Discuss » Faith and Religion

JI - Hum Kaisa Nizam Chahte Hain ?

(224 posts)
  1. Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    @hkbajwa: That's the idea. They are supposed! to be second grade citizens under Muslim UMMAH.

    Why ? Because they do not accept Islam, that which ALLAH ALMIGHTY sent.

    This entire universe, this entire world, this life, EVERYTHING was created by ALLAH ALMIGHTY. ALLAH ALMIGHTY sent Prophets among people, so they could learn what ALLAH ALMIGHTY wants from them.

    Those who deny;

    (1) ALLAH ALMIGHTY or
    (2) HIS Prophets (AS, SAW) or
    (2) Companions (RAA) of Muhammad (SAW) or
    (3) THEIR given way of life

    are supposed! to be second rate citizens, IN this world.

    I believe this will only be from an intellectual point of view. Also 'Jizya'. Since they'll be receiving exactly the same human rights, the same services that Muslims will be in our borders, so there's no reason to be alarmed.

    Your express concern for a minority over your express rejection of the majority, the interest of millions! of Muslims, however makes me ask, are you a non-Muslim ?

    If you were a Muslim, your primary worry would be Muslims. That is not what I find from your comments on this thread.

    I also ask you, are Muslims NOT second grade citizens under ALL! non-Muslim regimes/nations/countries today ?

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 9:08 #
  2. Salam
    member

    pervaizi, ahmadi, atheist, seculars... trying to deceive muslims-

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 9:09 #
  3. Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    @Salam: It will take us time, but we won't rest untill we identify them all, INSHALLAH. It is inevitable.

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 9:44 #
  4. gv
    Member

    @salam and haris khan

    Its not anti islam its merely a humanist approach to life which you chaps appear to have serious difficulty in comprehending..

    I seriously pity you..

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 9:55 #
  5. Salam
    member

    i feel sorry for humanists who select other humans for worship-

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:07 #
  6. gv
    Member

    As you will.... Although the way I see it; It is the people who are obsessed with the sahaba, the hadith (compiled by humans) and ancient ulema who are the ones who have selected other humans for worship.

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:59 #
  7. Salam
    member

    a muslim who believes in Allah swt, His prophet Muhammad PBUH, divine revelation Qur'an and practice example of Sunnah tries to obey the message of Islam-

    for a disbeliever, a muslim is worshiping a prophet because disbeliever rejects what he wants and keeps what he wants according to his whims and desires-

    so basically the question goes back to square one -Creator & His Message for humanity-

    non-muslims try to cut-off hadith, ijma-sahaba, qiyas from Qur'an, they pose as muslims to lead muslims to misguidance -they are the worst hypocrites-

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 11:08 #
  8. gv
    Member

    No i don't think that a 'muslim' as per your definition is worshipping the prophet. I just think that that 'muslim' is instead fixated on the interpretations of an excessively large number of people who have absolutely no claim or link to prophethood or divine knowledge... what a healthy forward looking approach to your faith...

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 14:45 #
  9. Salam
    member

    you are generalizing my friend, anyway i am not interested in converting you to islam, already had many such discussions with you- for you your deen and for me my deen :)

    i can only try to help where i see there is a genuine need, i don't have free energy to burn on your cyclic arguments- sorry

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 15:24 #
  10. interesting debate but again hijacked by so called Quranists/Perviezis (confuse people).

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 15:36 #
  11. Salam
    member

    yes perveizis are champions in this deception followed by qadiyanni followed by orientalists-

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 16:00 #
  12. hkbajwa
    Member

    @ haris

    hahahahahha... dude you're a laughable parody of an intolerant bigot..

    You say that non-muslims are supposed to be second grade citizens.. so the only thing that matters is whether you pay lip service to the right religion. It doesn't matter what you actually believe, but only what you SAY you believe.. I'm really sorry, but in my world an honest hindu ought to have greater rights than a corrupt muslim. In my world a christian who prays to God with a pure heart ought to have greater rights than a mullah who sells drugs. In fact in my twisted world a man must be judged by his actions and not by his religious affiliation.

    And nowhere in Islam does it say that a non-muslim is supposed to be treated as an inferior. Regarding the non-muslims there is only admonitions that they harm themselves by not accepting Islam. There is pity for them, but no hatred. There is a clear instruction that they must be taught and led towards the light, but not forced. Non-muslims are ALSO creations of Allah, and he loves ALL human beings equally. I am sure you know of the hadith/qissa of the woman who did everything wrong in her life and was never a muslim, but she was sent to heaven merely for giving water to a thirsty dog. So the idea is that God does not hate or despise those who do not accept Islam. He only pities and encourages muslims to help those who do not know better. And even then he judges humans on their actions and not on their stated affiliation. Where the hell do you get the idea that they should be treated as second class citizens??

    Can you tell me where it is stated that non-muslims must be second rate citizens??

    THere is no punishment for being non muslim. If you are a believer you would think Being a non-muslim is punishment enough in itself and feel love and pity for those who do not believe. TO be angered or insulted by those who do not believe speaks of a weak personal belief.

    ALso btw if there are people in your vicinity who do not accept Islam then it is YOUR fault and not theirs. It is because you are unable to provide the shining example that a muslim must be in order to convert those around him. Your anger at non-believer around you is an expression of anger at your own inability to be the muslim that one would wish to follow.

    Now if YOU are at fault for not showing the light to non-muslims, then who gave you the right to punish them by making them second grade citizens?? Nobody, that's who.

    I believe that Allah/God/Yahweh/Bhagwan/whichever name one gives to the Supreme Creator created this world. As do most people in this world. They may not call their belief what you call yours but that does not mean they don't pay homage to the Supreme Creator.

    You ask whether i am muslim... I say i am.. But you will say i am not.. so what??

    And if you say i am non-muslim does that make me any less important, any less capable of good deeds and prayer to God, any less worthy of life than you?? If you say yes then you are guilty of the hubris that since the begining of history has been the undoing of empires. You are NOT better than i no matter whether you say i am muslim or not.

    And btw as a muslim one's primary concern is with ALLAH'S CREATION. That means not just muslims, but ALL HUMAN BEINGS. It means all living things, our environment our flora and fauna and our planet. The holy Prophet (pbuh) never sought the benefit of muslims at the cost of non-muslims. He was the leader and his concern was for ALL the members of his state. Likewise with the 4 Khalifas. They were not small minded bigots like you who only cares for his tribe. they were leaders of humanity and cared for ALL.

    Lastly you ask whether muslims are treated as second grade citizens in the rest of the world. I can certainly assure you that IN NO WESTERN COUNTRY is a person barred from higher office based on their religion. IN NO CHRISTIAN COUNTRY can you be arrested for preaching your belief( save for those who preach violence). In NO CHRISTIAN COUNTRY does your religious affiliation make you a second grade citizen..

    Yet in "the land of the pure" a non-muslim cannot become president even if he wins popular elections. Here a non-muslim cannot preach his belief. Here a non-muslim cannot expect to win a case against a muslim on account of the fact that a muslim's testimony counts for more than a non-muslim's.

    DO not give me this BS about discrimination against muslims. Even where there is social discrimination, there is NEVER any legal or constitutional discrimination.

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 16:55 #
  13. hkbajwa
    Member

    @ Salam

    Humanists do not worships humans.. they worship HUMANITY...
    THey believe in the preservation and progress of Ashraf-ul-Makhlooqat..

    They worship God through the just treatment of their fellow human beings..

    As opposed to fundo muslims who worship God by killing those of his creation whom they don't agree with..

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 16:58 #
  14. hkbajwa
    Member

    @ Salam

    In one of your earlier posts you say that without the hadith, the Quran is meaningless

    That is certainly NOT SO. In fact i believe it is fear of deeper meaning and differing opinions that makes people say that.

    God has said that the Quran contains all that a person needs. And in that there can be no doubt. It does not state that without the hadith you cannot gain knowledge and benefit from the Quran because you most certainly CAN.

    Posted 1 year ago on 18 Feb 2010 17:31 #
  15. Salam
    member

    hkbajwa,

    actually i am trying to say in practical terms if we disconnect the 'context'/hadith from qur'an then the meanings do not make sense, the connection is necessary. for example qur'an orders to pray, but how to pray? qur'an orders hajj, but how to perform hajj? qur'an gives orders but the way of execution was demonstrated by the prophet who showed us how to perform these orders -this is just a logical explanation- of course there are evidences from Qur'an that order muslims to follow the prophet because he does not say or do things from his desires but performs according to 'wahi', this is sharia/jurisprudence debate

    similarly jurists have already established why would a muslim want to obey source of hadith, ijma-us-sahaba or qayaas-

    for me this is a non-issue for muslims because there is complete unity on this from all muslims-

    wallahu-allam, i am just trying to answer to the best of my capability, this deen is Allah's deen and He has taken the ownership of it so He will make it dominant over all other deen-

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 3:35 #
  16. hkbajwa
    Member

    @ Salam

    I understand what you mean. Hadith and sunnah show the practical application of Quran edicts.

    But let's take the issue of prayer for instance. God wishes for man to pray to the One True God. But if the Quran says "pray" without specifiying HOW to pray, does that not mean that ALL prayers directed towards the One True God count.

    Now if a christian prays to God, is he not actually following a Quranic edict? Where in the Quran does it say that prayer can only take one specified shape?

    You see i believe in an Islam that is inclusive and not exclusive. If a man is honest, God fearing, compassionate and acts with integrity, then what does it matter what he calls his belief. He would clearly be following Quranic edicts and as such worthy of respect. But mankind is a xenophobic species and desires clear definitions of groupings and strict uniformity. that is why most muslims would dismiss such a christian as hell-bound simply because his worship and good deeds do not have the same shape as theirs. Yet what good does it do to exclude a good man from the ranks of the good simply because his rituals differ? I would think that a "muslim" who cheats, lies, steals and prays for 'show" ought to be excluded before a good man with different rituals.

    My point here really is that hadith create certain restrictions and narrow down the words of the Quran to make the "muslim" tag more exclusive. It makes it harder to be classified as muslim, or at least classified as a "good" person.

    I actually very sincerely suggest that certain western countries ought to call themselves Islamic Republics. This is because their social system follows the ideals set by the Quran much more closely than "muslim" countries. In fact their laws tend to be more Islamic and their societies adhere to these laws much more than "muslim" societies. WHy should they not be called muslim? I think they are muslim, but they just don't know it yet.

    Anyhow the hadith, their interpretation and their authentication are a constant source of conflict. They create doubt and disagreement. yet the Quran does not. it is a book without contradiction and without doubt. So why not let it be the only ultimate word?

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 6:03 #
  17. NNL
    member

    lol

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 6:13 #
  18. Salam
    member

    Well, Allah swt rejects shirk in Qur'an and condemns mushrikeen so what they do or how they worship is irrelevant because of flaw at core belief-

    for me the real subject here is rejection of hadith- well muslims do not reject hadith so this is a non-issue for general masses, but i am trying to see why minority ahmadi or pervaizi or orientalists need this disconnection?

    i am not sure how you reached the conclusion:

    Anyhow the hadith, their interpretation and their authentication are a constant source of conflict. They create doubt and disagreement. yet the Quran does not. it is a book without contradiction and without doubt. So why not let it be the only ultimate word?

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 7:15 #
  19. hkbajwa
    Member

    @ salam

    Well what i am trying to say is that shirk does not damage muslims, it certainly does not damage God or society. The only loser is the Mushrik himself. That is what i meant by saying that being a non-believer is a punishment in itself.

    Yet if a man is shooting himself in the foot by beleiving in multiple gods, yet still follows the laws of the Quran (albeit unwittingly, or through the texts of other abrahamic religions), then why should he not be appreciated for his goodness?

    God does not tell us to worship only him because he needs his ego massaged. he tells us to worship only one god for OUR BENEFIT. Those people who belive that all of creation has a single source and that all of creation is linked into a singular web, have a much healthier view of the universe. So being a mushrik holds the punishment within itself because one loses out on the peace that belief in a single God brings to the human soul.

    Yet only God can judge the worth of a human in the hereafter. If God so chooses he may put a hindu in heaven and muslim in hell. WHy you ask?/ Well because the hindu respected his parents, espoused honesty, cared for his fellow beings, gave to charity and worshipped his bhagwan every day of his life, where as the "muslim" cheated, stole, raped and pillaged his entire life.

    I would like to assume that a merciful and just God would not dismiss a good hindu simply because he didn't call himself a muslim and didn't acquire the rituals of muslims. I would hope that God judges man by his worth and not his religious affiliation.

    When a man says the kalma and declares himself muslim, he has done no more than state his intention to be a good muslim. whether he has managed to do that remains for God to judge. But a hindu also may not declare his intention to be a good muslim, but through his actions might actually be one.

    The conclusion that i have reached is based on the fact that even today there is no true agreement between allt he sects of Islam as to which hadith are true and which are not.

    I just find it unwise to quibble over which spectacles to view the Quran through, when it is perfectly possible to view it without the spectacles of hadith. Instead of arguing over those texts whose origins have not been guaranteed by god, why don't we instead argue over the text for which God himself takes full responsiblity. At least in that way our arguments will be based on an agreed text.

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 8:10 #
  20. Salam
    member

    strange, you find it unwise to quibble over which spectacles to view the qur'an through while qur'an itself is ordering you to choose the spectacles of Prophet Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wasalam-

    there is specialized field known as sciences of hadith with a lot of work done by classical scholars, so again a generalized comment of no true agreement between all the sects of Islam is baseless-

    secondly school of thought or maslak is not a sect- division/sect or firqa is when tafreeq is made in aqeedah such as ahmadi aqeeeda considers mirza ghulam to be a prophet- so they made a difference in aqeedah hence they are out of the circle-

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 9:04 #
  21. hkbajwa
    Member

    @ Salam

    I must fairly admit that my understanding of islamic jurisprudence isn't exactly stellar so i can only ever argue based on common sense and personal conviction.

    i would take issue with your statement that there is true agreement about the hadith between all sects of islam. If there was such agreement then there would not be such levels of disagreement between the sects of Islam.

    Even though classical scholars have autheticated the hadith and that there are people who make it their life's work to study the science of hadith, it is by no means an infallible science. There are always things lost in translation and transmission , especially since most of them were compiled from oral history which invariably changes ever so slightly over time. A word omitted here, a phrase altered there, it all adds up over time.

    I'm not saying there is wilful falsification, but merely that the hadith are not the most accurate of histories. only the Quran is.

    Anyhow as i said, i lack the knowledge to take you to task on this topic :)

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 10:34 #
  22. Salam
    member

    okay no problem, i also don't want to go into the sciences of hadith on how they were preserved, how each carrier was checked and evaluated on what basis and how references were cross-examined, what are qata'i hadith and what sahih hadith, what is ilm-ur-rejaal- there were people who just dedicated their whole life to make sure that they collected what is 100% truth and there is already 100% agreement among muslims on this-

    Posted 1 year ago on 19 Feb 2010 12:07 #
  23. skunk
    Member

    Can anyone hear explain that what is the system you guys want? If Khilafat was the best system it would not have perished within 25 years of Holy Prophets death.

    Secondly, tread your words carefully, most people here are trying to convince others that Khilafat is part of Islamic faith when it is not. There are only five articles of faith and that does not include Khilafat. Even the long list of Bukhari Shareef ahadiths in Kitab ul Iman does not comment in this regard as is being done here. Khilafat is not part of Islam, it may be inspired by Islamic principles but it cannot be part of it.

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Feb 2010 19:24 #
  24. netengr
    blocked

    Islam was completed on Hajj atul wida ,and there is no such thing as "Islamic System " in Islam ,Still no oone can present Islamic system ,This is just a man made concept ,Those who are supporting them are not really religious they are socialist Islamist ,This is a Bidat "innovation " by Moududi ,syed qutub and others .

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddwn4xg7_2dbk53tfx

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Feb 2010 19:37 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.