Quote:
Originally Posted by Rida Malik
|
Well in that example you have seeds of your own refutation, Ahmadis are a minority and hence non Muslims, they can't call their worship places mosques and can't erect any edifice that is similar to mosques, so the minarets are the symbols of Muslims' worship place aka mosques, even Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes Minarets as "a tall thin tower, usually forming part of a mosque, from which Muslims are called to prayer". See the link too:http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ionary/minaret  So either Ahmadis must become Muslims if they want to build Minarets because it can only be built on a mosque and mosque is the worship place of MUSLIMS only , or they must not do such an act that is against the law of state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rida Malik
This is only one example out of many, in some instances even Ahmedi graves were desecrated. Were the graves claiming to be muslim corpses too?
Was burning down of Joseph Colony out of alleged blasphemy issue a myth too?
|
Well that is the irony of the situation mam, people do blasphemy and then some liberals come to save their souls by calling it "Alleged" blasphemy issue, I reiterate that minorities are free to worship and follow their religion as long as they don't mess with Majority and commit an act of blasphemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rida Malik
Was Salman Taseers murder on right premises? For saying that the woman deserved a trial to represent herself? Is that not minority persecution where the other section of the pakistani society not even given a chance to defend themselves against allegations and abuse?
|
That was an act of an individual, was that act state sponsored? Because here you are arguing that minorities are persecuted by state, if it is about the acts of individuals then shoot the whole American nation because Terry Jones was an individual from the same nation who burnt the Holy Quran. That is very absurd to say that a whole minority is suffering on the basis of an act of individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rida Malik
And Pakistan will never be a liberal country? But it already IS a liberal country. It does corruption, hypocrisy and all anti-religion activities quite liberally, just doesn't want to be labelled as one. What you are essentially saying is, We will never allow freedom of a common human experience in our country. That can be your last resort or your only resort, because self-righteous people of this country have failed to protect Pakistan from monetary AND moral corruption. Where people no longer follow the principles of excellence but only of elevation of authority which grants them the right to abuse it as they like.
|
Having no other argument you have coined new definition of Liberalism!  Mam the flaws you stated can be better termed as turpitude and depravity but not necessarily liberalism. If it IS a liberal country then why are you raising hue and cry? Liberal country secures the freedom of Minorities, right? Matter is resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rida Malik
The whole world is an example of failed religion based economies. you can call it what you please but religion is a personal matter and whenever it is involved in government, people abuse it.
|
Oh! Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W) ruled the state of Madina in the light of Religion and religion was at the heart of state administration, government, economy and society, everything was measured on the touchstone of religion and it was perhaps the first Welfare state in the annals of History, after Prophet (PBUH) rightly guided caliphs ran the government accordind to Shariah and minorities enjoyed full freedom and it was also a golden age of Islam, now would you still say that Religiously run state is a failure? Mam, I'm sorry to say, for Muslims religion is not separate from government and economy, rather it is at the heart of everything, this is just stinky liberal notion and we are to follow the orders of Allah and he directs us to lead our individual and collective lives according to Islam. Further Iqbal says:
جلال بادشاھی ھو یا جمھوری تماشا ھو
جدا ھو دین سیاست سے تو رہ جاتی ھے چنگیزی
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rida Malik
(Hijab Ban, if that seems like abuse of power to you then why don't you quote Saudias abuse of religious power by trying to make women cover their eyes too? and the religious police having the authority to use brute force against anyone who doesnt comply?
|
Now is it an argument? If it is, what does it prove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Thank you, sir, for graciously pointing out the 'absurdity' of my comment but you very conveniently ignored the other point: Majority of Muslims support this ban. Here's your reference:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095
"Most of the population - including most Muslims - agree with the government when it describes the face-covering veil as an affront to society's values. Critics - chiefly outside of France - say it is a violation of individual liberties."
Of course you can dismiss it as made up by BBC (a way we Pakistanis prefer) but then you will have to support your stance with counter-evidence. Go ahead please.
You also ignored my third point: ALL religious symbols, are banned in French public schools, including Christianity (majority of French are Christians). How do you explain that? |
I need not explain it, because it is self explanatory, I did not say that Secular countries are persecuting Muslims only, I said they are curbing the religious rights of the minorities, now you yourself agreed that France banned religious practices for minorities, now it is curbing of civil as well as religious liberties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
So far, you haven't. I've given you the reference. Now you do have a chance to correct me with facts. I'll be waiting.
|
Hope you would agree now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Rida has given ample examples. If still not satisfied, let me know. I'll accumulate the detailed data. Plus, you also ignored to comment on the very law of the state that discriminates to a shameful extent. (again: no building of places of worship, no preaching, no seeking of converts et al. No such law exists in 'secular' states).
|
None of your friends's example was pertinent, I hope you would come up with strong corroborations. My dear friend I have partially answered that why Ahmadis are not allowed to call their worship places Mosques, see first para. And regarding no preaching or things like that, you yourself said that Secular countries don't make such laws that hinder seeking converts, Pakistan isn't a secular country. Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Almost all the discussion paints the picture clear. The image of Islam, as it is in the minds of the people of Pakistan at large, is medieval, skewed and extremely parochial. It needs to change. If you want to taunt it with liberalism and secularism you can do it. For me it's just the Islamic concept of Ijtihad which is the very essence of progress derived from the very teachings of religion. (hint: A Muslim was among the founding fathers of secular Europe. One of the many things you conveniently ignored). There wasn't much matter for me to respond. My previous arguments remain almost entirely unanswered.
|
I just wish that our masses imbibe that image of Islam which is medieval because that is essence of our religion. Our religion is complete as Allah almighty has said on the eve of last sermon, you are no one to change or to decide that it has to changed. Ijtihad is the job of Ulema karam and there are very strict standards for the Mujtahid, not every Tom, Dick and Harry can go for Ijtihad for the reason that he wants his liberal interpretation of Islam. If Ulema deem any change necessary in any Shariah law then they will do it.
__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.
|