Brother all we know about revelation is Quran...

Where in Quran are mentioned the rules of performing salah !!!

I believe that every word Holy Prophet PBUH spoke or any action he (PBUH) did was according to the will of Allah S.W.T.. i believe coz em a muslim...

how can i show certain things to non believers that HOly prophet told us and are not mentioned in the Quran ?

if quaid never used the word secularism for PAKISTAN in his entire life then there is also no proof of him using the name "islamic republic of PAKISTAN" for PAKISTAN.or is there any proof of it?

__________________
Puppet,Slave,Lover

Unfortunately, you did not either carefully read my posts or did not understand what I said. I repeat, Revealed Sources (or Shariah) = Quran + Sunnah.

If you have managed to grasp this, let me explain a little more. You can think of Shariah or revealed sources as a big circle that has engulfed a small circle which you call Fiqh. Fiqh has to be within the periphery of Shariah. Do you get it now?

I have already simplified my post to such a degree that I wonder if I can further simplify it.

Because you yourself kinda asked for that. You were asking about Ijma, Qiyas, Ijtihad and I told you that they are actually sources which come under Usul al-Fiqh.

I can see that you are not a degree holder in Islamic Jurisprudence nor am I. I had mistakenly typed a wrong definition of Fiqh. Did you point that out? No, because you did not know nor did you care searching whether I was right or wrong? Because had you done that, you would not have made this post. You contradict the very argument of relying on maulvis, because here you are trying to prove something, without understanding what I said and without doing any research. You said that I was trying to confuse you with fiqh etc, though it was you who dragged in Ijma, Qiyas etc.

Plus, to educate non-Muslims, you at least need to know what you are telling them is based on truth and is backed by sources +logic because at the end of day, no one is gonna give it two hoots if you tell them that Shariah is what an online member told you. So for the greater good, I suggest you to read some good book.

****

The verse you qouted, to my understanding, actually tells us about the verses of Quran. Prophet (P.B.U.H) never erred nor spoke them from his own inclination. There are hardly couple of verses which go contradictory to the verse you quoted. So Prophet (P.B.U.H) was instructed by Allah (S.W.T) but few of his decisions were based on his wisdom as well. Most of them were endorsed by Allah (S.W.T) like Bait ul Rizwan and many others whereas there were few of them where Allah (S.W.T) revealed that His will and wisdom was different than Prophet (P.B.U.H) (most probably, just to let people know that H (P.B.U.H) was also a human being) for example where Prophet (P.B.U.H) did not get revelation in regards to his treatment to prisoners of Badr. He asked Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umer to exercise their ijthad and He (P.B.U.H) found Hazrat Abu Bakr's Ijtihad better and soon after there was a revelation that expresses how Allah wanted Prophet (P.B.U.H) to choose the other way.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Fatima I agree to all of what you say and if you read my last post, I have clearly said that all of Nabi S.A.W's "religious" (Madhab) legislation was exactly as Allah S.W.T had ordered. On other worldly matters, Nabi S.A.W did as it seemed best not because there was no guidance to be had but because Quran asks one to exact one's own judgement when there is no hukum available. Hence, Nabi S.A.W always did as Allah S.W.T wanted.

“I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam”

Democratic = Jamhori

principles of Islam = Islamic

Hence, Islami Jamhoria Pakistan.

Plus he has also said:

“There are people who want to create mischief and make the propaganda that we will scrap the Sharia law. Islamic principles have no parallel”

You ought to get the picture now, if you don't, then help you God!

Show him a book of hadith, explain to him how these were collected and how they have been filtered even after they were collected and compiled. Brother you seriously need to sort out your priorities, you are out to convince non-muslims when you yourself haven't studied enough.

Nabi S.A.W was the same person who received the Quran and gave the ahadith. The compilation of Quran and Hadith were done at different times and task of hadith collection was much more difficult than of compilation of Quran.

Again, I'd ask you to go read books on these subjects. There is no way I can explain the whole thing in a couple of posts.

As you seem not to read our earlier posts, you are unaware of the fact that Jinnah has used these words numerous times.

Although posted earlier i'm giving reference once again.

Speech on Iqbal's Day, 1940

__________________
The Demand Of Faith Is To Bow Down After Hearing The Command. Faith Cannot Co-Exist With Ifs And Buts.

@Fatima

Jazib Roomi rightly said that in your later posts you fail to stick the words , you write in the earlier ones..

here goes how you defined shariah in your earlier post


@ Abbasi

You are mistaking me , i wanted to know if i define shariah the way fatima did how cud i verify Ahadis as Shariah to the non believers
If hadis are revealed they had to be in Quran why are they in separate books ?

Before getting aggressive you are supposed to understand the theme of what members ask and point to....
Just weathering the storm of your impression holds no water this way....

Be reasonable and flexible ....

my first question -- why religion was induced in politics and Quaid demanded it on the bases of two nation theory .but when pakistan was founded then it has been declared u will remin as a free citizen reggardless of religion and pakistan is not a theocratic state ..unfortunately pvs post discussion gas no satisfactory answers and strian2 brother has only posted quotes of Quaid i azam .. why do not you have psoted quotes of molaana abu azad kalam .. please you should have quoted them in order to have clear picture .as each picture has twoo sides and u again and again posting the quotes of quaid.. i invite you to have discussion relative to Quaid as well as mollana abu azad kalam..this will present a clear picture why pakistan has created ..if it was Quaid divine mission then why this divine mission collapsed after its creation when he orderd as you are free and pakistan is not thecratic state and his own life is evident what his divine was..you people have said about disowing of Quaid`s daughter but i have explained it it was the only the polity of quaid and nothing else ..where in pvs post it has been ansd .. refer it to me..

quaid and his some follwers prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. . Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? . . The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India.





The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

Jazib Roomi said those words about me, not about Fatima. I have aptly rebuked Jazib for raising those words.

The source of Quran and Ahadith is the same i.e. Nabi S.A.W. I have already explained how his teaching about Madhab fall into the "revealed" portion of Al-Deen. I don't want to waste more time on explaining things over and over again.

Good luck!

Abul Kalam Azad has no relevance whatsoever with the discussion of whether Pakistan should be secular or not.

It appears you have not read the previous posts as usual. The terms theocracy and freedom of religion have already been explained to not have any contradiction of Islam plus I have quoted many sayings of Quaid with regards his wish to see this country as Islamic and not secular. As yet no one has show me one single occasion where Quaid used to word secular. Because you can not do it you have to divert the topic to Abul Kalam Azad.

Abul Kalam Azad has put himself in a quandary by asking if Islam allowed he separation of Pakistan from India. Does Islam allow a secular state of which Abul Kalam Azad became a president? Of course not.

I won't discuss Abul Kalam Azad any further because he is irrelevant to this discussion.

This far you've failed to establish that Pakistan was meant to be anything other than Islamic.

I saw many people participating in debates on "motives behind the creation of Pakistan" but there are very few people who would not like to made Islam as a base for their arguments.Most of the people in Pakistan think Islam as the sole objective behind the creation of Pakistan.However there are very few people who consider this religi...ous definition of history as cardinal cause of extremism and instability in Pakistan.The research based book 'How Pakistan was created',co-authored by the late Zahid Chaudhary and Hassan Jaffer Zaidi,narrates how the aims of the creation of Pakistan were different from the ones fabricated by the establishment to keep people in dark about policy making which caused not only dismembering of the country but also trapped it into present mire of extremism and intolerance.
According to Dr. Mehdi Hassan,history was distorted in Pakistan in the name of religion.He said making the 'Objectives Resolution' a preamble of the constitution
which had not been written was another cruel joke with the country.The mischief started by Ch. Muhammad Ali saw its zenith during the zia regime."Bloodshed is the result when one uses religion for politics".
Pakistan came into being because of the fear of democratic rule in undivided India having majority population Hindus.All demands made by the All India Muslim League from 1906 to 1947 were political.The leading religious parties had opposed the creation of Pakistan.Which was their political right because it was not going to be an Islamic state.Everything being done in Pakistan was the violation of the ideas of Quaid e Azam who stood for equal right to minorities.
Shahid Javed Burki,a famous analyst says;'People may have used the idiom of Islam to draw mass support but the objectives behind the creation of Pakistan were truly economic'.
i think we are the only nation in the world who is still ignorant of its history.As the thinking and working spirit of any nation draws its power from history so its very important to have the truly understanding of our history.Most of our governments from democratic regime of 1970s to the autocratic regime of 1980s used Islam to attain massive support for their legitimation.
Quaid e Azam in his speech of 11 august,1947 to the first constituent assembly, said;"if you would work in cooperation forgetting the the past ,burying the hatchet,you are bound to succeed,if you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you,no matter to what community he belongs,is first,second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights,privileges and obligations,there will be no end to the progress you will make.We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one state.You may belong to any religion or cast or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state.I think we should keep that in front of our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims,not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizen of the state".
so in the light of this saying one can understand the thinking of our founder.He did not get this piece of land just for Muslim but for people belonging to any religion.
finally i would like to high light the last point which is 'debacle of east Pakistan'.Religion is considered the strongest binding force.i would like to ask you question if Pakistan was created on the name of Islam,was it possible for the people of east Pakistan to think about the creation of another state only because of economic marginalization done by the west Pakistan.Why did religion fail to bind both regions together?.The answer would probably lead us to the belief that Pakistan was not created on the name of Islam.

__________________
Plan with attitude ,prepare with aptitude,participate with servitude,receive with gratitude.

Yeah right, he was the Minister of Education... my point wasn't the post...but that wouldn't make a difference to you, now would it!

****

Please read the previous posts carefully, many of the issues you've raised have already been addressed.