Friday, May 28, 2010

Muslims Slaughter 70 of My People, Who Are Also Muslims

Chaudary/AP

70 worshipers were slaughtered today in Lahore, Pakistan, and the death toll is still growing. 1500 people had poured into their mosques this morning to pray and worship, and they were met with gunfire, grenades, and suicide bombers. Reports indicate that two militants detonated themselves during the assault. This coordinated attack, conducted at two separate sites, comes on Friday, the Muslim sabbath day.

The victims were Ahmadi Muslims, the sect of Islam in which I was born and raised. This minority Muslim sect is the target of relentless persecution. The Pakistani government itself has all but declared war on this minority, denying them any support and concocting laws to incarcerate and torture them. Persecution such as this is the very reason my entire family left Pakistan in the past few decades, although I have some distant relatives and a few close cousins who are there right now. As of yet, I have not heard if they are safe, and I'm anxiously awaiting news. This hits close to home for me, folks.

Allow me to give some brief background and commentary. Why are the Ahmadis so persecuted? Is it that they speak blasphemy against Allah? No, they worship Allah. Do they draw cartoons of Muhammad? No, they hold Muhammad in equally high reverence as other Muslims. Well, do they desecrate the Qur'an? No, they read it, recite it, and memorize it regularly with all the respect they can accord to it. In fact, when I was an Ahmadi, I was taught the Shahadah, all 6 Articles of Faith and all 5 Pillars of Islam exactly as all other Muslims have learned them.

So then why are the Ahmadis so persecuted? It has to do with their eschatological beliefs. Non-Ahmadi Muslims say Jesus is going to literally descend from heaven to initiate the end-times, whereas Ahmadis say Jesus was foretold to figuratively descend from heaven, and that his second coming has already happened in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. When Mirza Ghulam Ahmad came, he taught the most peaceful interpretation of Islam imaginable, and Ahmadi Muslims hold to this set of teachings.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims are often infuriated at Ahmadi teachings because of the doctrine of Khatam-an-Nabiyeen, i.e. that Muhammad was the last prophet. Ahmadis respond by saying Ahmad is not a new prophet after Muhammad, but the expected second coming of Jesus.

That's about it, ladies and gentlemen! That's enough to send Muslims into a murderous frenzy against Ahmadis. In fact, the sixth President of Pakistan Zia-ul-Haq was recorded as having said the following:

"Ahmadis are heretics and they offend me. I have a sacred duty to Allah to rid Pakistan of these impostors. I intend to drive them out... Ordinance XX may violate human rights but I don't care."
During his regime, "he and members of his administration made numerous public speeches urging Pakistanis to seek out, expose and even to kill Ahmadis." Source
So the Muslim people at large in Pakistan, as well as the government itself, are actively engaged in persecuting, incarcerating, and killing Ahmadis. Whole blogs and media outlets have been dedicated to this persecution.

So what does this have to do with us? Well, you already know what it has to do with me, what does it have to do with you? 3 things.

1 - Act on behalf of the persecuted around the world! It is sick that so many people around the world are dying for their beliefs. Pray for their deliverance from murderous ideologies and militants, regardless of their creed or national allegiance. Speak up, whenever you get the chance, to defend the rights of the oppressed.

2 - Understand that Islam is not homogeneous. There are Muslims of many different kinds, and the ones you encounter can vary widely in their beliefs and practices, even if they are observant and devout.

3 - Stop the spread of mainstream Islamic theology before we suffer the same fate! For the Ahmadis whom I love, they have an unfortunate truth to grapple with: mainstream Islam is not peaceful! Though Ahmadis may espouse peace, they are in the minority. Mainstream Islam will take over governments and impose vicious, violent laws (have you read the history of Pakistan? It was set up as a nation to be run for and by Muslims.)

If this is what the Muslims are doing with people who love the Qur'an and love Muhammad, what do you think they are going to do with people like us if they gain a foothold in the West? We need to act now. Stand up for your freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of expression.

The tide is coming, this is the time.

By the way, I just checked the death toll. It's rising.


*** UPDATE ***

I have heard word from my family; some of my distant relatives (whom I did not know) have been killed. The congregation at my parents' mosque is rife with mourning over the loss of loved ones.

This is the way Islam is, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake about it. From the very beginning, Muslims marched against Muslims and slaughtered each other. I'm not talking about power-mongers hundreds of years after Muhammad hijacking Islam for personal profit. I'm talking about Aisha, the wife of Muhammad, marching against Ali, Muhammad's closest cousin and one of the four rightly guided caliphs, just 24 years after Muhammad died. 50,000 Muslims met each other in battle that day, and 10,000 were slain. Muslims have been killing each other ever since.

Massacre, violence, and brutality from its very inception. This is the enemy we are fighting.

41 comments:

Simon said...

i want a straight forward answer from any muslim on this blog regarding this matter.

YES I WANT THE TRUTH.
A STRAIGHT FORWARD ANSWER. BUT I DOUBT I WILL GET THAT.

Simon said...

nabeel

i just want to say thats im your and david biggest fan. u guys r the coolest. i hope to meet u one day in person and take u guys out for some desi food.

Simon

Bfoali said...

Have not been here in a while and look what I see! Very sad news, BUT there is NO DOUBT (sorry for the capitals) but this is NOT something which can be justified from scriptures.

Here is a verse, which is crystal clear:

[004:093] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.

So when the person who posted this said, that this is Islam, he is wrong, and I –with all due respect- believe he is misinforming his readers by saying so. Once again refer to the above verse.

Another victim which I have seen from this post is also History. The poster makes it seem as if it was the Prophets cousin Imam Ali who instigated the war, it was not, and even many Sunni Muslims agree to this fact (though not all).
But I hope this does not turn into a whole who started this war or that. Sad news about the victims. As a person who has lost many family members due to cancer, I CANT imagine loosing a family member because of anothers hatred. That is a horror I cant imgaine.

minoria said...

Nabeel:
I grieve over your relatives who were killed,it is sad.It was a useless,meaningless,stupid death.I don't expect any protests in Pakistan against the murder of Ahmadis.
As I have same SEVERAL times:the best way to HELP those people is by letting them emigrate to the West for 2 reasons:

1.The West,especially Europe,needs immigrants.Europe needs at least 50 million by 2050 just to MAINTAIN its present population of 500 million.

2.For HUMAN RIGHTS reasons.
I had said it referring to non-Muslims but come to think of it,Ahmadis should ALSO be included as qualifing for special treatment and priority as immigrants.

I don't know what else to say,words are hard to come by.

David Wood said...

Bfoali,

Notice that, according to the verse you quoted, it's wrong to kill BELIEVERS. Pakistani Muslims generally don't regard Ahmadis as believers; thus, they feel justified in butchering them. Care to show us a verse that condemns killing unbelievers?

Bfoali said...

Hi David,
Oh I see,

Well than I will show a verse which condemns killing ‘non’ Muslims.

Here is the verse:

[005:032] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Now you might say

‘’ well Bfoali, this verse is ONLY applicable to the children of Isreal, please don’t try to fool us’’

Well this verse according to Shia Tafsir and interpretations is STILL applicable to today.

Here is what Tafsir Al-Mizan has to say (this is one of our best interpretations...I hope this statement does not come to bite me in the behind later on!)

‘’ ... The principle that killing one man is tantamount to killing all men and keeping one person alive is like keeping all men alive, is applicable to all killings taking place in human species; it is not reserved to any particular killing...’’

He explains why, but it is rather long to paste, but if you would like to know why, I am sure you can find a link to the interpretation via Google.com

David Wood said...

Hi Bfoali,

Before we discuss this verse, could you quote the next verse so that people have the context? Thanks.

Bfoali said...

Sure I could,

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

David Wood said...

So you would agree, wouldn't you, that if someone "makes mischief" in a Muslim land (such as Pakistan), the person should be brutally murdered?

Bfoali said...

No I do not believe so

Mkvine said...

This is horrible! Nabeel, you and your family are in my prayers.

The Fat Man said...

Wow,Nabeel when I first saw this on then news this morning my thoughts were "I hope Nabeel's family is ok".

This reminds me of when Sunni Muslim Missionaries shared their faith in Mumbi India. I worked with a guy from Mumbai he was so distraught the whole time at work trying to get information. He finally found out that his immediate family was safe but he did loose a friend.

Small world.

The Fat Man said...

Bfoli

You quoted the last part of the verse that talks about people making mischief in the land should be executed, and the methods that may be used to achieve this goal.

So let me ask you do you agree with the Quranic Position that someone who creates Mischief in a land where Islam is supreme that they should be executed by the Islamic State?

dasize said...

"Bfoali said...
No I do not believe so"

Then you must reject the Koran!

Bfoali said...

Let me clarify something quickly. Shia Muslims believe that a true Islamic state is only accomplished with the presence of one the descendents of the Prophets family. So an ideal Islamic state is not Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

So therefore if a person wages war, meaning if someone wages war, or creates mischief in the land such as being a highway robber or a disturber of the peace, such as pulling out his sword in violence, and is captured without seeking forgiveness, (Islam EVEN after all the above is done allows for the person to receive forgiveness), than yes he should be punished.

Now in Islamic history how has this verse been used? Well in one hadith (it is found in the Mizan interpretation) a group killed THREE individuals these people who killed three people had waged war against the Prophet and Allah and they were maimed.

So once again, if the culprits wage war, strive to make mischief (robbery or pulling out a sword to slay someone) and in the end DO NOT REPENT (according to another hadith in the same source a lady was IN THE COMPANY of the Muslims and STILL could ask for forgiveness) than depending on what they did they should be punished.

So to re-cap:
1) They have to wage war such (one group killed three people)
2) Strive to cause mischief (such as being highway robbers and/or pulling out a sword to slay someone)
3) And/or do not even seek to repent, either before being captured or while captured

Then they (depending on what they do) should be punished.

But I think if anyone looks at the facts, punishment is quite easy to evade because everything is done is by the will of the person, and he even has the opportunity to repent in company of the Muslims or before.

Bfoali said...

Dazie,
No I do not have to reject the Quran.

Pakistan is not a state which has the authority to implement any Islamic laws, hence I do not believe the law is applicable (the law which will punish those who wage war, strive to create mischief, and refuse to repent) in Pakistan.

Odo said...

Oh my gosh! The conversation I just read between Bfoali and David made me laugh so hard: "No I do not believe so" :P

Bfoali, I dont want to get in a dispute with you or nething, but you just threw some verse out there and when you were corrected all you did was say "I see" and tried for another verse.

So? Either you were lying when you posted the first verse, or you don't know your own faith and need a non Muslim to educate you.

Then you threw out another verse which says to mutilate or kill for mischief and when you were asked if you think this verse commands to kill for mischief you said "I do not believe so"!? What is going on here man, seriously? It's inconsistent.

Now I am reading your interpretation (i.e. explanation), and you are NOW saying the person SHOULD be killed for mischief, but only if they are pulling out a sword or robbing someone. This seems really relativistic to me, like you just threw in your own interpretation of mischief. Im sure there are other instances and meanings for 'mischief' from the Quran and Hadith.

For instance, say someone is standing outside the grand mosque in Mecca preaching the Gospel. Im sure this would be seen as mischief by the majority of orthodox Muslims, and I am sure they would be dealt with in the same manner these poor Ahmadi were dealt with.

Odo said...

Nabeel, I am sorry for your family. I will pray for the Ahmadi, and trust me, I am doing my part spreading the word about Islam, even to local police enforcement officials!

I just wish MORE people would SPEAK UP in person.

Zack_Tiang said...

Bfoali said,
"[004:093] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."

Like what David pointed out... who are the 'believers'? Are the Ahmadis qualified as believers by the Quran? So, why the persecution?
Muslims should be going there to minister to those non-Ahmadis and rebuking them for killing other believers and call them to repent; as *supposedly* according to the Quran.


"[005:032] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

"spreading mischief"... You defined it as 'highway robbery' or 'murdering someone with a sword'.. Simple definitions, but there's more, right?
'Speaking against Quran/Islam/Muhammad', 'spreading *false* teachings', '*blastpheming* Jesus or Allah', 'leading Muslims out of Islam', etc...
Sounds like all of these count as '[striving] with might and main for mischief' and even '[waging] war against God and His Apostle'...
Guess it was right for these non-Ahmadis to kill the Ahmadis cause they're preaching contrary to Muhammad's teaching.

So... correct if I'm wrong, Bfoali.. Wouldn't that mean you're mistaken with your understanding of the Quran's teaching?

Bfoali said...

Odo:

With all due respect you just completely misunderstood everything.

So I think I will clarify everything for you.

I said ‘’ I see” AFTER posting a verse about killing believers. David said that Ahamdies were NOT considered Muslims, so I said Oh I see (meaning well I guess if that is what the killers believe this verse is irrelevant to them). I was not corrected, I was informed about what the Pakistani killers thought, which may not even be a general consensus.

I said Oh I see, because I now see how the verse would be irrelevant pertaining to the fact that the killers don’t consider the victims Muslims anyways.

So I don’t know how you think I was lying I, and I know about my faith, but not whether Ahamdiyas are considered heretics or not.

And you must re read what the question was because that was not the question: Here is what you said:

‘’and when you were asked if you think this verse commands to kill for mischief you said "I do not believe so"!? What is going on here man, seriously? It's inconsistent.’’

Sorry Odo, but that was NOT the question here is the question straight from David:
So you would agree, wouldn't you, that if someone "makes mischief" in a Muslim land (such as Pakistan), the person should be brutally murdered?
The question is – as you can see- whether I thought if someone ‘’makes mischief in a Muslim land (such as Pakistan)’’ whether the person can be murdered.

And I said I do not believe so, because Pakistan is not an Islamic state.

How that is inconsistent is beyond me.

I think you are just confusing the postings and should re read them please.

You said:

Now I am reading your interpretation (i.e. explanation),

My reply:
I did not interpret ANYTHING. Once again re read the post between me and David I cited one source and KEPT ON CITING THE SAME SOURCE (I am not yelling just trying to make my point clear).
So sorry but once again your charge against me is based on a false pretence.

Everything dealing with Islamic laws has come from an Islamic scholar, not from me.

Odo, you seem like a very nice person, and if I come across as rude, please forgive me.

I hope you re read the posts though, because you seem to have confused many things.

John Lollard said...

Bfoali,

I'm afraid that I don't know very much at all about Shia beliefs. Could you maybe briefly explain the Shia position on hadith, the sirah, etc.

Like do you guys have your own hadith collections? Or do you accept the same Sunni hadith?

What exactly would you say is the difference? I'm kind of curious. I hope you keep commenting on the blog, and thanks for representing Islam here.

Love in Christ,
JL

Bfoali said...

Hey John,
I would be more than happy to!

The Shia position on hadith is very different from that of Sunni Muslims. We have no Sahih Bukhari, or Sahih Muslim...EVERY hadith has to be authenticated by looking at the chain of transmitters. So for example let us say that there is a hadith collected by a reputable scholar and put into a book, if the hadith does not have a sound chain of transmitters (I heard it from tom, who heard it from dick, who heard it from harry) we will need to do further research if not totally reject it.

We do follow different sets of hadith, our Bukhari is Al-Kafi, but the majority of hadith in Al-Kafi are not trustworthy which shows you our painful process of hadith research. We have many more but I don’t want to spend too much time and bore you.

You asked what exactly the difference is; well the difference is quite simple. You will not find a Shia Hadith transmitted by Abu Hurraira (which if anyone knows two cents on Sunni Islam, knows that he is the transmitter of a huge portion of Sunni hadith).

I used to post a lot on here, but I stopped coming on here quite a while ago, popular to contrary belief high school is quite difficult but in thirteen days (school days) summer begins!

Take care

David Wood said...

Hi Bfoali,

You don't believe in Sunni ahadith. But Sunnis in Pakistan do. So when they interpret the Qur'an, do you expect them to go with Shia interpretations? If they don't go with Shia interpretations, would you still consider them Muslims?

Bfoali said...

Hi David,
Of course I would still consider them Muslims.

And so would many of our scholars. To be honest, I have yet to read a Shia scholar who deems Sunnis outside the fold of Islam. I am sure some do, but I have not read their documents.

Odo said...

Hello Bfoali,

Thank you for the complement. I apologize if I came off shrewd or terse, but please understand seeing 70 people killed in the name of Islam leaves a bad aftertaste, and over and over and over.. You seem like a really intelligible young man, I hope everything goes well with your studies and that you find time in your schedule to acquaint the newer readers, such as me, with your convictions and insights. Have a good break.

Just wanted to mention two things:

You said, (meaning well I guess if that is what the killers believe this verse is irrelevant to them)

Do you believe Ahmadiyya Muslims are believers?

You said, And I said I do not believe so, because Pakistan is not an Islamic state.

How can anyone get away with saying something like that!

minoria said...

Hello John Lollard:
The Shias have their own different hadiths,they don't accept Bukhari.But they ALSO accept deathfor apostates.

I think that INDEPENDENT tradition of death for apostates being approved by Mohamed is proof he did say it.

hugh watt said...

Bfoali said:

"because Pakistan is not an Islamic state."

What then?

If Shia's/ Sunnis are both Muslim, then all the killings between the 2 sides is condemning them to hell according to Islam, right?

Simon said...

bfoali


u said PAKISTAN IS NOT A ISLAMIC STATE. ok there buddy. u seem like a smart person but your knolwledge still lacks. have u ever told that to a paki mulla? i would like to hear wut hes reply wud be.


john lollard said....

and thanks for representing Islam here.


i would like to know y and what the meaning is for thanking him for this? im not trying to cause a problem but im curious.

Bfoali said...

Hello Odo:

You Said:

Do you believe Ahmadiyya Muslims are believers?

You said, And I said I do not believe so, because Pakistan is not an Islamic state.

How can anyone get away with saying something like that!

My Response:

I honestly know more about you than I do about Ahmyiyya’s. So for me to state my own opinion on them would be wrong.

In regards to an Islamic state let me post what I said earlier.

‘’ Let me clarify something quickly. Shia Muslims believe that a true Islamic state is only accomplished with the presence of one the descendents of the Prophets family. So an ideal Islamic state is not Iran, or Saudi Arabia.’’

I wrote that earlier, hence anytime I say some country is not an Islamic state it is because I have another criterion.

Bfoali said...

Zack Said:
"spreading mischief"... You defined it as 'highway robbery' or 'murdering someone with a sword'.. Simple definitions, but there's more, right?
'Speaking against Quran/Islam/Muhammad', 'spreading *false* teachings', '*blastpheming* Jesus or Allah', 'leading Muslims out of Islam', etc...
Sounds like all of these count as '[striving] with might and main for mischief' and even '[waging] war against God and His Apostle'...
Guess it was right for these non-Ahmadis to kill the Ahmadis cause they're preaching contrary to Muhammad's teaching.

So... correct if I'm wrong, Bfoali.. Wouldn't that mean you're mistaken with your understanding of the Quran's teaching?

My response:

I have already clarified that killing one person like killing all of humanity; please refer to an earlier post.

I never defined anything, all rules and laws have come from an Islamic scholar and from the hadith he has quoted. So everything you said is neither what the hadith have said nor what the scholar has said. So with all due respect but unless the scholar changes his interpretation you are wrong. Or maybe I have misread the scholars writings (which I highly doubt, but I will reread again just for you)

Bfoali said...

Hugh Watt said:
Bfoali said:

If Shia's/ Sunnis are both Muslim, then all the killings between the 2 sides is condemning them to hell according to Islam, right?

My Response:
Watt, YES! In Iraq all the crazy killers who are killing Muslims and Christians are going to hell, and if Shias do the same thing than they are going as well.
You cannot kill an innocent person, or a Muslim, in the religion of Islam though many have.

Bfoali said...

Simon Said:

u said PAKISTAN IS NOT A ISLAMIC STATE. ok there buddy. u seem like a smart person but your knolwledge still lacks. have u ever told that to a paki mulla? i would like to hear wut hes reply wud be.


My response:
Simon I am sure they define Pakistan as an Islamic state. I have already stated my belief on an Islamic state. I shall quote it once more:

‘’ Let me clarify something quickly. Shia Muslims believe that a true Islamic state is only accomplished with the presence of one the descendents of the Prophets family. So an ideal Islamic state is not Iran, or Saudi Arabia.’’

Hence, any state which does not fit those criteria is not an Islamic state.

Fernando said...

Dear Nabeel, as always my prayers are withe all those who suffer, daily, at the hands off those who follow islam and in this spetial ocasion, withe your beloved family persons...

may our common God, Jesus, also heal the heart full off venim of muhammad's followers...

Odo said...

Hlo Bfoli

Yes I saw your comment last night only after posting, about the Sunni Hadith. And you did not answer my question this time either (about the believers/un believers)

I just don't understand how a Muslim Sunni majority would react to and treat Ahmadiyya. I hear Muslims publicly accusing Muslims of being heretics because of these things.

When I was watching a debate between a Christian and a Muslim apologist, after the Christian gave his opening statement and talked about being Muslim at one time, the Muslim apologist proclaimed that the Christian wasn't really ever a Muslim because he was Ahmadiyya.

So just hypothetically, if there was to be a grand Sunni Caliphate controlling the dur al Islam, with their interpretations of Hadith and Quran, wouldn't they kind of consider Ahmadiyya non believers automatically, since you know, everyone else is already Sunni Muslim? And what about Shiite Muslims at that point? Wouldn't they be heretical also because they would be in the minority? And what would happen to those minorities? The same thing that happened here?

Now just imagine that the Sunni majority turned to the Quran and Hadith for what to do with these unbelievers when they start acting out in protest because they are being oppressed by the majority (who would be looked up to by the minority, the minority would naturally want to hear this coming out of the majority's mouth: "yes you are all true Muslims (i.e. believers)", and then they would be content – for time being).

And since the Quran is clear enough to be interpreted the way the Taliban interprets it, then what would that majority do? What is the easiest way to deal with those mischievous un-believers causing problems?

You said: I wrote that earlier, hence anytime I say some country is not an Islamic state it is because I have another criterion.

How can anyone get away with saying something like that! (yes I know all about the prophets family ty)

Also I have to point out, your most peaceful verse towards non believers stems from death and killing.

Odo said...

Bfoali,

You said: I honestly know more about you

:P Is that a preconceived notion of who I am based on my religion and a stereotype towards all Christians?

Or did you just hack into my computer and steal my info?

And we are the ones accused of stereotyping!

So what do you know about me Bfoali?

The Berean Search said...

So sad. We ignore these lessons of how Islam treats minority groups at our own peril.

Nabeel, I will be praying for your family and friends in Pakistan.

The Berean Search said...

Bfoali,

What of the centuries of persecution of the Shia? Do you really not see how the teachings of Islam (regardless of sect) lead to the dominant group calling the minority groups kuffar, and then persecuting them with harshness in their attempt to stamp out "heresy"?

Bfoali said...

HI Odo,
Let me first answer the question you posed, as I said I have no idea about the group, thus I am not in a position to speak on whether or not they are heretics.

You Said:
Is that a preconceived notion of who I am based on my religion and a stereotype towards all Christians?

Or did you just hack into my computer and steal my info?

And we are the ones accused of stereotyping!

So what do you know about me Bfoali?

My Response:
Odo, I call my family as a witness when I say that was all a joke.
I know nothing about you; all I was trying to do was trying to make a point. I said I know more about you than the Ahdmyia group, but I know nothing about you, thus I know even less about Ahamdiyaa. I hope I clarified it, I meant it as a joke, not as an insult, and so I am sorry if that is how you took it.

You Said:
And what about Shiite Muslims at that point? Wouldn't they be heretical also because they would be in the minority? And what would happen to those minorities? The same thing that happened here?

My Response:
If I began speaking about the persecution of the Shia Muslims, and of the Shia Imams I would need pages. When I say Shia Imams I don’t mean Khomeni, or Khamani, I mean the Prophets descendents and their followers.

You Said:
You said: I wrote that earlier, hence anytime I say some country is not an Islamic state it is because I have another criterion.

How can anyone get away with saying something like that! (yes I know all about the prophets family ty)

Also I have to point out, your most peaceful verse towards non believers stems from death and killing.

My Response:
I do not know what I am getting away with? So please clarify that position of yours.
Thank you.

Our most peaceful verse stems from a story, what matters more, the story or the moral that stems from it? In my opinion the moral that stems from it, but I guess I may be different than you are.

Odo said...

Our most peaceful verse stems from a story, what matters more, the story or the moral that stems from it? In my opinion the moral that stems from it

I completely agree. The MORAL and LESSON is more important. But to me at least, Muhammad did not bring any morality, he brought a lot of lessons about his character – and this is reproduced today.

Odo said...

Hello Bfoali,

Kudos.

You asked: I do not know what I am getting away with? So please clarify that position of yours.

Sure,

I don’t understand how Pakistan could NOT be an Islamic anything? It certainly is not a state and far from a republic. Almost all the Hindus have been chased out, the Christians are oppressed and subjugated because of their beliefs, show me one jew left in Pakistan? Sharia law exists in Pakistan, Muslims are the OVERWHELMING majority controlling everything, it is a Muslim LAND – whether your interpretation of state, or republic, or what have you is not relevant since Sharia (the goal) is implemented on a daily basis, the final step in Muhammad's ideology as presented for all to see in the Quran.

But I also understand that some Muslims will say that Pakistan is an area of war controlled by terrorist un-Muslims, therefore it doesn't represent true Islam. I don't buy it; just too much support for those actions from your texts.

So I guess you are getting away with saying that Pakistan is not a Muslim land.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7891955.stm

Bfoali said...

Odo,

Thank you for your clarification, I think you and I were interpreting a Muslim state and land differently from one another, thank you for taking time.