To the Mods: We need a thread where we can share n put the news from Pakistan. If u want us to create one for every news, then we shall. But I think it would be more convieneint to have just one.
To the Users on the forum: We shall try our best not to backbite or "discuss" matters in such ways. We shall use this thread solely to update news on Pakistan to others interested.
COming back to the news:
Razak Bughti , the governments speaker for Baluchistan has been shot dead in his car.
I heard this news on Geo and haven't found it covered on net yet. I shall put a source as soon as I find one.
what do you throw at gun toting, missile throwing, suicidal terrorists and wannabe rambos? rose petals?
White Phosphorus (WP), is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets.
"
With over a 1000 shaheed at the hands of this munafiq and his army and in between all his lies, the truth if slowly coming out. May Alalh give him what deserves.
What i find sickening is how some blind ignorant followers of his praise him and his army and call the shaheed, the innocent, terrorists. What was their crime? May Allah perish the killers that attack Allah's house and silence those who call to His dean.
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
what do you throw at gun toting, missile throwing, suicidal terrorists and wannabe rambos? rose petals?
Take a good look at this pictures of the massacre and tell me who the real terrorist is, your dam dictator or the innocent shaheed.
Last edited by islamirama; 07-28-2007 at 02:43 AM.
Reason: Deleted unneccessary comment
I wanna ask, is it ok, according to islam, to impose sharia law in a muslim country by force?
If the harm will be greater than the benefit [i.e. more people will be killed and harmed], and there will be more insecurity, then it is discouraged, if not forbidden. And Allaah knows best.
Last edited by - Qatada -; 07-28-2007 at 02:44 PM.
I wanna ask, is it ok, according to islam, to impose sharia law in a muslim country by force?
Good question Aaron. Perhaps this can best be answered by first asking a reverse question.
Is it ok according to impose Christian Law in a Christian country by force?
Now before you answer. "If a Christian country is a true Christian country, wouldn't all of the laws already be based upon Christian standards?"
So it would be within a truly Muslim Country. It would be an oxymoron to call it a Muslim country if the people have not already based their laws upon sharia. There is no need to impose sharia law by force in a truly Muslim country as the people have selected it by choice. The only time Sharia law would need to be imposed by force is after it is established and outside forces invade to change it.
Recurring suicide bomb nightmare haunts Pakistan By Simon Cameron-Moore
Sat Jul 28, 4:35 AM ET
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani authorities warned more suicide bombers were stalking Islamabad, a day after 14 people were killed in a blast near a mosque regarded as a symbol of Islamist resistance to U.S. ally President Pervez Musharraf.
ADVERTISEMENT
"I feel very insecure for myself, for my children and for my city. I never thought my city would be like this," Fareha Ansar, a former high school principal, said on Saturday, after the second suicide attack in the capital this month.
A wave of suicide attacks, roadside bombs and shootings have killed more than 180 people, in a militant campaign triggered by the storming of the Red Mosque in Islamabad earlier this month to crush a Taliban-style movement.
The government reopened the mosque this week, but trouble broke out on Friday as hundreds of followers of radical clerics briefly seized the mosque before being dispersed by police.
A suicide bomber, described as a bearded man in his 20s, struck at a nearby restaurant shortly afterwards.
The only extra police evident on Saturday were stationed around the now "indefinitely closed" Red Mosque, or Lal Masjid.
Part of the problem for security forces is that they are the main target for attacks. Eight of Friday's victims were police.
Police foiled a car bomb plot on Friday in Bannu, a city at the gateway to North Waziristan, a tribal region regarded as a hotbed of support for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Musharraf has to contend with more challenges than just the militant threat in Pakistani cities, and pressure from the United States to act against al Qaeda nests in North Waziristan, as he struggles to hold on to power.
SECRET RENDEZVOUS WITH BHUTTO?
A Supreme Court ruling last week to reinstate a chief justice who Musharraf had spent four months trying to oust augured ill for his plan to get re-elected by the sitting assemblies before their dissolution in November without running into serious constitutional challenges.
Having become increasingly isolated politically over the past few months, and virtually silent since the court decision went against him last week, Musharraf was in Abu Dhabi on Friday, reportedly for secret talks with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto about a deal to secure him a second term.
Officials denied the television reports on Friday, but newspapers on Saturday said the two held their first face-to-face talks since Musharraf came to power in a coup eight years ago, though his emissaries have been speaking to Bhutto for months.
Musharraf was in Saudi Arabia on Saturday, and expected back in Pakistan on Sunday.
Mutual distrust has surrounded contacts with Bhutto, and a deal remains fraught with problems, though both share a vision of turning Pakistan into a moderate, progressive nation.
Living in self-exile, Bhutto has seen her bargaining position strengthen as Musharraf's grip on power weakens.
General Musharraf wants to be re-elected by the sitting assemblies while still army chief. Bhutto says he should get re-elected after parliamentary elections due around the end of the year, and that he should stand as a civilian.
While Musharraf would be ready to give her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) a share of power, he would prefer the strong-willed Bhutto to stay on the sidelines, according to government sources.
U.S. and British officials have spoken of hope that political moderates can come together at the centre of Pakistan's fractured politics to form a bulwark against a rising Islamist tide.
Good question Aaron. Perhaps this can best be answered by first asking a reverse question.
Is it ok according to impose Christian Law in a Christian country by force?
Now before you answer. "If a Christian country is a true Christian country, wouldn't all of the laws already be based upon Christian standards?"
So it would be within a truly Muslim Country. It would be an oxymoron to call it a Muslim country if the people have not already based their laws upon sharia. There is no need to impose sharia law by force in a truly Muslim country as the people have selected it by choice. The only time Sharia law would need to be imposed by force is after it is established and outside forces invade to change it.
Ok, so is it ok, according to islamic law, to impose sharia law by force in a country with muslim majority?
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
Ok, so is it ok, according to islamic law, to impose sharia law by force in a country with muslim majority?
Islamic law contains guidelines and rules for all aspects of a Muslim's life, such as how to pray, the proper way to conduct a business transaction, how to bury the dead, as well as crimes and punishments. Traditionally, these laws were based largely upon the Qur'an and the sunnah, which is the practice of the Prophet. These clear principles were applied to new circumstances that later Muslims encountered.
Muslim's have no option but to rule by shar'iah law, otherwise they are going against the Quran and contradicting themselves as "Musilms". You don't force it but rather implement it. If the people reject it then there's something wrong with the public, the society has failed to raise proper islamically educated Muslims. If you study the Muslim history you will see when there was true islamic state and shar'ah, there was justice in the land. When you look at today's "democracy", "monarchy" , and dictatorship, you will see corruption all over the place.
Ok, so is it ok, according to islamic law, to impose sharia law by force in a country with muslim majority?
Is that also how laws are imposed by a Democracy? Is it not true that in a democracy it is implemented by force through majority rule? That is majority of the nation, not the majority of any one section.
Even here in America if the majority of the people chose to legalize slavery, it would be legal. Although probably be very immoral. Slavery ended not because one group wanted it to end it ended because the majority of the people wanted it to end. The law did finally have to be imposed by force upon the southern States that chose to secede. although the civil war was fought over the rights to secced and not about slavery, it was still a forced imposition of a law through force by majority rule.
There is little difference between democracy and Sharia law. Both depend upon the desires of the majority. Under either system we abide by majority rule or we pay the price. Sharia law can only exist in a true Islamic State and in a true Islamic state it is the desire of the majority.
Ok, so is it ok, according to islamic law, to impose sharia law by force in a country with muslim majority?
No, it is not.
as Br. Qatada already told you, and you chose to ignore him a learned Brother and accept guesswork from woodrow. Is that because it suites trolling purposes
as Br. Qatada already told you, and you chose to ignore him a learned Brother and accept guesswork from woodrow. Is that because it suites trolling purposes
Very true Br. Qatada is much more knowledgable about Islam than I am. In the event my views do differ from those of his, it would be the better choice to consider his views instead of mine. Hopefully I keep it clear that unless I post a specific reference, my views are based on my own opinion and I do not intend for them to be any scholastic teaching of Islam. I am very capable of making errors. Astagfirullah.
I hope that you know why i asked those questions. It is related to this thread about latest Pakistan news and The Red Mosque. As fas as i know, students of this Mosque tried to impose sharia law in the nearby countryside.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
This Mosque issue has got out of hand in Pakistan, why not just close the mosque if there is proven facts that the mosque leaders and students support terrorist acts. These people are trying to use allahs home as a shield to commite torrorist acts which is a disgrace to islam.
I don't support the present government but they did ask all those people in the mosque to come or you'l die, yes force should have never been used but they had plenty of time to come out without no action taken but they refuesd. If i remember correctly the land which the mosque is built on isn't is owned by the government (correct me if im wrong).
i have a question about if president musharraf decides to run for prime minister office.
there is talk about him cutting a deal with benazir bhutto, in which the corruption charges against her would be dropped so she could return.
my question is, could the supreme court refuse to drop the charges - (going against the president)?
noddy - they have closed lal masjid for good last i heard. i really don't know why they even tried to re-open it!
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
I hope that you know why i asked those questions. It is related to this thread about latest Pakistan news and The Red Mosque. As fas as i know, students of this Mosque tried to impose sharia law in the nearby countryside.
What they did and what you have read or told what they did are two different things. The disadvantage of sitting miles away with only outlet of information is the bias media controlled by those who abuse the law is that you don't get the whole picture.
The officials of masjid made any complaints and reports with local police there for the trouble being caused in their area. The police told them that their hands are tied and they are unable to do anything. They even named the politicians who were backing the trouble causers up if anything should happened to them. It was in fact the local police that told the masjid officials that you should do what you deem necessary to help your own situation.
The masjid had over 7000 female students and the same in male students. And you and the facuality and their families and friends that support them, you have enough to make a small town out of it. The masjid represented these people in the city (around the masjid) and not just the residents of the masjid. They called for the shut down of porno magazine shops, x-rated movies, and brothels that were leading to immorality, indeceny and everything that is against Islam. Not only that, by watching filth these troublemakers were more prone to harass innocent passerby's in the morning and fear of leaving the house at night. You should know well from your ghetto towns in US in what kind of a society you get the youth do drugs, watch pornography and abandon education which teaches morality, civility, and responsibility.
The Masjid also wanted to set up shar'ah based courts to deal with societal issues and they were not talking about taking over the world. There's even some non-muslim Countries out there that allow shari'ah based courts for their Muslim communities.
The whole deal with the masjid was simple. Masjid was used once to promote jihad against the soviets in afghanistan and so it still supported Afghanistan against another occupation (US). Bush didn't like that and was pressuring musharaaf to do something about and started complaining that their best ally isn't doing enough. Local Media, citizens, and many officials testified that all of this could've been resolved peacefully months ago, but musharaaf let it escalate on purpose and kept adding wood to the fire for 6 months and this "operation silence" was planned for 6months in advance.
All this is nothing but political games of musharaaf to please Bush and get some pressure off himself. Unfortunate for him that in doing so he upset the general public and also committed a massacre and now is in deeper trouble than he anticipated.
format_quote Originally Posted by Noddy
This Mosque issue has got out of hand in Pakistan, why not just close the mosque if there is proven facts that the mosque leaders and students support terrorist acts. These people are trying to use allahs home as a shield to commite torrorist acts which is a disgrace to islam.
I don't support the present government but they did ask all those people in the mosque to come or you'l die, yes force should have never been used but they had plenty of time to come out without no action taken but they refuesd. If i remember correctly the land which the mosque is built on isn't is owned by the government (correct me if im wrong).
What are you view...
My view is that you should all my posts in the "Pakistan" thread before you start talking again. Ignorance is one thing, blind ignorance when you have the ability to go seek the truth is another.
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i have a question about if president musharraf decides to run for prime minister office.
there is talk about him cutting a deal with benazir bhutto, in which the corruption charges against her would be dropped so she could return.
my question is, could the supreme court refuse to drop the charges - (going against the president)?
noddy - they have closed lal masjid for good last i heard. i really don't know why they even tried to re-open it!
It would be most wise for the supreme court to not let that happend. Bhutto and nawaz shareef both are thieves and crooks. They robbed the country of all it's money and transfered it to their bank accounts in UK. Pakistan does not need crooks and military dictators as both are bad for the country and economy. All 3 have done nothing but make the country a lot worse than it was.
Last edited by islamirama; 07-29-2007 at 12:48 AM.
What they did and what you have read or told what they did are two different things. The disadvantage of sitting miles away with only outlet of information is the bias media controlled by those who abuse the law is that you don't get the whole picture.
The officials of masjid made any complaints and reports with local police there for the trouble being caused in their area. The police told them that their hands are tied and they are unable to do anything. They even named the politicians who were backing the trouble causers up if anything should happened to them. It was in fact the local police that told the masjid officials that you should do what you deem necessary to help your own situation.
The masjid had over 7000 female students and the same in male students. And you and the facuality and their families and friends that support them, you have enough to make a small town out of it. The masjid represented these people in the city (around the masjid) and not just the residents of the masjid. They called for the shut down of porno magazine shops, x-rated movies, and brothels that were leading to immorality, indeceny and everything that is against Islam. Not only that, by watching filth these troublemakers were more prone to harass innocent passerby's in the morning and fear of leaving the house at night. You should know well from your ghetto towns in US in what kind of a society you get the youth do drugs, watch pornography and abandon education which teaches morality, civility, and responsibility.
The Masjid also wanted to set up shar'ah based courts to deal with societal issues and they were not talking about taking over the world. There's even some non-muslim Countries out there that allow shari'ah based courts for their Muslim communities.
The whole deal with the masjid was simple. Masjid was used once to promote jihad against the soviets in afghanistan and so it still supported Afghanistan against another occupation (US). Bush didn't like that and was pressuring musharaaf to do something about and started complaining that their best ally isn't doing enough. Local Media, citizens, and many officials testified that all of this could've been resolved peacefully months ago, but musharaaf let it escalate on purpose and kept adding wood to the fire for 6 months and this "operation silence" was planned for 6months in advance.
All this is nothing but political games of musharaaf to please Bush and get some pressure off himself. Unfortunate for him that in doing so he upset the general public and also committed a massacre and now is in deeper trouble than he anticipated.
welcome to fantasy island!
My view is that you should (read) all my posts in the "Pakistan" thread before you start talking again. Ignorance is one thing, blind ignorance when you have the ability to go seek the truth is another.
I wonder If Moderater Woodrow would see any personal insults in this quote^^
Masjid also wanted to set up shar'ah based courts to deal with societal issues and they were not talking about taking over the world. There's even some non-muslim Countries out there that allow shari'ah based courts for their Muslim communities.
Masaajid can't impose punitive Sharia Laws, only Khulaifah/rulers can, after a system of education, social security.
Gen. Zia tried a pilot scheme for a period. when a bearded moolah type "Qadi" was attached to every court. they turned out to be biggest crooks and unjust thieves of all time.
As things stand today, there is hardly anyone in Pakistan who knows what Islam is, heck, in many places, 85 out of a 100 can't even read or write there own name, let alone be able to read and understand Quraan and are at mercy of persons like yourself
We need to teach them to be Muslims first before we start chopping their hands of for theft, we need to provide for widows and orphan girls before we accuse them of being prostitutes and kidnap them and take them to our "Mosque" to do to them, only Allah knows what!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks