What do the Taliban want?

[dray]

Well then; thank you for your input.
Now going by what you have said in response to my questions....... (In your opinion/considered view) Pakistan of today is in line with what was spelt out in the Objectives Resolution of 1949 but is not in conformance with the Quaid's view/intention for his country.

Which then leads to my next question: Then what are the Islamists/Sharia proponents (and other inheritors of Maudoodi's legacy; whose favorite activity was to abuse Jinnah in the most vile terms) complaining about? Have they not achieved the Pakistan of their dreams (even though it is not of the Quaid's dreams)???

No, the Islamists haven't achieved their dreams, at least not fully, as the Objectives Resolution has not been put into practice fully.

The issue is clear and cut until and unless governments start the work on establishment of Shariah we may end TTP but we would end it and find out we would soon face bigger militant group. So until governments start implementation of Shariah these groups will not stop. Now for those jokers who want to ask the most dumb question of which Shariah or of whose sect for them my answer is we just need to gather 50 Ulemas from all major sects in Pakistan I mean Barelvi, Deoband, Salafi and Shias and ask them to come up with 50 to 100 common points which governments should enforce, if the can come up with more better, and I can assure you they would come up with hundreds of points which our secular traitors will not like at all. So until government comes up with something these groups are not going to end and also Muslim governments need to solve issue of Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine and ask USA and NATO to get lost from Afghanistan. If they do this all support for these groups or more than 90 % support for these groups will vanish if not than keep fighting for next 1000 years still war will not end.

And how would you select your leaders then to run the country, I guess democracy is not compatible with sharia?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

No, the Islamists haven't achieved their dreams, at least not fully, as the Objectives Resolution has not been put into practice fully.

And how would you select your leaders then to run the country, I guess democracy is not compatible with sharia?

Of course there is then the BIG QUESTION; What is Sharia compatible with?
Apart from being compatible with Sharia itself.......

 

[Dash]

@Oscar just for the theory of Jinnah against partition.

It was Jinnah who raised the cry at lahoreLahore. Although he was a moderate statesman who tutored the liberal traditions of Dadabhai naooroji, was defiant and much to the satisfaction of Muslim concentration in his speech at Lahore in 1940. He refuted then theory of a plural and composite nationhood, which was actually advocated by Ajmal khan, Ansari and Azad.
So in all probability I didn't see it as a power sharing issue that drove him to this conclusion of common nationality for Hindu and Muslim.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar just for the theory of Jinnah against partition.

It was Jinnah who raised the cry at lahoreLahore. Although he was a moderate statesman who tutored the liberal traditions of Dadabhai naooroji, was defiant and much to the satisfaction of Muslim concentration in his speech at Lahore in 1940. He refuted then theory of a plural and composite nationhood, which was actually advocated by Ajmal khan, Ansari and Azad.
So in all probability I didn't see it as a power sharing issue that drove him to this conclusion of common nationality for Hindu and Muslim.

Lahore 1940.. after the Indian congress government that effected his views

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Lahore 1940.. after the Indian congress government that effected his views

So was there NOTHING in the behaviour of the Muslim League which
Convinced Congress that Partition was the best option AND that
we could not work together

@Dash @Oscar

After arguing for years that Hindus and Muslims could work together, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel failed the acid test of working with the Muslim League when the British put them together in the interim Cabinet of 1946-47.

Muslim League finance minister Liaqat Ali riled Congress ministers by holding up financial sanctions for even minor things they proposed. Liaqat then presented a high-tax budget in 1947 to soak businesses that had made huge profits in World War II. Congressmen interpreted this as an attack on Hindu businessmen by a Muslim finance minister.

This was an unwarranted, communal interpretation: the high taxes fell equally on Hindu and Muslim businesses. Yet, Congress stalwarts concluded it was impossible to work with Jinnah, and that a clean Partition would be better. That's how Partition happened, through the voluntary agreement of both the Congress and the Muslim League.

Source Independence Day: Why Partition was a good thing for India - Economic Times

 

[SQ8]

So was there NOTHING in the behaviour of the Muslim League which
Convinced Congress that Partition was the best option AND that
we could not work together

@Dash @Oscar

After arguing for years that Hindus and Muslims could work together, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel failed the acid test of working with the Muslim League when the British put them together in the interim Cabinet of 1946-47.

Muslim League finance minister Liaqat Ali riled Congress ministers by holding up financial sanctions for even minor things they proposed. Liaqat then presented a high-tax budget in 1947 to soak businesses that had made huge profits in World War II. Congressmen interpreted this as an attack on Hindu businessmen by a Muslim finance minister.

This was an unwarranted, communal interpretation: the high taxes fell equally on Hindu and Muslim businesses. Yet, Congress stalwarts concluded it was impossible to work with Jinnah, and that a clean Partition would be better. That's how Partition happened, through the voluntary agreement of both the Congress and the Muslim League.

Source Independence Day: Why Partition was a good thing for India - Economic Times

Somehow the article conveniently ignores the attitude of the Congress government in 35.

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

The issue is clear and cut until and unless governments start the work on establishment of Shariah we may end TTP but we would end it and find out we would soon face bigger militant group. So until governments start implementation of Shariah these groups will not stop. Now for those jokers who want to ask the most dumb question of which Shariah or of whose sect for them my answer is we just need to gather 50 Ulemas from all major sects in Pakistan I mean Barelvi, Deoband, Salafi and Shias and ask them to come up with 50 to 100 common points which governments should enforce, if the can come up with more better, and I can assure you they would come up with hundreds of points which our secular traitors will not like at all. So until government comes up with something these groups are not going to end and also Muslim governments need to solve issue of Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine and ask USA and NATO to get lost from Afghanistan. If they do this all support for these groups or more than 90 % support for these groups will vanish if not than keep fighting for next 1000 years still war will not end.

The TTP aren't fighting for the Shariah, they're fighting against the Shariah. The Shariah doesn't tell you to go and blow up buildings (or rather, kill innocent children).

There may be an argument and a sentiment to see the state to be "more Islamic", but you misrespresent what it is to be "Islamic" (the welfare state, free healthcare, education for all are all an inherent part of a hypothetical "Islamic State" - yet people like yourself want something else), and the means, per the Shariah, to achieve political reform.

The Sharia points to peaceful means as to achieving political reform. It does not support armed conflict or miscreancy (the like of Jamaati dogs).

Zarvan, you talk much of Shariah, but where did you get this basis for all the Ulema sitting down together and coming up with something? Give me proof and evidence for your method from authoritative sources.

What you represent here is a regressive tendency. You think up solutions that don't have an Islamic (that is, per fiqh/the Shariah) to problems. No. If you want to implement the Shariah then implement first in your own body.

 

[Dash]

@Oscar so you say that 1940 was a culmination of event that started in in 1930 with Asimilar idiology? Or congress had an influence before that my friend.
Which year was that you think was the starting point of Muslim league we will rest at that.

[Asj TE="Capt.Popeye, post: 6593335, member: 25913"]Of course there is then the BIG QUESTION; What is Sharia compatible with?
Apart from being compatible with Sharia itself.......[/QUOTE]

Ask the question to Jews you will get the real answer. Why ask him, when u know it!

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....

Which then leads to my next question: Then what are the Islamists/Sharia proponents (and other inheritors of Maudoodi's legacy; whose favorite activity was to abuse Jinnah in the most vile terms) complaining about? Have they not achieved the Pakistan of their dreams (even though it is not of the Quaid's dreams)???

They want more Islamism.

you know they will not rest until Pakistan resembles Islamist Emirates aka Islamist Jahunnum of Somalia.

......

The Sharia points to peaceful means as to achieving political reform. It does not support armed conflict or miscreancy (the like of Jamaati dogs).
.

Sharia in the books may point to moon or mars, or even to the whole milky way

But please do not forget the reality when Sharia is really implemented. As it is nothing but malookiat in the name of Islam.

Shariat went brought into the open is so violent, and murderous that

Three of the "Rashid" Khalifas went to next world thanks to the pointy end of sword.
These Khalifas themselves fought with other Muslims and killed 1000s of sahabis.

And yet you say my bro,

That Sharia points to peaceful means.

Heck no!

......


Zarvan, you talk much of Shariah, but where did you get this basis for all the Ulema sitting down together and coming up with something? Give me proof and evidence for your method from authoritative sources..

Zarvan is an Islamist bot.

you cannot convince him of his Khariji methods being worst than pig's behavior.

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

Sharia in the books may point to moon or mars, or even to the whole milky way

But please do not forget the reality when Sharia is really implemented. As it is nothing but malookiat in the name of Islam.

Shariat went brought into the open is so violent, and murderous that

Three of the "Rashid" Khalifas went to next world thanks to the pointy end of sword.
These Khalifas themselves fought with other Muslims and killed 1000s of sahabis.

And yet you say my bro,

That Sharia points to peaceful means.

Heck no!

You make a number of rather fallacious claims. Firstly, Sharia is Islamic law and like secular legal systems, it is found in the books; you do not make it up as you go along. In essence, what you're saying is that the substantive nature of Islamic law calls to violence - if so, then do, please, provide evidence rather than grandiose claims. Neither is it utopian: it seeks to regulate human conduct, it doesn't act in a vacuum to human nature.

Only Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA) were killed as a the result of the First Fitnah (i.e., civil war). Umar (RA) was killed by a Persian Assassin, not his own Muslims (it is worse than, for example, blaming American Constitutional Law for the assassination of Kennedy: at least Oswald himself was an American).

War and Political Strife are facts of human nature. Remember that secular/athiestic idealogy (capitalism, imperialism, communism) killed far more people in the 20th century than the combined total of previous centuries (as per Zbignew Berzenski).

As to the fitnah of the Khwarij during the time of the Rashidun Khalifs, there are a number of dimensions that need to be considered:

1.) To discard the Shariah totally on the basis of the existence of war and conflict is flawed: war and conflict are human nature. It exists since time and will to the end of it.

2.) The Khwarij were a criminal movement as per the Shariah; they left the boundaries that the Sharia imposed and transgressed: if a criminal commits a crime, that doesn't make the law criminal (if you want a maxim).

3.) The Khwarij weren't a group Sahabas (RA) - rather, the Sahabas (RA) fought against them. They fought against the Sahabas (RA) and made takfir of them.

4.) In theological terms, the Khwarij were predicted by Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam; they didn't arise out of Shariah, rather, were a test for the Muslim nation.

 

[FaujHistorian]

You make a number of rather fallacious claims. Firstly, Sharia is Islamic law and like secular legal systems, it is found in the books; you do not make it up as you go along. In essence, what you're saying is that the substantive nature of Islamic law calls to violence - if so, then do, please, provide evidence rather than grandiose claims. Neither is it utopian: it seeks to regulate human conduct, it doesn't act in a vacuum to human nature.

Only Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA) were killed as a the result of the First Fitnah (i.e., civil war). Umar (RA) was killed by a Persian Assassin, not his own Muslims (it is worse than, for example, blaming American Constitutional Law for the assassination of Kennedy: at least Oswald himself was an American).

War and Political Strife are facts of human nature. Remember that secular/athiestic idealogy (capitalism, imperialism, communism) killed far more people in the 20th century than the combined total of previous centuries (as per Zbignew Berzenski).

As to the fitnah of the Khwarij during the time of the Rashidun Khalifs, there are a number of dimensions that need to be considered:

1.) To discard the Shariah totally on the basis of the existence of war and conflict is flawed: war and conflict are human nature. It exists since time and will to the end of it.

2.) The Khwarij were a criminal movement as per the Shariah; they left the boundaries that the Sharia imposed and transgressed: if a criminal commits a crime, that doesn't make the law criminal (if you want a maxim).

3.) The Khwarij weren't a group Sahabas (RA) - rather, the Sahabas (RA) fought against them. They fought against the Sahabas (RA) and made takfir of them.

4.) In theological terms, the Khwarij were predicted by Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam; they didn't arise out of Shariah, rather, were a test for the Muslim nation.

Assassination of Umar rah was the first drop of poison, everything went downhill after the first drop.

your comparison with JFK is 5th grader logic only true if American system would have fallen apart like a wall of Arab sand

Oh bhai,

you are refusing to question the false idols set up by Mullahs

you do not realize that sharia was coined and put in books in the days of kings and emperors. Thus it suffers from instability and malookiat just like the reign of centuries old contemporary non-Muslims kings and emperors.

Today much of the civilized world's non-Muslims kings and emperors. have ditched old habits

But Sharia is stuck in the stone age.

And if you want to update it and bring it to the modern days, your efforts typically result in even more fitnas much bigger than what was faced by Rashid Khalifas .

So it is your choice .

Stick to stone age donkey carts

or move to jet and rocket age of political systems.

Choice is certainly yours

But if you insist on riding donkeys and camels, and when your donkey gets crushed by fast moving bus on the super highway

do not come back and tell us that the bus driver conspired to kill your donkey.

Thank you


p.s.

Sharia set in stone aka books is precisely Allah forbade us to follow.
Setting things in stone and making them unchangeable in the name of gods was the pagan philosophy. Unfortunately Muslims are doing what pagans of Makkah were doing and now ignorant Mullah of Saudi and Ayatullah of Iran are doing. All paganism much much much worse than the original paganism

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

Sharia was coined and put in books in the days of kings and emperors. Thus it suffers from instability and malookiat just like the reign of contemporary non-Muslims kings and emperors.

Much of the civilized world's non-Muslims kings and emperors. have ditched old habits

But Sharia is stuck in the stone age.

And if you want to update it and bring it to the modern days, the efforts result in even more fitnas much bigger than what was faced by Rashid Khalifas .

So it is your choice .

Stick to stone age donkey carts

or move to jet and rocket age of political systems.

Choice is certainly yours

But when your donkey gets crushed by fast moving bus on the super highway

do not come back and tell us that the bus driver conspired to kill your donkey.

Thank you


p.s.

Sharia set in stone aka books is precisely Allah forbade us to follow.
Setting things in stone and making them unchangeable in the name of gods was the pagan philosophy. Unfortunately Muslims are doing what pagans of Makkah were doing and now ignorant Mullah of Saudi and Ayatullah of Iran are doing. All paganism much much much worse than the original paganism

It was built around donkey

You compare Muslims to Pagans, and this is exactly what the TTP do. Good show, old boy. The difference is they wrap up their garbage in false religiosity whereas you raise it in the name of modernity. Tell me this, which political philosophy and system of Government do you advocate?

I don't see how you can say Shariah is stuck in the stone-age: Shariah simply is a legal system. There are issues that will remain since time, and the Shariah, like other legal and moral codes ("law") regulates those: the time in which it made rulings on them, that is, general rulings, is irrelevant. As for matters of rigidity, I point you to the works of Ibn Abidin (a Google, for our purposes, will suffice).

I don't see how the modern era is the "jet and rocket age of political systems": there are limitations to the modern conceptions of the nation state and systems of Government. The frequent gridlock in the American system, for one, by no means allows it to move at jet speed. Do give me a few examples of modern nations on which you'd like for Pakistan to base its legal and governmental system on: it's easy to criticize for criticism's sake.

The fitnahs - strife - of the Rashidun Caliphs is characterisic of human nature, and can be found in secular systems too. I fear to be taken in under the illusion of a "utopia" (the word itself a satire by the Greeks). In the search for Utopias humanity has been lead to totalitarianism.

As for the donkey being crushed by fast moving buses on super highways, I point you to this: the failure of liberal democracy in Weimar Germany, and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union. Of course, one can also point to the illiberal nature of American Capitalism which has resulted in millions being left without healthcare for decades (Obama Care being a relatively new innovation which doesn't do the job well, and seems to be on the way out - billions wasted).

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....Tell me this, which political philosophy and system of Government do you advocate?
.

your question indicates that you are not even familiar with the abc of political science.
just like so many Sharia supporters.

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

your question indicates that you are not even familiar with the abc of political science.
just like so many Sharia supporters.

Dear, before questioning somebody's understanding of political science, do try to question one's own literacy ability. Especially when such lines of questioning, apart from their structural flaws, are abundant in historical distortions and use of philosophical fallacies. Perhaps for some soldiery is the only pursuit.

Do leave the critiques of political philosophy to ones that have studied it.

As to Sharia supporters, I wonder what you'd make of this:

"I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago." (Jinnah.)

 

[FaujHistorian]

As to Sharia supporters, I wonder what you'd make of this:

"I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago." (Jinnah.)

hahahaha

So Jinnah used the word Sharia
Tell me where he said heads will be chopped and Ahamdis will be hanged for blasphemy?

oh poor thing,

Jinnah's sharia was for speaking truth and setting up a nice society and a nation state.

But you all come down and shove the Mullahism .

Strange really strange

If you are that fond of Jinnah's lifestyle (and I know from your post, you are not), you will not be peddling Sharia poison like Mullah Modooodi while pretending to be jinnah's follower

This is the worst possible interpretation of Jinnah I have ever seen .

if you are brave enough, quote the full speech

Thank you