after giving advice and warning to the people of bid'a or rida (innovation or apostasy) would make tabdee' (declare someone a deviant Muslim) or takfeer of them and stay away from them."

Also if this clown was what he claimed to be, he would be fighting for the "resistance" in Afghanistan, in the same way that in WW2 French patriots fought in the French resistance against the Nazi occupiers.



By fighting in the Afghan resistance he would be a hero and even possibly gain "shuhada" (martyrdom).


However what we actually see is this clown is 24-7 on a non-religious internet message board, declaring people apostates and saying that an Islamic government should kill them, whilst living in Amsterdam.

[Bengal_Tiger]

By the way as regular readers of this forum will know, I detest Jamaat e "Islami" i.e. the group led by this Siraj guy, however this thread is just sectarian propaganda, as the Siraj guy made a mistake which many others do and as people get older they get scatty and forgetful.

..and remember I hate Jamaat but I am being honest so no one falls for Shameless Khurasani's propaganda as he is just from a rival "Islamist" faction trying to belittle another rival faction.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Never expected to see the day when tandulkar Bengali indirectly sticks up for paki Jamaatis.

[Samandri]

The guy is a clown, don't take him seriously and certainly don't learn "Islam" (Wahabism) from him.


1. His whole existence on this forum is to show off and belittle others regarding what a great "Muslim" he supposedly is and how inferior everyone is to him to the point that they are "Kafir" (infidels).

He uses the word Kafir liberally and takes great joy in it.

It reminds me of the difference between someone from a traditionally rich family and what we call "nouveau riche" (newly rich).

The nouveau riche have never seen big money before and go cuckoo showing off how rich they are, whereas the traditionally rich consider it normal or even unimportant.

The guy was apparently some alcoholic, sexually deviant, rapper and loser in Amsterdam who became a born-again Wahabi and is now declaring people "infidels" on the internet.



2. His perverted definition of "Islam" means that these people whom he labels as infidels (which probably includes the site owner, and if you know anything about Salafism it's almost certain they would consider the owner a disbeliever) should "ideally" be executed by an "Islamic state".

Though he may deny it and try to play games, he basically believes those who disagree with his version of "Islam" are infidels who should be killed.

Maybe not killed at his hands, but by a supposed "Islamic" government.



Amsterdam, where Shame-less Khurasani lives.


3. No one on this forum who has some proper Islamic knowledge takes this clown seriously who is getting excited because he has learnt some Arabic and some dubious theological concepts and now going ga-ga over it.

According to Wahabism or "Salafiyaa" being on this forum itself is "haram".




Also if this clown was what he claimed to be, he would be fighting for the "resistance" in Afghanistan, in the same way that in WW2 French patriots fought in the French resistance against the Nazi occupiers.



By fighting in the Afghan resistance he would be a hero and even possibly gain "shuhada" (martyrdom).


However what we actually see is this clown is 24-7 on a non-religious internet message board, declaring people apostates and saying that an Islamic government should kill them, whilst living in Amsterdam.

Hey Bengali_Puss , stop your long usual propaganda to convince Manzerah, just praise him and he is in your pockets.

I disagree with Shamlawar' salafi views. But he feels like a decent guy, a man with honour and code. Moreover he has patience to explain his views and stance when questioned. You can reason with him without reaching to greban.

You Bengali-khotay, are a coward and vindictive one, i can tell. The one who would writhe in anger and revenge behind your back but wont be able to do any thing about it due to cowardice and weakness.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Am I a hypocrite for choosing one Daarul kufr over the other?

Did you know how many former pak military and policemen are here working as dish washers and street sweepers?

Trust me, you could, you would be here in Europe rather than there in Pakistan.

It's not bravery that keeps people in afpak. Especially if you are serving the corrupt and criminal regimes there.

Yes,because afghanistan is not daarul kufr.

Might be because the people serving in the army are not for money but patriotism.A shopkeeper earn as much as a major in the army.

Yes but i will not abandon the place where i am basically from.You see,i have relatives,close relatives living in the west but they have not abandoned their hometown.Unlike you guys,who have officially declared your home country as daarul kufr for excuse and haven't been to your country in decades.

The hypocrisy is that you enjoy the life of west under asylum application living on kafir tax paid money but have the audacity to call those people fighting and running your country as kafir and daarul ul kufar.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Yes,because afghanistan is not daarul kufr.

Might be because the people serving in the army are not for money but patriotism.A shopkeeper earn as much as a major in the army.

Yes but i will not abandon the place where i am basically from.You see,i have relatives,close relatives living in the west but they have not abandoned their hometown.Unlike you guys,who have officially declared your home country as daarul kufr for excuse and haven't been to your country in decades.

The hypocrisy is that you enjoy the life of west under asylum application living on kafir tax paid money but have the audacity to call those people fighting and running your country as kafir and daarul ul kufar.

All of your arguments are based on emotions:

Patriotism, not leaving the place where you are from etc.

You can't rational defend your government, its constitution and its laws as Islamic. You can merely rely on what other people have said and comfort yourself with what suits you.

Instead of using weak arguments, try to counter anything I have said with substance.

If you don't have any substance, then don't bother. You aren't doing yourself or your pak fauj a service by replying to me like this.

[Manzareh]

Being part of a democratic system of government as a politician is different than being a citizen.

If you dont see any difference in that tegen it is not my problem. I dont feel obliged to explain this to you.

It's not about being obliged nor is a threatening question for you to be defensive. Question still remains are you loyal to Holland? If you are not then you do not according to the politicians and the system that governs the land (that have given you a passport) have the right to hold a citizenship. If you are loyal then according to what you said about being part (loyal) of a democracy is an act of kufr.

citizen
ˈsɪtɪz(ə)n/
noun
a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized.
"a British citizen"
synonyms: subject, national, passport holder, native; More

If you don't know your legal obligations and duties of being a citizen aka passport holder then there is not much to explain to you.

[Manzareh]

Hey Bengali_Puss , stop your long usual propaganda to convince Manzerah, just praise him and he is in your pockets.

I disagree with Shamlawar' salafi views. But he feels like a decent guy, a man with honour and code. Moreover he has patience to explain his views and stance when questioned. You can reason with him without reaching to greban.

You Bengali-khotay, are a coward and vindictive one, i can tell. The one who would writhe in anger and revenge behind your back but wont be able to do any thing about it due to cowardice and weakness.

Keep my name out of your posts unless you want to get on the wrong side of me.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

It's not about being obliged nor is a threatening question for you to be defensive. Question still remains are you loyal to Holland? If you are not then you do not according to the politicians and the system that governs the land (that have given you a passport) have the right to hold a citizenship. If you are loyal then according to what you said about being part (loyal) of a democracy is an act of kufr.



If you don't know your legal obligations and duties of being a citizen aka passport holder then there is not much to explain to you.

You're reasoning is flawed. You dont make distinction someone who is active in process of politics and someone who is inactive but merely a citizen.


This flawed reasoning stems from not knowing how rulings apply to people in Islamic jurisprudence.

What you are saying, is based on the concept of tacit consent. It's a concept made popular by British political theorist, John Locke.

Tacit consent means if you are let's say in a brothel, and you don't choose to step outside but rather remain there and look at what is happening, then you are tacitly approving of what is going on there.

This is a valid and logical argument if you apply it to Muslims presence in non-Islamic society. I agree with you if this is what you are suggesting.

However, as I said, this reasoning is still flawed because from an Islamic perspective different conditions are applicable.

From an Islamic legal perspective, a person is held liable if he or she is able to opt out for something which is better.

For instance, the current monetary system of the world is based in banks and currencies. These banks and currencies all work with interest. Since interest is haram and considered worse sin than committing adultery with ones own mother, all Muslims are then considered sinners.

However, as individuals, are cannot opt out of this system. Collectively, we can. We can choose as an ummah to introduce competing monetary system. Therefore the responsibility of changing of the state of affairs is one that is of all of us. We will be held responsible for this on the day of judgement as an entire nation of believers, not as individuals.

The individual who is unable to opt out of a situation cannot be held responsible in our legal system. A Muslim individual cannot live without a passport or an identity card. The whole world works with some sort of registration of all legal citizens.

It is therefore the responsibility of all Muslims to change their condition so that they can become citizens of a country where they can live without secular man made laws which conflict without belief system.

There are many Muslims who misunderstand this and think they are better off living in countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. The truth is, as I have explained this before, the constitution of Afghanistan and Pakistan are in no way any better than the ones here in Europe.

Believing that those countries are somehow more Islamic is delusional. Believing that Islamist parties like the Ikhwanis and Salafis of Egypt are changing the system from within is like believing they can go inside a brothel and pimp virgin women and ask clients to marry them before they have sex with them.

They can also choose not to go into those places and try to advice and teach people outside places where people are actively involved in sins.


This is the difference of perspective you and I are having. I don't have to be defensive and that's not how I look at this matter. It is you who can't go into specifics of what I have said and instead you just choose to recycle an old adhominem of all secularists: a Muslim should not live or use anything which is not created or designed by non Muslims in order to convey the message of Islam because Quran doesn't teach how to make iPhones and Internet, therefore Muslims have no business telling by people anything.

You may think you are having a debate, but you are not. I helped you by giving you a theoretical argument you can use to debate me. Please pay attention and use it appropriately.