اقبال اور جمہوریت

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
dear username, I have studied the quran for a very long time and beyond the level of people I came across in my life time. I know what I am talking about and it should become very clear to anyone with knowledge who will take the time to go through the information I have posted in the links provided and in my other posts. I have tried to explain to people how they should study the quran and why they need to do that. Anyone is welcome to challenge what I have explained and put forth a better explanation of things. Just saying islam is this or that is meaningless because proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I want people to challenge the quran and deen of islam by first proving they have what it takes to make sense of the text of the quran. If they had what it takes to make sense of the quran and deen of islam then they could not have made statements against the quran and deen of islam based upon their utter ignorance about them. Humanity is not doomed but many people are who do not use their God given brains and senses as they should. That is why they make things difficult and hard for themselves as well as others. If you have any time on your hands then please do go through the links and see what you think about the quran and deen of islam or pakistan afterwards. We are all doomed no matter what we think and do should we ignore the message of God by not studying it properly and not following it faithfully. It is because none of us can know who created us and for what purpose or how can we fulfil the purpose for which our creator has created us unless the creator himself tells us all this. Revelation itself means nothing till people enable themselves to get it and then get on with making proper sense of it. Things do not end there rather people then need to act upon what they have been advised to think or do. Unless we complete this process we human beings can never get out of confusion and crisis that we have created for ourselves.

What people do is follow self created ideas about God instead of trying to know what God has to say about all that is going on. This is why every where people are asking God for favours instead of doing what he requires of them so that his purpose for creating people becomes fulfilled. The more people stay away from proper understanding of his message or following it faithfully the more troubled humanity becomes by thinking and doing things as they like.

Most of us human beings think the more we humiliate ourselves before God the more God will become pleased with us and will do things for us ie he will carry out our wishes and desires. We are not trying to realise that humiliating humanity means disrespecting God. It is because human being is supposed to be the best creation of God ie his masterpiece. If his masterpiece is looked down upon then how can God manifest his glory for people to see? Deen of islam is very different from what we are told by mullahs and their blind followers. They are a disgrace for humanity the way they are carrying on ie misinterpreting and misrepresenting message of God thereby humiliating humanity as well as disrespecting God. The very same is true about philosophers and scientists because they too instead of reading the quran themselves to make proper sense of it argue against the quran on basis of what mullahs make of it due to their ignorance. The true discussion between people can only take place when people discussing the quran study the quran by themselves and draw their own conclusions about it after enabling themselves to be able to do so. As I see it this sort of situation is yet far away due to mindsets, attitudes and behaviours people have adopted regarding the quran and deen of islam. Most of the muslims are muslims only for name sake and they have no idea what the message of the quran is. Likewise people whom we consider highly educated are not educated to the level needed for proper understanding of the quran and deen of islam. When they are their thinking will not be very different from mine because logical consistency has to be the very basis for proper understanding of the information found in the quran.

So far any philosophers or scientists I came across their thinking seemed to me heavily affected by their religious up bringing. That is like looking at things through coloured glasses. Till we shed religious mindsets, attitudes and behaviours we can never understand the quran properly therefore we cannot know deen of islam properly or follow it faithfully. However some people have told us some good points about the quran and deen of islam just like some have told us some good points about this universe. So we should accept what is right because it is logically consistent and makes sense and reject what is wrong because it is logically inconsistent and keep on studying both the universe and the revelation to get to the proper understanding of things.

Deen of islam is not a personality cult this is why the quran does not tell us to follow people blindly be they messengers of God because human beings could make mistakes. This is why the standard is revelation of God not any particular person. This is clear proof that deen of islam is very different from religious concepts people hold about God and the universe or its realities. It is good that you have studied what mullahs say about the universal realities and the quran or islam as well as what philosophers and scientists say about them but see what I say about all these things and people and why I do so. Only then you will come to realise why I hold the views that I do.

regards and all the best.

Dear Mughal1,

Its a great coincidence that I'm also Mughal by caste.

Some of your points are absolutely on spot. I dont disagree with you on those points.

So far any philosophers or scientists I came across their thinking seemed to me heavily affected by their religious up bringing.

This is absolutely right but story goes beyond it. I try to summarize it in this simple equation:

A Man = Schooling + Childhood + Friends + Family + Society + Higher Education + Natural Intelligence + Aptitude

In this equation first four factors shape up our religious thoughts. Philosophers are no exception. Factor of society, specially in form of Media, determine the intensity of our behavior. How radicalized or tolerant we are.
But Higher Education and Natural Intelligence are the real factors that make a difference. Education and Natural Intelligence helps us snub the biases that Society and Religion have inculcated in us. At this level, you cannot the blame Philosophers for being "heavily" affected by their Religions and Background. Of course, though, Philosophers are no Utopians. They're only human beings. But we know that their prime stimuli are Reason and Logic and not Religion or other forms of "deity".

I'd like to strongly disagree with you on the point that Mullah has misunderstood Religion. NO, they havnt. They adhere to the basic teachings of their Religions. They uphold the convention. They dont question. They've succumbed to the absoluteness of the religion. They've murdered their conscience. They've submitted.

Then there's people like you who just cannot succumb, submit, or who have a more powerful conscience. You dont wanna shut your eyes from the injustices and miseries inflected upon Humanity by Religions.
On this point you feel helpless, shocked. You cannot beieve that a religion with whom you had had a great romance, says all these "inhuman" things. Orders killings. You dont wanna believe that what you've read about the Early Folks of a Religion is actually true but it hurts your conscience. Your romance. Your ego.

Like few days ago I wrote about Bilal bin Rabah killed his former boss for personal vendetta, when the Boss was unarmed, had surrendered, dint even fight, was taken prisoner by another Sahabi. I wrote it with references. Ibn Ishaq. Sahih Bukhari.

BUT... Instead of appreciating me for bringing forth a forgotten Truth, I was told to shut up. WHY?

Because that event hurt these people's romance with Bilal. They couldnt believe he had actually murdered someone in that state. They were shocked.

This contradiction in perceived truth about Bilal and real truth about Bilal led people to "make up" different excuses to justify his act. You can read those excuses in my thread.

This example can very well be generalized. When people come to know of things done by the Religious Figure they followed or had a romance with, they tend to come up with excuses, justifications, reasons, and whatever they can come up with to cling to the same portrait of the person they'd been worshiping since childhood. They dont want the image of the person shatter. They dont wanna let go something they'd been cherishing whole their life, no matter how big a fallacy that something is.

Mullah follows the real Islam. PEOPLE DONT. People wanna keep their conscience clear and in order to do so, they generally come up with this excuse "O' its Mullah who's at fault. Its not Islam"
"O' yea its Mullah who's ruined our Religion"
"Damn this Mullah. He knows nothing about Islam"


NO. Mullah knows. You dont. You just dont wanna accept the reality. I have read Islam. And i dont see any major contradiction between Real Islam and Mulla's Islam. But i see a great of contradiction between Perception of Islam and Real Islam.

Take for example the case of Qadri
Qadri killed Salman. He dint kill him for personal gain. Qadri's motivation was purely religious. Countless people condemned Qadri and claimed that Islam does not grant the right to kill fellow human beings on the charges of Blasphemy. You know what, they are wrong.

Umar had killed a man because he dint trust Prophet's judgement and Umar thought it was Blasphemy. Prophet SAW dint not hold Umar accountable for that murder as He SAW dint not hold Bilal accountable for his murder. Silence of Prophet SAW is considered a sign of Approval.
How was Qadri wrong, in this context?

But of course it was an act of cold blooded planned murder. People who had a clear conscience, cried out. At the same time they felt themselves stuck in a dilemma.

On one hand they just couldnt digest this murder and on the other hand they dint wanna refute Islam either.. SO what to do?

They chose to do what they often do. They blamed Mullah for all this. They simply refuted the fact that Islam grants the permission to kill fellow human beings for Blasphemy charges.

"سانپ بھی مر جائے' لاٹھی بھی نہ ٹوٹے"

Islam is against idolatry. But trust me Muslims are the biggest Idolaters in the World. They've made idols of every single person attached to Islam and then they keep worshiping them. If somebody wanna come forward and breaks those idols with the axe of reality and facts, People run to kill that person.

Its not Mullah who has misunderstood Islam. Its people who dont wanna their conscience clear and hence refuse to accept that Islam is actually up to all that.
 

stranger

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
اگرچہ موضوع بدل گیا، مخاطب بدل گیا. علامہ اقبال بعد میں بھی ایسی جسارتیں کرتے رہے ہیں. کس کس غلطی کو معاف کریں گے
اندر کا مولوی بے نقاب ہونے کو بیتاب ہے لیکن لبرل آزم کا بھرم بھی تو رکھنا ہے

bhai aap ye bata dain ke aap iqbal ke haq main hain ya mukhalif.... main ne to faqat aap ka dil rakhnay ke liay Iqbal ki ghalti maaf kerne ki baat ji thi, laikin agar aap maaf kerne ko razi nahi to aap ki marzi.... humari tareekh ka aik mazaq Jinah ka qatal or doosra Iqbal ki siasi role hai..... dono per baat kerna ghadari kehlata hai... verna ye sab jantay hain ke Iqbal ka siasat main koi role nahi..... per molvi ko aaj oosi iqbal ka shaheen nazar aata hai jis main kabhi kafir nazar aata tha.... or liberal ko iqbal se aisay hi nafrat jaisay oon ko islam se..... mere khayal main Iqbal aik bohat bara shaair hai and thats it... waisay hi jaisay ghalib, meer or faiz
 

atensari

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم

(معذرت - میں آپکو اردو میں ہی مخاطب کرنا چاہتا تھا اس لئے جواب دینے میں دیر ہو گئی میرے دوسرے گیجٹس پر اردو نہیں لکھی جا سکتی)
جمہوریت کے حق جو نمونے بطور دلیل لائے جاتے ہیں پورپ ہو یا امریکہ کینیڈا وہاں فرد مادر پدر آزادی کے بہت قریب پہنچ چکا ہے. لہذا آپ کا دعوی کتابی طور پر چاہے درست ہو لیکن عملی طور پر غلط ثابت ہو چکا ہے

جیسے آپ مذہبی جبر کہہ رہے ہیں اس میں وہ افعال بھی شامل ہیں جنہیں مذھب گناہ کہتا ہے لیکن مادر پدر آزاد معاشرے میں قابل قبول ہوتی ہیں. ہاں اگر آپ سمجھتے ہیں کے جمہوریت اس جبر کے ساتھ چل سکتی ہے تو آپ اور میں اکھٹے ہو سکتے ہیں. بصورت دیگر گناہ کو جبر کا نام دے کر قابل قبول بنانے میں میں آپ کا ساتھ نہیں دے سکتا

جمہوریت کی تعصبات سے پاکی محض قانون اور قانون کی پاسداری ہے. سفید فاموں کو ذرا سی ڈھیل دیں پھر دیکھیں جمہوری مساوات کی دھجیاں ایسے ہی اڑاتے ہیں جسے جمہوری ریاستیں جمہوریت کے نام پر افغانستان، عراق، لیبیا، مصر، شام میں انسانیت کی دھجیاں اڑا رہے ہیں

اسلام منفاق نہیں ہے کے وقتی طور پر ایسا ماحول پیدا کر لے جس میں سب کو لگے کے وہ تفریق سے مبرا ہیں. لیکن ایک حادثہ ہو اور مسلمان کو سیکولر/لبرل یا بنیاد پرست کی تقسیم کے بغیر مسلمان کہہ کر الگ کر دیا جائے

ماڈل جمہوری ریاستیں بچھوں ماند ہیں جو اپنی کالونی میں مل جل کر رہتے ہیں باہر نکلتے ہیں تو ڈنک مارتے ہیں. شامی جمہوری ریاست میں آ جائیں تو محفوظ شام میں رہیں تو غیر محفوظ

democracy_is_coming_by_benzine28.jpg

 

atensari

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
bhai aap ye bata dain ke aap iqbal ke haq main hain ya mukhalif.... main ne to faqat aap ka dil rakhnay ke liay Iqbal ki ghalti maaf kerne ki baat ji thi, laikin agar aap maaf kerne ko razi nahi to aap ki marzi.... humari tareekh ka aik mazaq Jinah ka qatal or doosra Iqbal ki siasi role hai..... dono per baat kerna ghadari kehlata hai... verna ye sab jantay hain ke Iqbal ka siasat main koi role nahi..... per molvi ko aaj oosi iqbal ka shaheen nazar aata hai jis main kabhi kafir nazar aata tha.... or liberal ko iqbal se aisay hi nafrat jaisay oon ko islam se..... mere khayal main Iqbal aik bohat bara shaair hai and thats it... waisay hi jaisay ghalib, meer or faiz

میں علامہ اقبال کے حق میں ہوں. صرف یہ احساس دلانے کی کوشش کر رہا ہوں کے انسان کے نظریات بدلتے رہتے ہیں. قائد اعظم نے اپنی سیاسی زندگی کا آغاز کانگرس سے کیا، ایک وقت میں مسلم لیگ اور کانگرس دونوں کے ممبر رہے. ہندو مسلم اتحاد کے چمپین کہلائے. پھر بدل گئے. ناقدین اس بدلاؤ کے بارے میں قیاس آرائیاں کرتے رہتے ہیں. کرتے رہیں

شائد آپ سے فیصلہ نہیں ہو رہا کے کیا کیا جائے. مولوی علامہ اقبال کو کافر کہتے تھے. کیا سب مولوی؟ آپ کو اس نظم میں کیا غلطی نظر آئی جیسے اچھالنا اور پھر معاف کرنا مناسب سمجھا

علامہ اقبال بوجہ وفات تحریک پاکستان میں بھرپور حصہ نہیں لے سکے. جسے تنگ نظر لوگ تحریک پاکستان کے حوالے سے ان کے خلاف پروپگنڈا کے لئے استعمال کرتے ہیں اور غالب میر سے ملا کر اپنی حسرتوں کی تسکین

جاتے جاتے ایک اور بات سب مولوی نا علامہ اقبال کے خلاف تھے نا قائد اعظم کے. کوئی سیکولر لبرل کبھی بوجہ تنگ نظری اقبال کی تعریف چاہے نا کرے لیکن ایسے لبرل ڈھونڈنا مشکل نہیں جو قائد اعظم اور پاکستان کے اتنے ہی خلاف تھے جتنا بعض مولوی
 

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
I'm sorry but I have to use some harsh words for your inadequacy and corrupt state of mind that has been further flared with your inability to read important texts before spitting your ignorance on this forum on frequent basis.

Firstly the Latinized name of Ibn Bajja is Avempace not Avempas and secondly you have to go through his teachings on your own as I've alluded to your gross ignorance on the subject matter. Okay let me ease your anguish and try to give you a reference from a book of Abbes published in 2011 and a citation would be found of a 'Superior Man' of Ibn Bajja in response to the Perfect City musing of Plato on page no. 86. Now to establish that Nietzsche stole this concept of Ibn Bajja is a no-brainer but still I want to give a benefit of doubt to the former one and to acknowledge his own contribution on the subject matter but that doesn't mean that Dr. Iqbal's concept of Khudi is heavily borrowed from Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept.

You are also an embodiment of an 'Ignorance laden Spoof' to think that Aristotle was up for grabs on the concept of Democracy and conveniently forget to mention that according to him Democracy was a deviant form of a 'Polity' and the best political arrangement for him was to have a mixed regime where the elements of Kingship, Aristocracy and Polity should be placed in order to somewhat insulate this hypothetical arrangement from corruption / deviation. Aristotle also advocated the use of the concept of 'Weighted Franchise' so that the opinions of highly educated voters should be sifted through the ordinary literate ones on the important matters of state.

Take a break and try to read the texts of masters with perfection my friend and if you're incapable of this task, as the sign of your frustrated posts indicates, then try to get under the supervised tutelage of the experts of the subjects in which you want to open your big mouth or to use your deviant pen to write something of any worth. You can fool the ordinary people here on such forums but not a rebellious skeptic like me. On other points you have expressed your valid concerns for Dr. Iqbal and you have the right to do so within the limited range of your perception and studies though how much you'll be able to refine your critique down the line is a moot point.

Thanks for you response. I'd like to raise following points

1. Dont be sorry for being rude. I dont expect you to behave during a discourse, against your nature. Please be natural and you're welcome to curse me.

2. Latinized name of Ibn Bajja is "Avempace". The name you're suggesting does not exist.

3. Thanks for giving some credit to Nietzsche. All his reputation was in line.

4. reference from a book of Abbes published in 2011. What book? Whats the name of the book? Who wrote it? Did he refer to the original text of Avempace or the writer "inferred" that Avempace talked coined the idea of "Super Man"? I expect you to refer to the Original text of Avempace. Dont gimme incomplete reference from a commentator.

5. You're not doing me a favour by embellishing your text with references. Its your responsibility. You spoke a lie (in my opinion). Please provide reference to the Original text of Avempace where he's spoken about "Super Man". No ifs and buts. Gaali or galoch. Thanks.

6. Yes, that absolutely means that Iqbal copied Nietzsche. There's several reasons. The biggest and most undeniable reason is that Iqbal never spoke about "Khudi" unless he'd studied in Germany and was introduced to Nietzsche by Emma Wegenast. Before 1907, Iqbal never wrote a single word about Khudi. We know that he began to write when he was a kid.

Rest of your blabbering and monologue dont merit a reply but i do hope you've, from this post, learnt to spell Avempace correctly.

You’ve made a lot of noise and proved nothing. Empty vessels make the most noise, indeed.

 
Last edited:

stranger

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)

میں علامہ اقبال کے حق میں ہوں. صرف یہ احساس دلانے کی کوشش کر رہا ہوں کے انسان کے نظریات بدلتے رہتے ہیں. قائد اعظم نے اپنی سیاسی زندگی کا آغاز کانگرس سے کیا، ایک وقت میں مسلم لیگ اور کانگرس دونوں کے ممبر رہے. ہندو مسلم اتحاد کے چمپین کہلائے. پھر بدل گئے. ناقدین اس بدلاؤ کے بارے میں قیاس آرائیاں کرتے رہتے ہیں. کرتے رہیں

شائد آپ سے فیصلہ نہیں ہو رہا کے کیا کیا جائے. مولوی علامہ اقبال کو کافر کہتے تھے. کیا سب مولوی؟ آپ کو اس نظم میں کیا غلطی نظر آئی جیسے اچھالنا اور پھر معاف کرنا مناسب سمجھا

علامہ اقبال بوجہ وفات تحریک پاکستان میں بھرپور حصہ نہیں لے سکے. جسے تنگ نظر لوگ تحریک پاکستان کے حوالے سے ان کے خلاف پروپگنڈا کے لئے استعمال کرتے ہیں اور غالب میر سے ملا کر اپنی حسرتوں کی تسکین

جاتے جاتے ایک اور بات سب مولوی نا علامہ اقبال کے خلاف تھے نا قائد اعظم کے. کوئی سیکولر لبرل کبھی بوجہ تنگ نظری اقبال کی تعریف چاہے نا کرے لیکن ایسے لبرل ڈھونڈنا مشکل نہیں جو قائد اعظم اور پاکستان کے اتنے ہی خلاف تھے جتنا بعض مولوی

main iqbal ko sirf aik shaair ke tor per dekhta hoon or bas, or nazriat or phalsapha shaairi ke zariay bhi phailaya ja sakta hai.... iqbal ki shairi ka doosra rukh bhi issi liay dikhaya tha ke dono pehloo nazar aa sakain.....

jis jis ne bhi pakistan ki mukhalifat ki wo aaj ke pakistan ke karta dharta hain.... oosi main se aik tabqa wo hai jo angraiz nawaz khandano se taluq rakta hai jaisay hamaray bohat se vaderay, nawab or jageerdar, doosra tabqa wo jo pakistan ka mukhalif tha jaisay ANP or molvi.... teesra jo apni taqat ke nashay main hai jaisay army, adlia or sarkari adaray....

jinah ka qatal se le ker bangla ki alehdgi, nationalisation se le ker zia ul haq ki jihadiat or musharaf ki madar pider azadiat tak sab apnay apnay mufadat ki jang hai jis main sab ko apni apni bari leni hai.....or bas
 

Mikkix

Minister (2k+ posts)
Iqbal se bara munafiq mene nahi dekha. Iqbal always praising mirza ghulam qadiani infact he also believes that no mehdi will come and saray jahan se acha hindustan hamara.
Jinnah also divide muslims of sub continent into three divisions. Division of india was always a conspiracy of division of muslims. Jinnah was never a statesmen but a good lawyer. Jinnah knows nothing about endian people and politics and history. if any iraqi and afghani and any syrian divides its country then what will you all say. definitely any iraqi syrian aur afghani does it for US sake. In past it was for britishers sake.
Sorry i hurt your feelings but this is another side of a history.
 

Mikkix

Minister (2k+ posts)
Most of sindhi and punjabi waderas are british agents. Anp are not endian agents but they are endian nationalists because they belive that jinnah with the help of british conspires against endian muslims and divide muslim states. What Pakistan has achived today. Bangladesh is ahead of Pakistan. Endia will be a new super power. And endian muslims are part of endian supremacy but unfortunately endian muslim will not rule endia due to jinnah tragic part to divide pakistan.
 

Mikkix

Minister (2k+ posts)
Although i dont like altaf but he was rightly said division of endia was the biggest blunder muslims had ever made and they will pay for it. Now Being a patriotic pakistani we have to change this blunder into opportunity and hope for the best which is not possible to come in near future.
 

Raaz

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
har insaan zehni aur badni irtqaee manaazil se guzarta hai chahe woh nabi hi ho. wahee irtqaa se paak hoti hai is liye keh woh insaani kalaam nahin hoti na insaani zehn ki takhleeq.

کہاں وحی کا مقابلہ انسان سے کر رہے ہو بھائی


ہر آدمی کے ذہنی اور روحانی ارتقا کی سپیڈ مختلف ہوتی ہے اور منزل بھی مختلف ہو سکتی ہے
ڈیپینڈ کرتا ہے ماحول پر

نبی بہرحال گائیڈڈ ہوتا ہے ، اس کا مقابلہ کسی عام آدمی سے سے کرنا مشکل ہے
 

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
Iqbal se bara munafiq mene nahi dekha. Iqbal always praising mirza ghulam qadiani infact he also believes that no mehdi will come and saray jahan se acha hindustan hamara.
Jinnah also divide muslims of sub continent into three divisions. Division of india was always a conspiracy of division of muslims. Jinnah was never a statesmen but a good lawyer. Jinnah knows nothing about endian people and politics and history. if any iraqi and afghani and any syrian divides its country then what will you all say. definitely any iraqi syrian aur afghani does it for US sake. In past it was for britishers sake.
Sorry i hurt your feelings but this is another side of a history.

But Hindustan had never been ONE country in the course of history. What COUNTRY did Jinnah divide?
 

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
کہاں وحی کا مقابلہ انسان سے کر رہے ہو بھائی


ہر آدمی کے ذہنی اور روحانی ارتقا کی سپیڈ مختلف ہوتی ہے اور منزل بھی مختلف ہو سکتی ہے
ڈیپینڈ کرتا ہے ماحول پر

نبی بہرحال گائیڈڈ ہوتا ہے ، اس کا مقابلہ کسی عام آدمی سے سے کرنا مشکل ہے

Wahi?
You sure an Angel comes down on Earth and speaks to a man and makes the man responsible for the whole world. Seriously?

According to Bu Ali Sina (Avicenna) Wahi is just the greatest and the most magnificent imagination of a man. According to him, metaphysically speaking, this kind of activity is impossible to take place. There's no Wahi. Read him.
 

Raaz

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
Wahi?
You sure an Angel comes down on Earth and speaks to a man and makes the man responsible for the whole world. Seriously?

According to Bu Ali Sina (Avicenna) Wahi is just the greatest and the most magnificent imagination of a man. According to him, metaphysically speaking, this kind of activity is impossible to take place. There's no Wahi. Read him.
بو علی سینا کا وقت گزر گیا بھائی
کدھر پھر رہے ہو
اب این سٹائین کا وقت ہے ، چاند پر جانے کا وقت ہے
اور شق القمر کو ثابت کرنے کا وقت ہے
تم کدھر پھر رہے ہو
 

Mikkix

Minister (2k+ posts)
But Hindustan had never been ONE country in the course of history. What COUNTRY did Jinnah divide?

Biggest blunder was divide the country for the sake of religion and then asking for secular state. What a pathetic statesmen he waz. If pakistan has to secular after independencethen this secular thing can also apply on united endia where muslims and hindus jointly rules as secular state. North endia and current pakistan was always united endia. only marathas and southern region was not always part of it. But after second world war world was shaping like dividing into small countries in the short period and united as alliance in the longer period. So united endia solves muslims problems better than divided endia. Problem with the muslims are they are uneducated and have no knowledge of international game plan.
Why Pakistan is not supporting division of syria iraq and afghanistan?
They have many leaders like jinnah and nehru to play according to the west.
 
Last edited:

Bret Hawk

Senator (1k+ posts)
Wahi?
You sure an Angel comes down on Earth and speaks to a man and makes the man responsible for the whole world. Seriously?

According to Bu Ali Sina (Avicenna) Wahi is just the greatest and the most magnificent imagination of a man. According to him, metaphysically speaking, this kind of activity is impossible to take place. There's no Wahi. Read him.

Avicenna and Muslim Philosophers of his age used to view religion through the specs of Greek logic and philosophy. Avicenna had a weak grip on the sciences of Islam therefore his comment on the orientation and depth of revelation could not be taken that much authoritatively. A prophet or a saint of highest caliber are the kinds of experts who could decipher the layers of this complex phenomenon of revelation, dear Username sahab.
 

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
Avicenna and Muslim Philosophers of his age used to view religion through the specs of Greek logic and philosophy. Avicenna had a weak grip on the sciences of Islam therefore his comment on the orientation and depth of revelation could not be taken that much authoritatively. A prophet or a saint of highest caliber are the kinds of experts who could decipher the layers of this complex phenomenon of revelation, dear Username sahab.

"Sciences of Islam" Lol
You've got a good sense of humour!
 

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
بو علی سینا کا وقت گزر گیا بھائی
کدھر پھر رہے ہو
اب این سٹائین کا وقت ہے ، چاند پر جانے کا وقت ہے
اور شق القمر کو ثابت کرنے کا وقت ہے
تم کدھر پھر رہے ہو

True.

But claims of Religion are the same as thousands of years ago.
Wahi. Prophet. Book. Hell. Heaven. Blah blah
 

Bret Hawk

Senator (1k+ posts)
"Sciences of Islam" Lol
You've got a good sense of humour!

Of course what do you know about linguistics, grammar, syntax, structural coherence, logic, jurisprudence, verification of chain of narrators, law, history and hermeneutics of texts? What do you know about metaphysics, spirituality and esoteric cosmology in order to deal with the topics Quran has dealt with?

For you science and philosophy are worthy of subjects only so then it's once again a proof of your limits of understanding of religion.
 

Username

Senator (1k+ posts)
Of course what do you know about linguistics, grammar, syntax, structural coherence, logic, jurisprudence, verification of chain of narrators, law, history and hermeneutics of texts? What do you know about metaphysics, spirituality and esoteric cosmology in order to deal with the topics Quran has dealt with?

For you science and philosophy are worthy of subjects only so then it's once again a proof of your limits of understanding of religion.

Sorry. I dint know that Arabic language was "Science".
Can i doubt this statement or is it a Wahi, absolute, definitive, and beyond-questioning?
Okay, I choose to doubt.


Language of Quran has been a topic of great debate right from the beginning. Very eloquent and very appealing. Prophet SAw was called "Poet" for a reason. People fail to understand the idea behind this allegation. "Poetry" was a common medium of communication back then, amongst Urban Arabs. Abu Bakar, Bilal, Abu Jahal, Abu Talib, Ka'b, Hamza etc etc have recorded pieces of poetry as part of a discourse on different occasions. In a Society where even uneducated slaves usedPoetry as a medium of speech, calling someone a POET was indeed an acknowledgement of his eloquence.

In the setting where all of Meccans, headed by Utba, called upon Prophet SAW and asked him his wishes for stop cursing their Idols and Gods, it was blamed on Prophet SAW that he'd learnt to read from a man called "Abdul Rehman". (Which He SAW did not refuse. He SAW dint speak about it at all).

Once Utba (Who had a soft corner for Prophet SAW), who was the most powerful Chief of Mecca, he went to convince Prophet SAW that Prophet SAW shouldn't not curse their Gods. When he came back, people ask him whether he'd convinced Mohammad SAW. He dint reply. People blamed he was spellbound by Mohamamd SAW.

Once when all of Arab Chiefs were present, they just wanted Mohammad SAW to stop cursing their Gods. They offered Him to keep preaching His Religion and live in co-existence. Every time Arabs came to Abu Talib, they came for just one thing. Tell Mogammad SAW NOT to curse our forefathers, our elders, our Gods, and our Religion. In the beginning until the day Meccans became certain that Mohammad SAW had military plans in mind, they never told Prophet SAW to stop preaching his thoughts. Their only demand was that Mohammad SAW should cease cursing their elders and Gods.
Question is, what made Meccans so distrubed if a man who dint hold a good social standing in the city, cursed their Gods? Why'd they feel so distressed? Could they not simply ignore him?
Answer of this question lies in Prophet SAW eloquent and powerful speech. He knew how to disturb others. He knew the capacity of expression of words. He knew what words would hit what nerve.

Once when Chiefs of Mecca asked Utba to solve the matter with Mohammad SAW, Utba called upon people to understand their opinion about the "Nature of Abilities" of Mohammad. His eloquence of speech was discussed there. Prophet SAW was called "An expert of the Art of the Ancients".

Though Abu Jahal was never impressed. Prophet SAW uncle Abu Lahab was never impressed. You know why?
Because Abu Jahal himself was a great poet. He was a very eloquent person himself.


And by the way, who wrote the Quran Manuscript at Birmingham Museum? Who wrote? Who was the Writer? There were only 55 men and 4 women who could write. Women couldnt write so well, I reckon. So who wrote that Quran? Who was the person who knew writing but his name could never come along? None of the Sahaba told in any of the Ahadith that they'd written whole Quran. Was it Mohammad SAW himself? Did he know writing? The allegation made against Him SAW that He SAW had known to reading and writing was correct?

I find it ironically funny that 1500 years ago, Kufar were saying that Quran was "The Art of the Ancients" and 1500 years after that Muslims are saying that Quran is "Science".
Its neither. Its just a "Creation". Whoever created it was a very bright and eloquent person who was very well aware of customs and culture of Mecca and who had an extensive knowledge of human psychology.


Even funnier is this fact that you're claiming it to be Science and praising its language and structure, while you cannot even understand it. Can you understand Quranic Arab with its true essence? Do you know that Quranic Arabic is different from contemporary Arabic?

You're exalting a book you couldn't even understand.

Who told you, by the way, that Quran is very eloquent? You've heard it? Right?
Great! Indeed are you a man of reason.



Referencing system and chain of narrators.. Is it Science too? Referencing is Science? Since when?


History and Hermeneutics of Quran? History, I assure you, i know as far as it can be known. Hermeneutics is a fallacy. I'm neither interested in it nor do i attach any value to this "branch of knowledge".
Will you start doubting Quran if the study of Hermeneutics of Quran end up in establishing that Quran is not consistent and coherent? If not, then what the point in referring to it?

Early Muslims who understood that time, its exigencies, and the true language has explained every verse of Quran. Read Ibn Abbas.


Lets not forget that "Hermeneutics of Quran" is the reason theres countless sects and Islam has gone through a divide.

Does it please you to coin big terms and write heavy words for the sake of writing, Without understanding what you actually are saying?


What I know about Metaphysics and Cosmology? I know nothing. I'm a student, trying to learn. What I know makes no question. What Quran knows makes a question.

So please fill me in with " The Theories of Quran". What "Topics" Quran has DISCUSSED? Be specific and bring forth a "Topic of Quran" and I'll let you know what i know.

Quran.. A book of stories and sometimes contradictory texts.



Understanding of Religon is largely associated with the disposition you've got as a man.
A man who's extreme in his behaviour, who's mentally unstable, who's got a limited understanding of the world around him, who's got vested interests served in the practice of religion, who's got a great imagination about hell and heaven, who's weak, who's vulnerable, who lacks brains, who's lost grip on reality, who's walled himself off, who's shut his eyes from the World, who cannot resist propaganda, who cannot tell things apart, who's bound by social exigencies to stick to the religion, or the one who isnt really bothered whether there is a religion or not........ practice religion.
 

Raaz

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
True.

But claims of Religion are the same as thousands of years ago.
Wahi. Prophet. Book. Hell. Heaven. Blah blah
It is future as well not only past....think about it ..

Same as wheat and rice were in past and will be in future also....