Fear for Pakistan's death row Christian woman
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
They aren't secular then, they're atheistic/non-religious states.
This isn't a justification for the removal of Pakistan nukes. Pakistan isn't unstable in regards to its nukes. Their nukes are there only friends in that region. It doesn't have America the same way South Korea has American and can live without nukes, there's still tension between the two countries.
This is wrong. In Islam, if the state refuses to punish a person for the crime that they committed in accordance to the Islamic law, citizens can't go and take the law into their own hands. This is position is even held by some of the more zealous/extreme Muslims. Please stop stating something is prescribed in the Qu'ran when it isn't, unless you have a Quranic verse which can state otherwise?
This isn't a justification for the removal of Pakistan nukes. Pakistan isn't unstable in regards to its nukes. Their nukes are there only friends in that region. It doesn't have America the same way South Korea has American and can live without nukes, there's still tension between the two countries.
This is wrong. In Islam, if the state refuses to punish a person for the crime that they committed in accordance to the Islamic law, citizens can't go and take the law into their own hands. This is position is even held by some of the more zealous/extreme Muslims. Please stop stating something is prescribed in the Qu'ran when it isn't, unless you have a Quranic verse which can state otherwise?
The country is intolerant corrupt and can barely gurantee the saftey of its own borders OR its nuclear facilities. Hardly a country that should be allowed nuclear weapons so it can feel safe against some feel of threat from India.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
They aren't secular then, they're atheistic/non-religious states.
This isn't a justification for the removal of Pakistan nukes. Pakistan isn't unstable in regards to its nukes. Their nukes are there only friends in that region. It doesn't have America the same way South Korea has American and can live without nukes, there's still tension between the two countries.
This is wrong. In Islam, if the state refuses to punish a person for the crime that they committed in accordance to the Islamic law, citizens can't go and take the law into their own hands. This is position is even held by some of the more zealous/extreme Muslims. Please stop stating something is prescribed in the Qu'ran when it isn't, unless you have a Quranic verse which can state otherwise?
This isn't a justification for the removal of Pakistan nukes. Pakistan isn't unstable in regards to its nukes. Their nukes are there only friends in that region. It doesn't have America the same way South Korea has American and can live without nukes, there's still tension between the two countries.
This is wrong. In Islam, if the state refuses to punish a person for the crime that they committed in accordance to the Islamic law, citizens can't go and take the law into their own hands. This is position is even held by some of the more zealous/extreme Muslims. Please stop stating something is prescribed in the Qu'ran when it isn't, unless you have a Quranic verse which can state otherwise?
true, my bad. even if I dont agree with you on all issues, I respect the fact that much of what you say is based on actual fact and that you dont emphasis or hold back this to fit some strong opinion you have.
Original post by Aj12
The country is intolerant corrupt and can barely gurantee the saftey of its own borders OR its nuclear facilities. Hardly a country that should be allowed nuclear weapons so it can feel safe against some feel of threat from India.
It already has nuclear weapons. And it should be allowed to continue them. You can either take both of their nuclear weapons or none. It's hardly fair on Pakistan to not be allowed nuclear weapons when one of it's archnemesis has them.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
They aren't secular then, they're atheistic/non-religious states.
This isn't a justification for the removal of Pakistan nukes. Pakistan isn't unstable in regards to its nukes. Their nukes are there only friends in that region. It doesn't have America the same way South Korea has American and can live without nukes, there's still tension between the two countries.
This is wrong. In Islam, if the state refuses to punish a person for the crime that they committed in accordance to the Islamic law, citizens can't go and take the law into their own hands. This is position is even held by some of the more zealous/extreme Muslims. Please stop stating something is prescribed in the Qu'ran when it isn't, unless you have a Quranic verse which can state otherwise?
This isn't a justification for the removal of Pakistan nukes. Pakistan isn't unstable in regards to its nukes. Their nukes are there only friends in that region. It doesn't have America the same way South Korea has American and can live without nukes, there's still tension between the two countries.
This is wrong. In Islam, if the state refuses to punish a person for the crime that they committed in accordance to the Islamic law, citizens can't go and take the law into their own hands. This is position is even held by some of the more zealous/extreme Muslims. Please stop stating something is prescribed in the Qu'ran when it isn't, unless you have a Quranic verse which can state otherwise?
I didn't claim it was stated in the Quaran that Muslims could take the law into their own hands. It is however their job to implement Sharia at a state level, so that those Muslims who choose to become Christians can be killed. Although there are still calls throughout to fight against Jews and Christians wherever possible. http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html#004.089
This is another rather interesting quote, which I believe could be interpreted as take the law into your own hands:
[4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.
Original post by Elipsis
I didn't claim it was stated in the Quaran that Muslims could take the law into their own hands. It is however their job to implement Sharia at a state level, so that those Muslims who choose to become Christians can be killed.
Yup but by the state.
Although there are still calls throughout to fight against Jews and Christians wherever possible. http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html#004.089
It's not as simple as your making it. Observe:
[4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.
This is referring to fighting against those that lie to you. Those that state that they want peace but when war comes, they fight against you. They don't offer you no peace or stop fighting against you. What do you expect them to do? Just stand there and let themselves be killed? Anyway, look at the historical context of this verse. The Qu'ran doesn't state kill them because they're Jews.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
It already has nuclear weapons. And it should be allowed to continue them. You can either take both of their nuclear weapons or none. It's hardly fair on Pakistan to not be allowed nuclear weapons when one of it's archnemesis has them.
India does has a no strike first policy. Pakistan hardly has anything to fear from a country India who are aiming for a seat on the UN security council they are not about to Nuke Pakistan.
Pakistan should not be allowed weapons that are at a high risk of theft from the Taliban just to combat what is essentially an imagined threat.
The country may as well be a failed state. The government cannot even look after its own people let alone fight any kind of a war against the Taliban
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
Yup but by the state.
It's not as simple as your making it. Observe:
This is referring to fighting against those that lie to you. Those that state that they want peace but when war comes, they fight against you. They don't offer you no peace or stop fighting against you. What do you expect them to do? Just stand there and let themselves be killed? Anyway, look at the historical context of this verse. The Qu'ran doesn't state kill them because they're Jews.
It's not as simple as your making it. Observe:
This is referring to fighting against those that lie to you. Those that state that they want peace but when war comes, they fight against you. They don't offer you no peace or stop fighting against you. What do you expect them to do? Just stand there and let themselves be killed? Anyway, look at the historical context of this verse. The Qu'ran doesn't state kill them because they're Jews.
Over the centuries there has been plenty of lying between each of the religions, clearly a zealot could find easy validation for taking the law into their own hands. Indeed they do. They are as right as you are. And don't give me the historical context argument, the Quaran is supposed to be a blueprint for people in every age to be able to pick up and live their life by. Why not disregard the whole Quaran as being written by a backwards medieval tribe that managed to expand? You won't find Christians saying 'o but that verse of the bible refers to 2000 years ago not today'. If you are going to start chopping and choosing parts of the Quaran based on what you yourself believe because you've had the benefit of living in a Christian country, then the Quaran is worthless to you. Which leads onto another disturbing point about the Quaran - it doesn't contain context, where its followers claim it is necessary.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by mrt23498
Well, I find it hard that our country is allied with such a nation in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What is the difference between the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Government?
Nothing really; all are involved in islamic extremists (yes the gov of pak included. I don't want to hear bs replies about how they are "fighting terrorism")...
The only difference between the three is that american and britain are willing to take the war to al-qaeda and taliban, but not to pakistan. They'd rather give them millions to further support the groups they are fighting!
Pakistan prime minister essentially told cameron to **** off when he requested to meet up in islamabad after his tour of afghanistan. That shows who's calling the shots.
Original post by Elipsis
Over the centuries there has been plenty of lying between each of the religions, clearly a zealot could find easy validation for taking the law into their own hands. Indeed they do. They are as right as you are. And don't give me the historical context argument, the Quaran is supposed to be a blueprint for people in every age to be able to pick up and live their life by. Why not disregard the whole Quaran as being written by a backwards medieval tribe that managed to expand? You won't find Christians saying 'o but that verse of the bible refers to 2000 years ago not today'. If you are going to start chopping and choosing parts of the Quaran based on what you yourself believe because you've had the benefit of living in a Christian country, then the Quaran is worthless to you. Which leads onto another disturbing point about the Quaran - it doesn't contain context, where its followers claim it is necessary.
The zealous don't do the interpretation themselves (unless they are qualified), they use Tasfirs and other sources. Again, wrong. Yes, the Qu'ran is for the rest of humankind (present and to come) but some verses were specifically referring to on-going wars. Just look at the historical context and it will be very clear, you can even use scholars, tasfris and you will probably land in a similar conclusion. No on is chopping parts and I am not a Muslim. It does contain context, give me an example and I'll try and see if I can show you the context (with Islamic sources to corroborate obviously). Yes, [some] Christians just deny the relevance of that book and pretty much dismiss it.
Original post by Aj12
India does has a no strike first policy. Pakistan hardly has anything to fear from a country India who are aiming for a seat on the UN security council they are not about to Nuke Pakistan.
Pakistan should not be allowed weapons that are at a high risk of theft from the Taliban just to combat what is essentially an imagined threat.
The country may as well be a failed state. The government cannot even look after its own people let alone fight any kind of a war against the Taliban
Pakistan should not be allowed weapons that are at a high risk of theft from the Taliban just to combat what is essentially an imagined threat.
The country may as well be a failed state. The government cannot even look after its own people let alone fight any kind of a war against the Taliban
It doesn't matter what policy they have, they will still use it to their advantage when conflicts arise. Pakistan can protect its nuclear facilities and it's probably one of the most secure facilities in the country. You're forgetting Pakistan has had this weapon for a long time. It's not building them, it has them. USA can barely defeat the Taliban, ethically and you expect Pakistan to be able to? Lets be realistic here.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
The zealous don't do the interpretation themselves (unless they are qualified), they use Tasfirs and other sources. Again, wrong. Yes, the Qu'ran is for the rest of humankind (present and to come) but some verses were specifically referring to on-going wars. Just look at the historical context and it will be very clear, you can even use scholars, tasfris and you will probably land in a similar conclusion. No on is chopping parts and I am not a Muslim. It does contain context, give me an example and I'll try and see if I can show you the context (with Islamic sources to corroborate obviously). Yes, [some] Christians just deny the relevance of that book and pretty much dismiss it.
You are just backing up my point that the Quaran totally fails as a work to live your life by. The example above, which you claim needs context, is totally devoid of it in the supposedly inspired work that is the Quaran. Very little of the Quaran was written when Muslims weren't at war, so you can obviously just discard any piece of it you please.
Original post by Elipsis
You are just backing up my point that the Quaran totally fails as a work to live your life by. The example above, which you claim needs context, is totally devoid of it in the supposedly inspired work that is the Quaran. Very little of the Quaran was written when Muslims weren't at war, so you can obviously just discard any piece of it you please.
No, you can't. A Muslim doesn't just make up any interpretation he believes to be right, there are plenty of other sources that can be used such as opinions of the four traditional scholars, tasfirs and hadiths.
Original post by Elipsis
Original post by Elipsis
Over the centuries there has been plenty of lying between each of the religions, clearly a zealot could find easy validation for taking the law into their own hands. Indeed they do. They are as right as you are. And don't give me the historical context argument, the Quaran is supposed to be a blueprint for people in every age to be able to pick up and live their life by. Why not disregard the whole Quaran as being written by a backwards medieval tribe that managed to expand? You won't find Christians saying 'o but that verse of the bible refers to 2000 years ago not today'. If you are going to start chopping and choosing parts of the Quaran based on what you yourself believe because you've had the benefit of living in a Christian country, then the Quaran is worthless to you. Which leads onto another disturbing point about the Quaran - it doesn't contain context, where its followers claim it is necessary.
Original post by Annoying-Mouse
No, you can't. A Muslim doesn't just make up any interpretation he believes to be right, there are plenty of other sources that can be used such as opinions of the four traditional scholars, tasfirs and hadiths.
It isn't hard to find 4 scholars to back up your point either. The fact is it is entirely stupid to need to constantly refer to others. If God effectively wrote a book why would its message be so elusive?
Original post by CombineHarvester
Amazing reply there...
No, you can't. A Muslim doesn't just make up any interpretation he believes to be right, there are plenty of other sources that can be used such as opinions of the four traditional scholars, tasfirs and hadiths.
spot the difference? look closely at the underlined if you don't get it
Original post by Elipsis
It isn't hard to find 4 scholars to back up your point either. The fact is it is entirely stupid to need to constantly refer to others. If God effectively wrote a book why would its message be so elusive?
spot the difference? look closely at the underlined if you don't get it
Original post by Elipsis
It isn't hard to find 4 scholars to back up your point either. The fact is it is entirely stupid to need to constantly refer to others. If God effectively wrote a book why would its message be so elusive?
It is when those four scholars are dead and have been dead for more than a 10 centuries. You need to refer to others because they are more educated than you. They have learnt the religion more than yourself. Those sources are there to guide you to the right interpretation. The italic is my opinion though and guess work so you should ask a Muslim for clarification.
Original post by Econ7
No, you can't. A Muslim doesn't just make up any interpretation he believes to be right, there are plenty of other sources that can be used such as opinions of the four traditional scholars, tasfirs and hadiths.
spot the difference? look closely at the underlined if you don't get it
spot the difference? look closely at the underlined if you don't get it
It seems rather odd that such a thing is necessary. Why in your opinion was the team work of God and Mohammed incapable of making a work that could be easily interpreted? Indeed Islam is so difficult to understand it split straight after Mohammed's death.
Original post by Elipsis
Original post by Elipsis
Amazing reply there...
Actually if you listen to most Christians in the UK today, they will say exactly this so I'm shocked anyone would say otherwise. It's been used to justify the introduction of women bishops/priests and various other reforms. The justification for it is usually along the lines of "the bible was written thousands of years ago by men and so [insert controversial verse] doesn't apply now" etc.
Original post by CombineHarvester
Original post by CombineHarvester
Actually if you listen to most Christians in the UK today, they will say exactly this so I'm shocked anyone would say otherwise. It's been used to justify the introduction of women bishops/priests and various other reforms. The justification for it is usually along the lines of "the bible was written thousands of years ago by men and so [insert controversial verse] doesn't apply now" etc.
He seems to have gotten about the old testament and how much it's downplayed in modern society.
This is why I hate Islamic countries they dont treat minorities well at all and just discriminate so much makes me laugh when muslims are here and are moaning about discrimination really doesnt match up.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How to meet Christian women to date? (24m)
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How is the supernatural presented in Macbeth?
- motivation for a levels
- marriage
- ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAPER 2 model answers (Grade 9)
- how is macbeth presented as an ambitious character
- Can someone assess my two paragraphs for Eng lit?
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 2 (9ET0 02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Interfaith and Intercultute Relationships
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Please can anyone mark my Jekyll and Hyde essay?
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- MEN- Why do you donate/ do not donate blood?
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- I’m british Pakistani girl. Ask me anything...
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- LNAT Essay
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
