Tweet
I want everyone to take note of the tactic Karachi just pulled by responding WITHIN the Quote Bars, People only do this if tyhey're trying to discourage any counter response. But little does he knows that won't work
Shall we proceed.
No, I KNOW I oppose the Taliban, because I have opposed the Taliban, that's what it means to oppose the Taliban. You have witnessed it, others have witnessed it. Your attempt at trying to shoehorn anyone that refutes your position with the Taliban, is just a desperate obfuscation tactic. Having certain common ground with something doesn't make you the "same" or having the same mentality, this is a logical fallacy, known as Fallacy of Composition. The only thing the Taliban may have in common with me is that we believe in the Primacy of Shari'ah and Islam as a way to manage and govern society. But this is a viewpoint that's apart of Islam itself and shared by any Islamic Movement from Sayyid Jamaluddin Al Afghani to Ikhwan Al Muslimeen. But Ikhwan Al Muslimeen theory of how to achieve those aims is vastly different than Taliban.
Taliban follow a variant of Deobandism which applies rulings from rigid streams of Indian Hanafi Scholars; the rulings of Taliban are not universally consistent because they were made in context to the Subcontinent of a certain era and don't factor in dynamics and context comprehensively Ikhwan Al Muslimeen take a more rationalist approach that is dynamic to the needs and welfare in relation to the changing climate, Things like having an understanding based on new and growing information pool is apart of the Ikhwan Al Muslimeen's approach. Both want Islam and Shari'ah; but Ikhwan are clearly not of the same approach as Taliban, thus cannot be the same. What you've done is basically equate Islam with the Taliban by suggesting that simply advocating Islam as the method to govern Muslims is equal to Taliban. This claim has been falsified.
I personally have never claimed Islam is a "purely peaceful" religion. I say Islam is the religion of balance, Peace is the ideal that should always be sought for, but aggression only when it is necessary and no other resolution can be achieved. The Word Islam comes from "Salamah" which some people loosely say is "peace" but "Sakanah" is more in line with peace in the literal sense. Salamah more comprehensively means to be "in the right and appropriate condition", so Islam really means "to come into compliance with the appropriate state" or "surrender" or "submission".
The problem isn't quoting verses, but quoting them out of context. The Extremists err because they quote verses out of context. This is why we have Tafsir and Ahadith and many other sources to give us the appropriate context.This is like when Islamophobes argue that Islam teaches Muslims to rampantly murder Non-Muslims because there is a verse and hadith that says "Fight those who disbelieve" , but the context is regarding when Muslims were under threat by the Pagan Arabs and the battles corresponding to them. There's no blank check for aggression in Islam, nor is there blind and self destructive pacifism. In Islam we do whatever we can to solve things peacefully but recognize that realistically this is not always feasible.
These are all Platitudes manufactured by Western Liberalist Geopolitics. Do you even have any statistics to support any of these claims? None of your statements have any data or analysis to support them. But on the contrary the woes of current Muslim societies can be traced back to events and machinations stemming from the Imperial/Colonial era till now. This isn't a blame game but evidential,, verifiable pieces of data. This doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility, but rather acknowledging the variables that catalyzed the situation we see today. On one hand we have Mentally colonized individuals like yourself who act as a Fifth Column, we have radicals who have no comprehensive vision for the future, funded by Saudis who are in turn funded and protected by Western Allies who in turn colonized the Middle East ......the writing is on the wall.
It's not Islam and Shari'ah that attacks or denigrates women and minorities; on the contrary it's the LACK of Islam and Shari'ah. Paying lip service to Islam as Pakistani Government does or Saudis do is not the same as applying Islamic principles. Islam's constitution guarantees the safety of minorities who have a treaty with us, so much so that if a Muslim violates the terms of the treaty they are penalizable for sedition. Islam guarantees women to have huquq so long as they don't nullify them by violating the conditions of those rights. And the same applies with men. It's you that in my opinion seems to be "blind" or rather completely ignorant that what Islam teaches and what Muslims do are not necessarily in line.
So basically what I grasped here is that you changed your argument. Earlier you were against the use of force, now You've ADVOCATED and even Validating force if it's done By Secular Institutions. This indicates that not only is your position completely disingenuous but that you have been mentally colonized to the point that you've internalized Western Liberalist self congratulating biases. Then on the other hand you feel the Secular Institutions of the West is "too soft" which means you what Liberalists call "Barbaric" as being superior and more effective. In summary you are very confused and self contradictory; nothing you have written is consistent.
Only someone with an IQ Under 80 thinks Saudi Arabia represent proper Shari'ah.
Care to show an example? Since you're all about examples ....and where does this "Third Class" nonsense come from? What does that even mean? Am I restraining them from getting an education or denying them basic healthcare? Be specific instead of making theatrical remarks that only fool people with an IQ Under 80.
Actually you have, even in this thread. Here are some examples
- I said Islam has rules and regulations on who we can marry You claim this means I'm advocating women not to have basic rights and to keep them imprisoned
That's a distortion.
- When I said all Laws are based on force, Including secular Laws you said this means I believe people should be forced to follow Islam.
All these are blatant examples of distortion.
You spend 4 days debating whose skin color is lighter like an ignorant racist bigot; the only hypocrite between the two of us seems to be you.
Considering you're from Pakistan and a Desi, a country known for Internet Porn Searches. All I can say is that this is nothing more than Guilt driven Projection. You assume because you do it and it's normal in your surroundings to do that, that everyone else must do it too.Don't project your Desi problems on me sir. There's nothing "Natural" or "Happy" about your mentally colonized internalized self hatred. If you're miserable it's because you feel inferior to Westerners and it gives you a complex.
In other words, Typical inferiority complex at work.
Shall we proceed.
Originally posted by Karachi
View Post
Taliban follow a variant of Deobandism which applies rulings from rigid streams of Indian Hanafi Scholars; the rulings of Taliban are not universally consistent because they were made in context to the Subcontinent of a certain era and don't factor in dynamics and context comprehensively Ikhwan Al Muslimeen take a more rationalist approach that is dynamic to the needs and welfare in relation to the changing climate, Things like having an understanding based on new and growing information pool is apart of the Ikhwan Al Muslimeen's approach. Both want Islam and Shari'ah; but Ikhwan are clearly not of the same approach as Taliban, thus cannot be the same. What you've done is basically equate Islam with the Taliban by suggesting that simply advocating Islam as the method to govern Muslims is equal to Taliban. This claim has been falsified.
Majority 99% of muslims dont follow the Quran, and I can bring extremist/violent verses quotes too from Quran/Hadiths. You people openly lie about your own books, that it is the most peaceful religion and way of life, nothing can be further from the truth
The problem isn't quoting verses, but quoting them out of context. The Extremists err because they quote verses out of context. This is why we have Tafsir and Ahadith and many other sources to give us the appropriate context.This is like when Islamophobes argue that Islam teaches Muslims to rampantly murder Non-Muslims because there is a verse and hadith that says "Fight those who disbelieve" , but the context is regarding when Muslims were under threat by the Pagan Arabs and the battles corresponding to them. There's no blank check for aggression in Islam, nor is there blind and self destructive pacifism. In Islam we do whatever we can to solve things peacefully but recognize that realistically this is not always feasible.
The laws of Sharia are barbaric 7th century laws, this is why I say muslims dont fit in this world and you morons are forcing them on to people, be it women and minorities, look how badly women and minorities are treated in the muslim world, you must be blind not see all the suffering, and this is because you are part of this barbaric culture and behavior
These are all Platitudes manufactured by Western Liberalist Geopolitics. Do you even have any statistics to support any of these claims? None of your statements have any data or analysis to support them. But on the contrary the woes of current Muslim societies can be traced back to events and machinations stemming from the Imperial/Colonial era till now. This isn't a blame game but evidential,, verifiable pieces of data. This doesn't mean we shouldn't take responsibility, but rather acknowledging the variables that catalyzed the situation we see today. On one hand we have Mentally colonized individuals like yourself who act as a Fifth Column, we have radicals who have no comprehensive vision for the future, funded by Saudis who are in turn funded and protected by Western Allies who in turn colonized the Middle East ......the writing is on the wall.
It's not Islam and Shari'ah that attacks or denigrates women and minorities; on the contrary it's the LACK of Islam and Shari'ah. Paying lip service to Islam as Pakistani Government does or Saudis do is not the same as applying Islamic principles. Islam's constitution guarantees the safety of minorities who have a treaty with us, so much so that if a Muslim violates the terms of the treaty they are penalizable for sedition. Islam guarantees women to have huquq so long as they don't nullify them by violating the conditions of those rights. And the same applies with men. It's you that in my opinion seems to be "blind" or rather completely ignorant that what Islam teaches and what Muslims do are not necessarily in line.
Secular laws are not barbaric like Sharia law, in fact some times they are too light, for example I think in some cases there should be death penalty here for killers.
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of what Sharia is, no sane person on earth will want that law
I have seen the way you talk to women here, you're absolutely have no respect for them like a typical mullah, you clearly think they are third class citizens
I haven't distorted any thing, I have been following your posts for years,
- I said Islam has rules and regulations on who we can marry You claim this means I'm advocating women not to have basic rights and to keep them imprisoned
That's a distortion.
- When I said all Laws are based on force, Including secular Laws you said this means I believe people should be forced to follow Islam.
All these are blatant examples of distortion.
I know what type of person you are a hypocrite
We all know how much porn you and your mullah buddies watch, you people are so desperate, this is why many of you become pedophiles.
In other words, Typical inferiority complex at work.
Comment