Dars e Quran - Al-Bayan - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
- Thread starter meezan
- Start date
meezan
Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Dars e Quran - Al-Bayan - Surah Al-Baqrah - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URFM0okh_9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ryA6fnmPk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5994jhcwPv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H18UoSdW1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybTyDfTOIMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URFM0okh_9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ryA6fnmPk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5994jhcwPv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H18UoSdW1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybTyDfTOIMQ
The quran is unique and stands alone when it comes to divine manifesto and constitution and that is because Allah alone is God not any prophet, so only and only he alone has the right to rule through his provided constitution.
Hadith does not have this function at all because the prophet is not God so he does not have the right to rule. This is very basic truth ummah needs to accept.
If the prophet is not the ruler then what is his job according to his ruler ie God? His job is to deliver divine message and if people accept it and come to him for formation of a good human society that he organises them as per quranic teachings as a constitution for a good human society.
Therefore hadith is there to tell us how did prophet fulfil his mission.
It is like a country has a constitution and people implement the constitution and whatever goes-on on daily basis is reported by the reporters in the newspapers. From this it should clear that importance of hadith is great but it serves a different purpose from the quran. Quran is constitution the hadith is not. Therefore using hadith to form laws is fine in the sense that how prophet formed laws within given quranic limitations under his circumstances in situations that faced him in his time. Using the very same laws for our time under our situation is not the right way of using the hadith. This would mean that we ar trying to hold still the time, the circumstances and the situations, which is impossible.
So mullah driven islam is therefore totally wrong because they want to live in 7th century arabia that no longer exists. The world has moved on and today we are in 21st century.
If today anyone wants to use camels and donkeys and tents wants to write quran on bones and skin that is up to him but that is not law of islam and it cannot be. Stupidity is no answer to anything thinking is.
The revelation of God always set the limits and the prophets and their followers simply made the laws within those limits to suit their time and circumstances and situations and that is clearly told in the quran. No prophet was ever given the right to rule the people. Had this right been given then what would be the difference between ruling of a king and a prophet? One man is no slave to another man. This is islam.
regards and all the best.
indigo
Siasat.pk - Blogger
Jahal WatanDost k Naam
You cant teach an Abu Jahel, but for those who listen...
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement:
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they doin comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts....
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well.
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominemand a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
DH4. Counterargument.
Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different.
More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html&h=TAQG-VqUY
You cant teach an Abu Jahel, but for those who listen...
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement:
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they doin comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts....
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well.
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominemand a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
DH4. Counterargument.
Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different.
More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html&h=TAQG-VqUY
meezan
Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
Lie will take you to hell, and it has no use here, by internet and media you can never hide the truth...
*Never J A Ghamidi's arguments are based on his confidence but facts...
*Can you prove blasphemy from Quran?
*Ijama? What Imam Hanfia's saying on blasphemy?
*Quran is the final Authority nothing can overrule Quran!
*Hadiths are also source of Islam and no Muslim can disregard them
*Never J A Ghamidi's arguments are based on his confidence but facts...
*Can you prove blasphemy from Quran?
*Ijama? What Imam Hanfia's saying on blasphemy?
*Quran is the final Authority nothing can overrule Quran!
*Hadiths are also source of Islam and no Muslim can disregard them
Dear indigo, ghamdi sb is not deliberately trying to annoy mullahs, he is just sharing his ideas about islam with ummah and those ideas deserve hearing like any other ideas by anyone else. After all humanity is all about learning from each other. All our knowledge comes from each other so telling each other burn the books and people who write them is not the teaching of islam.
Allah knows the way he has created man knowing absolutely nothing 16/78. He decided to let him learn so man should learn as much as he can and see which way he should be going. In time generation after generation man has learn a lot but he still has a lot to learn to make this world a blissful one for which Allah put him in this world.
Mullahs have failed to realise this point so they expect we all should be phds as soon as we are born and make no mistakes. A totally stupid understanding of islam that simply serve no purpose whatsoever. These mullahs are acting like bully boys and that is what is wrong with them. This is why they do not let people free to think things through for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. Had mullahs instead encouraged education and thinking the world would have been quite a different place by now.
Ghamdi sb is using his right to learn and think for himself and that is his real crime in self made laws of mullahs.
Mullahs have been criticised by all educated and thinking people for their this mindset and attitude. otherwise mullahs could earn great respect for securing information sources of islam. Just by this stupidity they cannot gain respect in ummah because of which came about so many sects and so much blood was shed within ummah. This is going to continue till we have more and more people like ghamdi sb who show sense to this ummah by working out islam for themselves. This does not mean each and everything anyone says is automatically correct just because one is going against the mullahs. I only oppose wrong mindset and attitude of mullahs towards understanding of islam. That is because the ummah as a whole is facing terrible problems and we have no solutions unless we let people have freedom to think and come up with new ideas in light of the pressing problems to solve them.
regards and all the best.
Allah knows the way he has created man knowing absolutely nothing 16/78. He decided to let him learn so man should learn as much as he can and see which way he should be going. In time generation after generation man has learn a lot but he still has a lot to learn to make this world a blissful one for which Allah put him in this world.
Mullahs have failed to realise this point so they expect we all should be phds as soon as we are born and make no mistakes. A totally stupid understanding of islam that simply serve no purpose whatsoever. These mullahs are acting like bully boys and that is what is wrong with them. This is why they do not let people free to think things through for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. Had mullahs instead encouraged education and thinking the world would have been quite a different place by now.
Ghamdi sb is using his right to learn and think for himself and that is his real crime in self made laws of mullahs.
Mullahs have been criticised by all educated and thinking people for their this mindset and attitude. otherwise mullahs could earn great respect for securing information sources of islam. Just by this stupidity they cannot gain respect in ummah because of which came about so many sects and so much blood was shed within ummah. This is going to continue till we have more and more people like ghamdi sb who show sense to this ummah by working out islam for themselves. This does not mean each and everything anyone says is automatically correct just because one is going against the mullahs. I only oppose wrong mindset and attitude of mullahs towards understanding of islam. That is because the ummah as a whole is facing terrible problems and we have no solutions unless we let people have freedom to think and come up with new ideas in light of the pressing problems to solve them.
regards and all the best.
WatanDost
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Aei Aei Aei
Quran and Ahadiths are two Sources of Islam
and Ijmah e Ummat is Blessing of these two.
From Where COME this GUTTEr Ghamdi Gundagi ???
Ghamdi Idealogy vs Islamic Idealogy: Comparision
What is his Source of rubbish conclusions ???
read Khutba e Haj ul Vidah
karachiwala
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Re: Dars e Quran - Al-Bayan - Surah Fatiha - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
There is another post about his brother pervez also today!
There is another post about his brother pervez also today!
