Jumat-i-Islami are enemies of Pakhtuns

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

For the sake of argument, let's say they are in fact both sins. They're still not equivalent on the basis that was mentioned; They do not have have the same condemnation or hudud applied to them. In fact no hudud or condemnation applied to them. Thus we can conclude there is no basis for them to be sins.

You're flip flopping between whether something is "Islamic" and "equivalent". Not being Islamic, doesn't necessarily mean "Anti-Islamic" or condemned by Islam. They may fall into "mubah".

That's very impressive. You should write your own legal philosophy books.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Not all prohibited and sinful acts are mentioned along with punishments in the texts. That doesn't mean that acts without punishments are not prohibited.

You're still making faulty equivalence between acts that we KNOW for sure have hudud and are explicitly condemned, and ones that have no such thing. You can argue that not mentioning something doesn't mean it's not prohibited. But conversely Saying something is prohibited doesn't mean it has any basis either.

You're back to square one.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That's very impressive. You should write your own legal philosophy books.

Someone already wrote this like hundreds of years before me. There's actually a good English language book about this stuff. It goes through the historical understandings of the Usul and the Jurisprudence and how they came to render these things

The Criminal Law of Islam - Anwarullah - Google Books

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

You're still making faulty equivalence between acts that we KNOW for sure have hudud and are explicitly condemned, and ones that have no such thing. You can argue that not mentioning something doesn't mean it's not prohibited. But conversely Saying something is prohibited doesn't mean it has any basis either.

You're back to square one.

Those are your personal views and beliefs. The ahadith on celebration of non-Muslim religious festivals are interpreted as clear cut prohibitions by jurists for the past 1400 years. Your views and beliefs about those ahadith are not supported by any tradition in Islamic law. I have posted an article citing different classical jurists about this topic in religion section.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Those are your personal views and beliefs. The ahadith on celebration of non-Muslim religious festivals are interpreted as clear cut prohibitions by jurists for the past 1400 years. Your views and beliefs about those ahadith are not supported tradition in Islamic law. I have posted an article citing different classical jurists about this topic in religion section.

And likewise this view is your personal belief and the belief of those who you inherited it from.

There's nothing "clear cut" when it comes to these things. Even if a Jurist condemned something, it may have been more of a social-political motive than necessarily religious. The Jurist may have believed it would "endanger" the power structure, hence felt it was his duty as a servant of the social order. It isn't something from the religion, but from the Jurist. Sometimes Jurists make pronouncements, but they're not equal to Islamic texts, they're not immutable.

there's only one hadith where it suggests not growing your mustache long like the Zoroastrians. Outside of this what do you have as a basis for prohibition of Nawruz?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Someone already wrote this like hundreds of years before me. There's actually a good English language book about this stuff. It goes through the historical understandings of the Usul and the Jurisprudence and how they came to render these things

The Criminal Law of Islam - Anwarullah - Google Books

The author of the book is a sociologist. He didn't study Islamic law.

Anwarullah Chowdhury - Wikipedia

thats like citing some mullah's book on sociology when in fact the mullah never studied sociology at all.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

And likewise this view is your personal belief and the belief of those who you inherited it from.

There's nothing "clear cut" when it comes to these things. Even if a Jurist condemned something, it may have been more of a social-political motive than necessarily religious. The Jurist may have believed it would "endanger" the power structure, hence felt it was his duty as a servant of the social order. It isn't something from the religion, but from the Jurist. Sometimes Jurists make pronouncements, but they're not equal to Islamic texts, they're not immutable.

there's only one hadith where it suggests not growing your mustache long like the Zoroastrians. Outside of this what do you have as a basis for prohibition of Nawruz?

That's some post modernist relativist nonsense.

[Firdousi]

The author of the book is a sociologist. He didn't study Islamic law.

Anwarullah Chowdhury - Wikipedia

thats like citing some mullah's book on sociology when in fact the mullah never studied sociology at all.

Only Mullahs are allowed to talk, speak and lectura about Islamic Law? You are not akhoond but you are lecturing us right now. You have just owned yourself.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Only Mullahs are allowed to talk, speak and lectura about Islamic Law? You are not akhoond but you are lecturing us right now. You have just owned yourself.

Actually, I have studied Islamic law and I have degree in social sciences and a minor in journalism. I can talk about everything I have studied based on the knowledge and training I have.

[Firdousi]

Actually, I have studied Islamic law and I have degree in social sciences and a minor in journalism. I can talk about everything I have studied based on the knowledge and training I have.

Really? You don't seem to be too brilliant when it comes to the Islamic Law. You don't even know that crimes have different punishments. i guess you got your degree in some sort of Pakistani madrassa.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Really? You don't seem to be too brilliant when it comes to the Islamic Law. You don't even know that crimes have different punishments. i guess you got your degree in some sort of Pakistani madrassa.

Whatever. You can continue discussing the merits of a Zoroastrian religious festival with Iblis. I am going to spend the remaining hours of sunlight celebrating the arrival of spring as a Muslim. I am going to take a long ride on my bicycle and enjoy the tranquility.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The author of the book is a sociologist. He didn't study Islamic law.

Anwarullah Chowdhury - Wikipedia

thats like citing some mullah's book on sociology when in fact the mullah never studied sociology at all.

The author of this book is from Brunei not, Bengali. Wrong guy.

*face palm*

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That's some post modernist relativist nonsense.

Hardly, you've basically just told us some people's opinions, and the basis of their opinions have varying motives, some rooted in knowledge some rooted in agenda. sometimes well meaning agendas, sometimes nefarious. This is reality, and reality isn't a post modernist blah blah ..*insert made up term to make it sound like you know what you're talking about here*

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Only Mullahs are allowed to talk, speak and lectura about Islamic Law? You are not akhoond but you are lecturing us right now. You have just owned yourself.

And he's wrong, he just mindlessly googled the name and picked whatever he could find.

Prof. Anwarullah is an Islamic Legal Specialist working for the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Brunei.

Sham-Wow is just talking about a topic before learning about it again.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

And he's wrong, he just mindlessly googled the name and picked whatever he could find.

Prof. Anwarullah is an Islamic Legal Specialist working for the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Brunei.

Sham-Wow is just talking about a topic before learning about it again.

You are right. You googled his name. I was wrong. He is indeed an Islamic Legal specialist in Brunei, a country where celebrating Christmas is banned. I guess Anwarullah played a part in it. Brunei bans Christmas celebrations in public, including wearing Santa hats