Pakistan: Ethnic violence in Karachi deadliest since 1994

[panther]

panther do you want to explain how 9% + hindus in 1952 the time of partition became 1% now in pakistan ?

To be honest I don't know but I guess most migrated to india.

[KeyboardWarrior]

I am repeating plz dont talk about religion on ICF. becoz no one knows whats actual Sharia Law. the another thread on Sharia Law is already locked.Please ICFers.

[kubrickian]

I am repeating plz dont talk about religion on ICF. becoz no one knows whats actual Sharia Law. the another thread on Sharia Law is already locked.Please ICFers.

What's your problem in talking about it ?

[panther]

We will discuss until it get's locked

[KeyboardWarrior]

What's your problem in talking about it ?

Read ICF rules plz.

[Muloghonto]

These people did not wan't to give the zakat which is equal to prayer in islam yet called themselves muslims.

Err no. The Ridda wars were caused because many Arab tribes considered their allegience to Mohammed, not Islam and wanted nothing to do with Islam after Mohammed died. They didnt want to be pretendo Muslims, they didnt want to be muslims, period.

not only that some were trying to destroy the unity within the muslims at the time which is an act of treason.

Act of treason based on what ? an arbitary set of laws from questionable source ? Sorry, that is not act of treason.

Shia, sunni conflict political conflict not religious.

A political conflict stemming from religious differences. You dont get a 1000 year old war between two religious groups (shia and sunnis) without any religious basis to it. The basis is, the interpretation of the Koran and Hadiths.

Most of these conflicts are political reasons not religous anyway the quran is veryy clear on no division whoever started these other sects and divisions are obviously not following the Quran.

The Koran can claim whatever it likes, but the reality is, if i read something and conclude 'A leads to B which leads to C' and you read the same text and conclude 'A leads to X leads to Y', we have conflict. The reason you have various sects of Islam is not because someone is trying to mess up Islam but because the Koran and the Hadiths can be interpreted many different ways based on the ambiguity of the arabic language. That is why you have several different schools of law in Islam- Hanafi, Hanbali, Zaidi, Islmaili, etc. These different schools exist because while the Koran claims that divisions are wrong, it doesnt factor in the differences in interpretation from its own writings that cause it. When the Koran says 'no division is allowed' but two people reading the same book conclude two different set of laws, you have division on the basis of intellectual reasoning. Which leads to the brutality that Islam has subjected its followers (along with the non followers) for 1300+ years. Something the Koran is intellectually powerless to prevent.

[kubrickian]

We will discuss until it get's locked

Isnt Sharia Law already in implementation in Pakistan ?

[KeyboardWarrior]

No Muslim country have any Sharia Law. Taliban dont know what is actual Sharia Law.

[Muloghonto]

No Muslim country have any Sharia Law. Taliban dont know what is actual Sharia Law.

And this, ladies and gentlemen and fellow muslims, is why you have division, sectarianism & violence in Islam that simplistic decrees from the Koran are completely powerless to prevent or stop. Because KeyboardWarrior has decieded, that he knows what true Sharia is, not the Taliban, based on how he interprets the Koran. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant, what is relevant is that there are others like him, who will claim 'XYZ is not representing Sharia! they are posers & fakes' based on their interpretation of the Koran. And this is why you cannot have a legal code derived from a completely baseless source (the Koran or any other holy book)- because it indirectly promotes violence, sectarianism and discord due to its ambiguous literature and its harsh decrees against 'deviants'. Trouble is, anyone who differs from any mullah in any which way, is a deviant, including one mullah vs another. In short, total and utter logical and logistic fail.

[panther]

Err no. The Ridda wars were caused because many Arab tribes considered their allegience to Mohammed, not Islam and wanted nothing to do with Islam after Mohammed died. They didnt want to be pretendo Muslims, they didnt want to be muslims, period. Act of treason based on what ? an arbitary set of laws from questionable source ? Sorry, that is not act of treason. A political conflict stemming from religious differences. You dont get a 1000 year old war between two religious groups (shia and sunnis) without any religious basis to it. The basis is, the interpretation of the Koran and Hadiths. The Koran can claim whatever it likes, but the reality is, if i read something and conclude 'A leads to B which leads to C' and you read the same text and conclude 'A leads to X leads to Y', we have conflict. The reason you have various sects of Islam is not because someone is trying to mess up Islam but because the Koran and the Hadiths can be interpreted many different ways based on the ambiguity of the arabic language. That is why you have several different schools of law in Islam- Hanafi, Hanbali, Zaidi, Islmaili, etc. These different schools exist because while the Koran claims that divisions are wrong, it doesnt factor in the differences in interpretation from its own writings that cause it. When the Koran says 'no division is allowed' but two people reading the same book conclude two different set of laws, you have division on the basis of intellectual reasoning. Which leads to the brutality that Islam has subjected its followers (along with the non followers) for 1300+ years. Something the Koran is intellectually powerless to prevent.

Um sorry but it loooks like you learn your stuff from wikipedia do you even know that some of the arabs accepted false prophets even though they had accepted the quran and the quran said Muhammad(pbuh) is the seal of the prophets i.e. the last prophet. Shia sunni conflict is on who should have been the leader of the muslims, shia say it should have been ali, even though ali himself pledged alliance to abubaker. how can shia-sunni conflict come through the hadith when the hadith were collected 200+ years after the prophet(pbuh) or the Quran which is clear on no division and does not give anyone the copyright to be a leader unless chosen by Allah i.e. a prophet. I am sorry but different school of thought does not mean division I may follow imam abu-hannifa today or imam shafi tomorrow it does not make a difference I am still a muslim or suni muslim, shia obviously have their own school of thought that they follow but that is expected given the division between the shia and sunni.

[Muloghonto]

Um sorry but it loooks like you learn your stuff from wikipedia do you even know that some of the arabs accepted false prophets even though they had accepted the quran and the quran said Muhammad(pbuh) is the seal of the prophets i.e. the last prophet.

Yes. Trouble is, they cannot speak for their children or their descendants from an ethical perspective. You are not allowed to treaty-bind your descendants to anything personal. So if they wanted to say ' we changed our minds', it is ethically and legally correct. Not to mention, there were many tribes who simply considered their allegiance over when Mohammed died. That is not fictitious, that is potrayed in the hadiths as well.

Shia sunni conflict is on who should have been the leader of the muslims, shia say it should have been ali, even though ali himself pledged alliance to abubaker.

Indeed. A political conflict created on the basis of religion. Shia and Sunni discord is not just over succession. Succession was the spark that lit the fire, the fuel is sectarian difference. For example, Shias believe in name-calling the first 5 Caliphs as evil devil worshippers. Sunnis are mighty offended by that because they consider the first 5 caliphs as the best kings ever. This is in the realm of ideological and thus, religious difference, not just political.

how can shia-sunni conflict come through the hadith when the hadith were collected 200+ years after the prophet(pbuh) or the Quran which is clear on no division and does not give anyone the copyright to be a leader unless chosen by Allah i.e. a prophet.

Again, did you read my post ? It does not matter what the Koran says. Tell me, what next if we read the same line in the Koran and conclude two different things. You cannot say that it is impossible to conclude two different things from the Koran, since that is the basis on why multiple legal schools exist in Islam- different interpretation of the Koran and Hadith. So now, tell me, what happens to the Koranic decree of 'non division' if Imam SachinLara and Imam Panther concludes two different things. The Koran sends a magic lightning bolt to kill off one of us ? What relevance is the Koranic decree to this scenario ?

I am sorry but different school of thought does not mean division I may follow imam abu-hannifa today or imam shafi tomorrow it does not make a difference I am still a muslim or suni muslim, shia obviously have their own school of thought that they follow but that is expected given the division between the shia and sunni.

Different schools of thought come from different interpreations of the Koran. If the entire Koran was 'A leads to B leads to C leads to D....leads to Z', then you'd only have one legal school. The division is not just between Shias and Sunnis, the division exists within Sunnis as well. The Saudis(Hanbali) interpret the Koran differently than Pakis(Hanafi) who interpret it differently than the Indonesians (shaafi), yet they are all predominantly Sunni.

[KeyboardWarrior]

@SachinLara: i am no one to decide that what is actual sharia law. I just want to say that you wont get answer here about sharia law. sharia law is huge subject. you wont get your answers on this forum. you mixed up everything. you just keep draging the topic of shaira law and our few non-muslim posters start mocking on sharia law. as i said you wont get your answer on this forum. so plz follow the ICF rules. panther bro will you plz follow ICF rules ?

[panther]

Yes. Trouble is, they cannot speak for their children or their descendants from an ethical perspective. You are not allowed to treaty-bind your descendants to anything personal. So if they wanted to say ' we changed our minds', it is ethically and legally correct. Not to mention, there were many tribes who simply considered their allegiance over when Mohammed died. That is not fictitious, that is potrayed in the hadiths as well. Indeed. A political conflict created on the basis of religion. Shia and Sunni discord is not just over succession. Succession was the spark that lit the fire, the fuel is sectarian difference. For example, Shias believe in name-calling the first 5 Caliphs as evil devil worshippers. Sunnis are mighty offended by that because they consider the first 5 caliphs as the best kings ever. This is in the realm of ideological and thus, religious difference, not just political. Again, did you read my post ? It does not matter what the Koran says. Tell me, what next if we read the same line in the Koran and conclude two different things. You cannot say that it is impossible to conclude two different things from the Koran, since that is the basis on why multiple legal schools exist in Islam- different interpretation of the Koran and Hadith. So now, tell me, what happens to the Koranic decree of 'non division' if Imam SachinLara and Imam Panther concludes two different things. The Koran sends a magic lightning bolt to kill off one of us ? What relevance is the Koranic decree to this scenario ? Different schools of thought come from different interpreations of the Koran. If the entire Koran was 'A leads to B leads to C leads to D....leads to Z', then you'd only have one legal school. The division is not just between Shias and Sunnis, the division exists within Sunnis as well. The Saudis(Hanbali) interpret the Koran differently than Pakis(Hanafi) who interpret it differently than the Indonesians (shaafi), yet they are all predominantly Sunni.

So what verse of the quran did the shia interpret which gives only the relatives of the Prophet (pbuh) the right to be leaders of the muslim? The main sunni schools of thought are actually very similar in their opinion and the difference in opinions is on mostly legal rulings and on anything really i.e. how many rakats to pray, or how to pray this but all 4 are respected by 1 another. And saudi do not follow hanbali they follow their own version of one of their imams, imam abdul-wahaab i think is his name, to be honest the suadis is another topic and I don't want to derail this. Seriously first time I am hearing about division between the 4 main sunni school of thoughts.

[Muloghonto]

@SachinLara: i am no one to decide that what is actual sharia law. I just want to say that you wont get answer here about sharia law. sharia law is huge subject. you wont get your answers on this forum. you mixed up everything. you just keep draging the topic of shaira law and our few non-muslim posters start mocking on sharia law. as i said you wont get your answer on this forum. so plz follow the ICF rules. panther bro will you plz follow ICF rules ?

Its not just this forum, i wont get a consensus on 'what is sharia law' beyond the very general terms of 'sharia law is the islamic law of jurisprudence as dictated to by the Koran'. Beyond that, what actually is the law, is open to interpretation, depending on whether you ask a Turkish Imam, a Taliban Imam, etc.

[Muloghonto]

So what verse of the quran did the shia interpret which gives only the relatives of the Prophet (pbuh) the right to be leaders of the muslim?

Not the Koran, but the Hadith. Mohammed's last sermon, where he allegedly annointed Ali as his executor and successor.

The main sunni schools of thought are actually very similar in their opinion and the difference in opinions is on mostly legal rulings and on anything really i.e. how many rakats to pray, or how to pray this but all 4 are respected by 1 another.

Whatever the difference, it exists because the Koran allows different interpreations. This is logic 101. If the Koran & Hadith didnt allow different interpretations of it, how can you possibly have two different legal codes, nevermind over half a dozen ?

Seriously first time I am hearing about division between the 4 main sunni school of thoughts.

Why are you surprised ? Who is mad enough to question Islamic theology if they are a muslim ? And non-muslims are 'de-facto' devil spawns, thus dismissed. So where are you going to come across the idea that if there are multiple legal interprations and legal traditions alive, it logically leads to the conclusion that the source (Koran) allows for it to exist and thus, is interpretive. Otherwise, you wouldnt have the prevailing scenario if the Koran only lead to a singular legal conclusion. I dont care whether they differ on how much zakat to pay or how many camels a widow can own or whether it is about the designs of God's palace in heaven, the fact is, different interpretations exist. Which is why you have different schools of jurisprudence in Islam. They interpret things differently.

[panther]

Its not just this forum' date=' i wont get a consensus on 'what is sharia law' beyond the very general terms of 'sharia law is the islamic law of jurisprudence as dictated to by the Koran'. Beyond that, what actually is the law, is open to interpretation, depending on whether you ask a Turkish Imam, a Taliban Imam, etc.[/quote'] All the four great Imams said that if any of their Fatwas or teachings contradict Allah’s word, i.e. the Qur’an, or the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) i.e. authentic Hadith, then that particulars Fatwa of theirs should be rejected, and the Sunnah of the Prophet should be followed. Quran first then Ahadith that is where you will learn about sharia, and to be honest the Quran is not a Scripture which bombards you with rules I think the quran only has about 400 verses which talk about legal rulings which is not much. And never take any verse in isolation e.g. if you take the verse about satan not bowing down to Adam you will think he is an angle, but when you read later on in the quran you find out that satan is a actually another creation made from fire.

[Muloghonto]

All the four great Imams said that if any of their Fatwas or teachings contradict Allah’s word' date=' i.e. the Qur’an, or the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) i.e. authentic Hadith, then that particulars Fatwa of theirs should be rejected, and the Sunnah of the Prophet should be followed. [/quote'] Indeed. But the very reason why Shafi, Hanif and Hanbal didn't make carbon copy laws of each other, is due to the fact that you can be consistent with the Koran and still come to differetn conclusions. That is another logic fail. A thought cannot be perfect if every component of it is not perfect. The definition of perfection is absolute. Therefore, a perfect text has to be perfect every which way, provided i am not violating grammatical laws that fundamentally alter the language. Ie, if a text is perfect, it should be perfect in N number of complete sentences, does not matter whether you take two sentences, three or three million. they all *MUST* be consistent, individually and in group, for the body of work to be perfect. As such, the idea of 'dont take verses in isolation, else they can be misleading' is a logically inconsistent idea with a perfect text. My point is, Sharia law is not uniform or consistent. It may vary 1% with each other or 0.001% or 100%. The amount of variance does not matter. What matters, is that variance exists, due to different interpreations of the Koran. Otherwise, i would like you to state how you can have variance in legal traditions, when the legal tradition uses the same base texts, if the texts themselves did not logically allow for the variance.

[panther]

The last sermon

“O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY. O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Allah has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn ‘Abd’al Muttalib (Prophet’s uncle) shall henceforth be waived… Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things. O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste. O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves. Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone. O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QURAN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray. All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O ALLAH, that I have conveyed your message to your people”.

No mention of Ali

[Muloghonto]

The last sermon No mention of Ali

Shias have a different account: http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Shia/ghadir2.html

[panther]

Indeed. But the very reason why Shafi, Hanif and Hanbal didn't make carbon copy laws of each other, is due to the fact that you can be consistent with the Koran and still come to differetn conclusions. That is another logic fail. A thought cannot be perfect if every component of it is not perfect. The definition of perfection is absolute. Therefore, a perfect text has to be perfect every which way, provided i am not violating grammatical laws that fundamentally alter the language. Ie, if a text is perfect, it should be perfect in N number of complete sentences, does not matter whether you take two sentences, three or three million. they all *MUST* be consistent, individually and in group, for the body of work to be perfect. As such, the idea of 'dont take verses in isolation, else they can be misleading' is a logically inconsistent idea with a perfect text. My point is, Sharia law is not uniform or consistent. It may vary 1% with each other or 0.001% or 100%. The amount of variance does not matter. What matters, is that variance exists, due to different interpreations of the Koran. Otherwise, i would like you to state how you can have variance in legal traditions, when the legal tradition uses the same base texts, if the texts themselves did not logically allow for the variance.

The legal rulings of The 4 Imams is very similar if not identical on the major stuff on the small things they have a few differences but like I said this does not make you any less of a muslim. Regarding the verse about satan etc the verses do not contradict each other the quran means recital or continuously recited in english, the more you read the more you understand.