Shariah-compliant Dressing in Audit Firms

Schuaeb · 05-25-2007, 12:19 AM

.

Schuaeb · 05-25-2007, 12:31 AM

One more thing, there is no point in comparing Caliphs with other leaders who happened to be Muslims.

I will deny that HAQ and BATAl in their regimes did the same. They were emprors and enhancing their power was their beleif, and by coincidence they happened to be hindus, muslims or others. Mughals, Ghaznavi, Hitler and others are no exception to the rule.

I wonder why we are taught rubbish in our syllabai. Totally fabricated and wrong history, similar is the case with Islamiat. It seems it intends to produce people with closed minds who are unable to think on their own

kamranACA · 05-25-2007, 05:26 PM

Dear Shuaib,

In fact you cannot deny that HAQ and BATIL in their regimes did the same things. I can prove it and u plz JUST GET THE IDEA BEHIND THIS CONCLUSION, I dont talk about the HAQ which might be considered as HAQ by GOD (becoz it is not known to us, it has a lengthy discussion and involves the HADEES about NAAJI Sect of Islaam and othe relevant religious material).

I just mention the HAQ and BATIL which we guys consider as HAQ and BATIL. We have to see it under two separate cases

CASE 1

For us (GENERALLY), in history, all muslims were HAQ and all others who were not muslim were BATIL.

If this is the case then it is very much true that muslims did similar things (as a nation) when they were in power as are expected to be done from others. You just look back into histroy and you will get 100s of examples. Mehmood Ghaznavi is just one example. I can accept him as a hero due to his brave fights and courage against opponents but I cannot acept him a hero purely in islamic meanings. Mr. Amir once referred his statement that he loved to be an idol destroyer than to be an idol sellers. Such statements have ever been given and recorded by all emporers.

You know Musharraf has recently given a statement that this KURSI (Position) and Respect has been awarded to him by ALLAH which the oposition parties cannot snatch from him. He further said that the door of KHANA KABA was not opened for Nawaz Shareef even on his requests but that door was opened for him 6 times without any request etc. He wanted to prove that all the support of God is with him and all what he is doing is totally as per will of God. In my view this is a big exclamation and he will pay for it. However, such statements cannot make a GHAASIB our hero. Likewise the statement of Mehmood Ghaznavi does not make him my hero purely in islamic terms. Such statements are the part of every one who was or would be in power. If some one feels him a hero in islamic terms, it is good for him.

CASE 2

Further, if the above is not the case and muslim emporers in general are not to be considered purely as HAQ, then what was or is the HAQ? We know that the Islam in its original text (QURAN, HADEES and SUNNAH) is HAQ but due to a number of sects of islam having totally (i mean totally) different basic idealogy, it would be again difficult to decide that which specific sect is on purest path of HAQ. Due to this, in such case, this will not be known to any one that practically which humans were on HAQ. Anyways this is a very lengthy discussion. I have made detailed studies on this topic and could not conclude anything except that such all facts are only known to ALLAH and we cannot know what are the intentions in minds and would such mindsets be proved by the acts and deeds. GHAIB is only known to ALLAH and human wisdom is very meager. However, in DUNYAVI terms if muslims are considered one nation without any sects and for that they are concluded to be HAQ and all others are BATIL then my conclusion, as per my thinking, remains logical.

I must know that you are a muslim and, as per my own understanding, all the questions raised by you are genuine questions and must not be considered as TABOO. Your comparison of BUSH government with MUSLIM governments when we were in power appears to be logical as per human mind. However, the best judge is ALLAH. Our Ulemaas should give logical explanations in normal gatherings in mosques and other places without declaring any person (asking such question) as non-muslim or DEVOTEE of EBLEES etc and the knowledge must not be kept in few hands. I totally agree to you that our sallybus books are very moderated and show the mentalities of those who are in government instead of showing real history of islam/muslims.

Best regards,

KAMRAN.

kamranACA · 05-25-2007, 05:43 PM

Dears,

I think the area came under muslims during the period of Hazrat Umar Bin Khattaab Raziallah Ta'ala was enormous.

Do these FATAHs (of FAROOQ THE GREAT Raziallah) total to a greater figure than the area conqured by ALEXENDER THE GREAT.

Have anybody such calculation.

An analysis may conclude that FAROOQ THE GREAT Raziallah Ta'ala was a greater conquerer than ALEXENDER THE GREAT. This is only the FARANGGIES media which makes ALEXENDER the biggest conqurer of the history.

I would appreciate, if some one can give data on this.

Best regards,

Kamran.

Pracs · 05-26-2007, 06:16 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by kamranACA
 Dears,

I think the area came under muslims during the period of Hazrat Umar Bin Khattaab Raziallah Ta'ala was enormous.

Do these FATAHs (of FAROOQ THE GREAT Raziallah) total to a greater figure than the area conqured by ALEXENDER THE GREAT.

Have anybody such calculation.

An analysis may conclude that FAROOQ THE GREAT Raziallah Ta'ala was a greater conquerer than ALEXENDER THE GREAT. This is only the FARANGGIES media which makes ALEXENDER the biggest conqurer of the history.

I would appreciate, if some one can give data on this.

Best regards,

Kamran.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the area brought under by Alexander was less in area compared to that of Hazrat Umar, see below links of maps which roughly gives an idea

Caliphate under Hazrat Umar
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageRashidmap.gif

Hazrat Umar was assasinated in 641, the caliphate extended from the Arabian penisula in the south, Armenia/Bukhara in North, Half of present day Iran in the East and upto part of Present day Libya in the West.

Alexander's conquest
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMacedonEmpire.jpg

Alexander's kingdom included Macedonia(part of Modern Greece)and Egyptin the west,Turkey as the Northern most,Iran and present day Pakistan in the East.

The areas missing from Alexander's kingdom were ofcourse the whole of Arabian peninsula, Armenia and Samarkand/Bukhara. The only area not included in the Caliphate was ocfourse Macedonia/Greece, which is not all that big in area.

There is a major difference though, Alexander never actually ruled these territories, most of these continued to pay taxes to the Greek king and there was never a 'real state' in the modern meaning.

On the other hand the Caliphate was pretty much the modern state and was effectively ruled as one country under the Caliphate.

rabia-k · 12-06-2009, 10:39 PM

one should try wearing a kurta and pajama and stand erect with legs close. then he should spread his arms and look at himself in the mirror. [D]

Mujahid · 12-06-2009, 11:48 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rabia-k
 one should try wearing a kurta and pajama and stand erect with legs close. then he should spread his arms and look at himself in the mirror. [D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Kindly kurta pajame ka mazak na banaein. Ye Rasool Allah PBUH ka dress tha.

rabia-k · 12-07-2009, 01:31 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mujahid
 <blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rabia-k
 one should try wearing a kurta and pajama and stand erect with legs close. then he should spread his arms and look at himself in the mirror. [D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Kindly kurta pajame ka mazak na banaein. Ye Rasool Allah PBUH ka dress tha.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
my post is directed towards those who say that wearing a tie is "haram" and that it resembles a "cross".

Muhammad Amir · 12-11-2009, 06:04 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">one should try wearing a kurta and pajama and stand erect with legs close. then he should spread his arms and look at himself in the mirror.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I will not go in details of what is right or what is wrong to wear but I think, if we can not pursue our values and culture then we have no right to demonize it either.

rabia-k · 12-11-2009, 03:55 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Muhammad Amir
 <blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">one should try wearing a kurta and pajama and stand erect with legs close. then he should spread his arms and look at himself in the mirror.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

One should think ten times before uttering an outright nonsense. I will not go in details of what is right or what is wrong to wear but I think, if we can not pursue our values and culture then we have no right to demonize it either.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

one should think 10 times times before throwing his nonsense at others. whose demonizing culture and values? has any1 discussed anything related to culture or value here? certainly not me.

what i said in my above post , has previously been said by a famous scholar ,Dr Zakir Naik who is seen with a new tie every now and then. in fact i haven't seen him without the tie in a single debate. even without the kurta and pyjama we all resemble a cross when standing erect with arms spread .

this silly argument that a piece of cloth tied around the neck has got its origins from the christian cross, has no basis.

awaisaftab · 12-11-2009, 04:30 PM

I am unable to understand why some people are so allergic from Islam and SHAIR-E-ISLAM. Although The Islam does not lay down specific dress code but Ulemah-e-Ikram say that the dress which the ulema of a particular community wear will be considered the dress according to sunnah for that particular community. Our national dress,Shalwar Qameez ,is fully complied with the sunnat dress. We often pass adverse remarks about those who wear sharia compliance dress and those people wear such dress we told them Maulvi, what a big foolishness. Hum se behtar to Sikh hain jo fakhar se darhi rakhte hain aur sar pe pagri bandh ker fakhar se India se Europe tak ghoomte hain.. If Sikh can wear their religious dress then why we feel shame to wear our religious dress??

rabia-k · 12-11-2009, 05:26 PM

i fail to understand how can someones can be labeled as a follower of the Kuffar, simply for wearing a tie. i also fail to understand how one's faith can be weakened by wearing a tie , unless it's made silk. is it a religious symbol associated with some other religion? are you performing a religious ritual by wearing one?

@awaisaftab
what makes you feel that Muslims in "Europe" feel "shame" in wearing their religious dress?

Muhammad Amir · 12-11-2009, 06:23 PM

Dear Mr/Ms Rabia-K

I posted my comment on your other post & certainly not on Tie related post. Wearing Tie may be right as per Dr. Zakir Naik, he is very respectful scholar whose struggle/Jihad for Dawat-O-Tabligh is appreciable, but it is not necessary for every muslim to agree with all of his views. Keep in mind I am his proponent too but I have my own views as well wich do not coincide with his views.

rabia-k · 12-11-2009, 06:47 PM

Dear Mr/Mrs /Miss/boy/girl Amir,

i agree, we all have our own views.

awaisaftab · 12-12-2009, 01:41 PM

One should keep it in mind that the majority of Pakistani Muslims is follower of Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A). Almost more than 90% Muslims of Pakistan follow Fiqahe Hanfia. As far as Dr. Zakir Nike is concerned he does not follow any particular fiqah. Dr. Zakir Nike is not a religious scholar rather he is a MBBS doctor. So he has no authority to interpret anything regarding sharia.

As far as tie is concerned according to some religious scholars tie is sign of cross. But some scholars have the view that it is not a sign of cross and a person can wear it.

Beside all above mentioned facts many medical research have made in Europe regarding the harmness of tie. According to a survey tie cause a great trauble in providing medical aid to an injured person and often deaths of injured persons occured due to problems caused by tie. It include suffocation and problem in breathing. It is standing instructions for doctors that firs remove the tie from the throat of injured one. Another medical research reveals that tie become cause of transmission of germs from one place to another place because it is not washed for many many months. Some hospitals in European countries have put ban on wearing tie by doctors and pera-medical personnel .