Pages

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

THE LIBERAL FARCE: ANOTHER OPEN LETTER......TO MEHREEN KASANA


THE LIBERAL FARCE: ANOTHER OPEN LETTER.......TO MEHREEN KASANA
By: Muhammad Saqib Tanveer
Before I start jotting down my whole catharsis, it is imperative that I give a brief background to my piece. It all started with a morning show, in which the host along with some other ladies were chasing dating couples in the parks. I didn’t watch that program live but when I saw so much fuss on blogs and twitter about this program, I planned to search it on youtube. I must admit that I could only watch the video for not more than 3 minutes. It was one of the most horrendous and dire video I ever watched, though Secret Pakistan on BBC still tops my list of torturous videos ever.
We just cannot condemn this act of the host and her accomplices, however, the retortion that emerged out after all this is more abominable than the program itself. One such was found on your blog Ms. Mehreen Kasana and you literally tore the host of that show apart. And I really loved you for that. Nonetheless, what followed in your article was a manifestation of the ever present stand-off between the liberals and the ghairat-brigade. I won’t budge much on the divide between the two sets and will move straight towards the issue at hand and will try to answer some of the points raised by you on your blog.
The issue of freedoms and allowing females to live their life according to their wishes has become such a hot and much discussed issue in Pakistan over the last decade. Countless NGOs, foreign-educated students as well as expats and virtually whole of the media have been up to bring the females out in the mainstream. This is the need of the hour and above all a religious obligation. But whatever has been happening under the garb of bringing the females into mainstream is as pathetic as it could ever get.
Your article was completely on those lines i.e. invasion of privacy and ensuring personal freedoms. As the West moves away from their freedoms with certain new draconian legislations, we are the ones that are trying to emulate their society that has been so flawed. You scribbled your own experience when you were little and used to hang out in the parks with your father. Maybe your father wasn’t much concerned because you were a kid back then or even he might not have any problem even today. But I want to ask you a question. Not many in this country share the same ideas as your father. We have to accept that majority of Pakistan do not condone these acts, in fact consider them preposterous.
You mentioned about the nature of young people and I totally agree to it. People do fall in love, whether infatuation or flirt. No one can say that he doesn’t have a liking for the opposite gender, except for homosexuals. However, there is a proper way to satisfy your instincts and demands and Islam provides us with the option of marriage. I am sure you’d say that we can’t get married at a young age but I can quote you instances where people have married at a young age and are living happily. To be very honest, one of my mentor also got married at 21. Besides, having this nature cannot be an excuse for warming the benches in public parks. Every human is greedy but that doesn’t mean that he has the right to do corruption and whatever he deems appropriate.
The question of privacy? I, literally laughed when I read your statement. How can someone demand privacy in a PUBLIC park? I understand that “ethos of your faith” urge you to not to point finger at anyone else unless you are perfect in moral conduct. You are correct cent per cent. This statement of yours testifies to the fact that dating in the gardens and plaguing family parks is happening and a wrong thing.
Another thing that was pretty apparent in your blog was the mention of Zaid Hamid etc. I really want to make one thing very clear, not just to you but to all the liberals out there. Zaid Hamid or Maya Khan, they are not the voices of general masses of Pakistan. The irony is that, Pakistan’s media is occupied by the liberals and the voice of majority has been suppressed by the minority. General masses, who are cobblers, shopkeepers, hawkers and 9 to 5 clerks etc don’t have any voice in the media. Liberals having the resources and the skill of manipulating the words in their favour have occupied our voices.
Blogs and papers are full of praises for audacity of Veena Malik for giving her point of view by shedding her clothes. I expect that on this rate, the day will come when pornography will be considered an act of expression or art in Pakistan as well.
We got it all wrong when we envied the industrialization in the West. It is beyond doubt that industrialization brought West from sombreness to brightness. We tried to emulate that and there is no issue in doing that. The problem started when we planned to copy their system in the whole package i.e. their societal values and morals. Democracy comes in a complete package of freedoms but looking at the dynamics of our society, we cannot follow that. A father cannot allow his daughter to roam freely in our society and you know that. We have to admit that we live in a society where people don’t come out on streets due to inflation but when the issue of caricatures of Prophet PBUH occurred, people came out without any leadership. We are descendants of the people, who were part of the biggest movement in the history of sub-continent i.e. Khilafat Movement.
We cannot allow our society to be dictated by the media. Ten years ago, the concept of dating was not much common in Pakistan, only lawyers had a date back then but now every individual is apprised of the date only because of our media. While we move towards modernism, we are cutting down the very foundations of our society. Our youth has gone audacious than ever. Maybe a positive but negative in so many ways.

 The video that started all this

16 comments:

johnadavid said...

Muhammad, I was reading Mehreen's blog and then followed up on your post as well. What I do like to ask you though is this, why can't you be easy with the idea that people should decide what to do with their lives?

You don't have to ban dating and make a nikkah ceremony instead. People go out on dates for a lot of purposes, some good, some bad. But one of the main reasons to go for a date is to see if the other person would suit you. To get to know him/her better and then see if you could marry.

I mean what is wrong with that? What is wrong in sitting in a park with a member of an opposite sex? I really don't get what you are objecting on.

If you are concerned about western morality over then ask yourself this question "if my culture is more moral, why aren't the others adopting it?" That would be a good question.

It is a global fact, the world has been influenced, one way or the other, by the internet, TV, movies, art and culture and lots of other things. But is it really a reason to ban the good with the bad.

Have you heard of a "reductio ad absurdum" argument? I noticed it when you talked about pornography. Well that is a logical fallacy. I suggest you do not make sweeping generalization.

Perhaps you forget that not all people follow Islam, not all people like to follow Islam even when they are muslims, not all people in Pakistan are Muslim and the majority of Muslims are not hardcore religious people.

I can assure you a lot of good, moral Muslims will not agree with your stance. If you are against dating, then don't date and that is cool. But you have no ground to say that dating is wrong for others.

Where is the corruption in sitting on a park bench with a member of the opposite sex? How does this appropriate as a sin?

You are right a large number of people don't condone dating, sure. But what about those who do not find it bad. Should we just ban it for the pleasure and moral satisfaction of some and not the others. That is most unfair, no matter how you come about it.

I agree with you that our youth has gone audacious, and that is a good thing on a lot of fronts. It has problems (every culture has, we're nothing new) You gotta take the good with the bad and proceed in a way which can accommodate more people and less conflict.

Rather educating people to treat each other with respect, equality and dignity in forming relationships, you are some what suggesting to deal with the issue in a legalizing way. Don't it will only make the problem go one level deeper.

The west is not perfect, so aren't we. If your laws are that much good, rest assured, people will adapt. If they haven't then probably you should look at the laws and not the people. Not all laws are just and perfect and not all laws represent the voice of the people.

Take the Hijab. It is not an option in Islam, it is compulsory, still not all women practice it in our culture and they are not evil, immoral women either. Some of the most good-hearted, educated Muslim women don't follow Hijab (a requirement for a Muslim lady)and still be good Muslims. Are they all destined to hell? If no, then what is the objection against it?

In Afghanistan they flogged people looking at women, the result, it is one the highest rated country as far as homosexuality is concerned. A "good" law made your problem worse. Rather then promoting a healthy social interaction, it back fired.

So don't just think of people dating, as corruption. That is not a good and healthy way to look at society and life.

Hope you get the point.

Muhammad Saqib Tanveer said...

I appreciate you for taking the time out and reading, however there are some major misconceptions that you deduced from my letter.

First of all, everybody is free to live his life according to his wishes and I don’t deny that but the problem arises when your freedom becomes an intrusion for others. Like, I am allowed to play the music loud in my home....that is my freedom but that freedom of mine will be intrusion for the person having a headache living in the neighbourhood. Like, a lady has the freedom to abort her child but then again where does the freedom of that child goes who gets killed?

There may not be a problem in sitting in parks on the benches but what happens on these benches, we all know. Go to youtube and search Jinnah’s tomb Karachi video and you’ll find the truth.

Supremacy of cultures is a whole different debate. I feel that my culture that emanates from Islam is better than any other culture in the world. But there is a problem that this culture is not available anywhere in the world. Muslim world has strayed away from its foundations. So let’s not debate this thing right now. My point was that the aptitude of Muslims of sub-continent is totally towards Islam and that makes it difficult for them to mould themselves into western culture.

We cannot say that just because people are not following Islam, we should discard it completely. I am sorry to say but our liberals don’t even know that Islam has given a full procedure of selecting your life-partner. Do you know that a boy can demand from the family of the girl for meeting her, but ofcourse in the presence of her brother?

Dating becomes wrong when people are sitting on the benches in FAMILY PARKS and creating nuisance for families who don’t condone it. If one wants to enjoy his freedom then he should head to Gloria Jeans or wherever but not places where families feel uncomfortable due to them.

One more thing, you cannot implement Islam in bits and pieces. The example of Afghanistan you gave is totally correct. Unfortunately, the examples we quote of Islamic system of governance comes from either Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, none of them were true Islamic States. Implementing small Islamic laws don’t make a state Islamic. Islam has to be implemented in totality. You said “A good law made you problem worse” regarding homosexuality in Afghanistan. You are dead right. That happened because they stopped men from watching the ladies but they never understood that it is natural that people have attraction for opposite gender. They never provided them the platform to get to the ladies through a legitimate Islamic way.

John said...

I see your point, Saqib. The thing is, it is not an easy issue to tackle.

Upfront, let me say that my intention was not to say that one culture is better than the other. The truth is, everyone thinks his/her culture is better than the others. Why? because it suits his/her ideas and values. But on the metaphysical level all such claims, by you, me or anyone else are just circular logic proving itself. It is really a pointless debate.

I am sure listening to loud music can be bad because someone has a headache, though why would someone have a headache by seeing a couple in a park is beyond me.
I wouldn't generalize the point. Though I do see from where you are coming. Our majority is conservative and they would not be comfortable with a couple holding hands in a park. But again you have to come through a channel where there is a balance. Simply saying that it is wrong because it doesn't suit my ideals is in my POV a very wrong approach.

I'm certainly not advocating vulgarity but the point is when you stop all of it, you are bound to tread people's rights. The people who like holding hands in a park have as much right to be there as those who don't like watching them do it. As far as I am concerned, people should be able to digest differences in a healthy society. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. My chocolate is not hurting your vanilla. It shouldn't be a problem to you. (loud music is certainly different, it does hurt other people ears and head or abortion)

I am not saying that people should just discard Islam. Though some people in recent years have tried to modernize Islam and that in itself is something that is debatable.

I think religion should be in the mosque and not be forced on people. I mean I am a christian and I certainly had a very hard time growing up in a state like Pakistan where I was a minority. I don't think Islam is a perfect social system. No system is perfect. As I said, Pakistan may be founded on the ideology that Muslims should stay together. However I do not think that only Muslims live in Pakistan. It is my country as much as it is yours. And I do not want it to be recognized as a "Muslim only" state, where there is only Muslim law. I would prefer that our law should be unbiased, non-prejudiced so on and so forth.

I mean by your own example, a boy can only ask to meet the girl under a supervision of a male. Why? Is the girl not good enough on her own morality? Why the presence of her brother? Is the girl inferior on moral terms?

Muslim law may be good for you, it is not for me. I mean by Islamic law no non-Muslim should be the head of the government. I mean is that just or fair? If I am a citizen of the country why am I a discriminated? Why can't someone from my generation and religion or ideology be not the head of the state. This is one reason I don't agree with your point.

...Please see my second post for the rest of the reply

John said...

continued...

See the problem, Islamic law may be good for you but then you have to have all people of the same mentality and religion. Pakistan was not founded as a Muslim only state. The white in our flag is not green for a reason. So if you are going to enforce a system which I don't agree with and I am a citizen just like you, then by no means you have the right to suppress what I think. Because by the same privilege that you assert an all Islamic law, is the same privilege, I have, as a citizen to not agree with you.

I am a Pakistani like you and I don't think that khilafat/sharia law is a progressive way.

You are right though, if you are to apply Islam, you would have to do it completely, not bits and pieces. I agree with you there because from your religious point of view, it would be the only way to do it.

My point is, if such a system is to be practiced then the practitioners must be all devoted hardcore Muslims. Not halfhearted or moderate Islam follwoing crowd (which is the majority) and since it not the case, I do not find your suggestions, appealing in this case.

I do see your point about immoral acts in public places. That is something I am not talking about. Nor do I am saying that freedom should be so free that it hurts other people. As long as I am not violating your right, you shouldn't have a problem.

Our society is becoming increasingly intolerant. We are not comfortable with differences. Bottom line is, we should promote a way for people to co-exist and tolerate differences in opinion and manner and values. Asking people to go to Gloria jeans because we can not help but constantly stare at them when it is none of our business, is a little too much.

btw...not every couple out there on a bench is screwing each other. So the truth is that there are good and bad people. Some do good, others don't.

I am certainly not asking you to agree with me rather I think you should see why what you are suggesting is problematic.

PS: Do not mind the personal tone of the message, it is just to illustrate the points.

God bless

Muhammad Saqib Tanveer said...

Exactly, this is nothing but a conversation of ideas and no malicious intent involved from my side either. Just a healthy debate.

“I am sure listening to loud music can be bad because someone has a headache, though why would someone have a headache by seeing a couple in a park is beyond me.”
I think I wasn’t able to explain in clear or more understandable terms about the problems involved in dating in public parks. I think this example of mine would illustrate my point a bit further. A father and his daughter going to a park and come across couples who are sitting together and getting cordial with each other, how would the father respond to it? Won’t the girl feel uncomfortable with his father after witnessing all this with her father? Will her father bring her along next time when he comes to that park? This is the thing that makes dating in public parks a headache to people who don’t condone all this and ARE IN MAJORITY.

“The people who like holding hands in a park have as much right to be there as those who don't like watching them do it. As far as I am concerned, people should be able to digest differences in a healthy society. You like vanilla, I like chocolate.”
People who like to hold hands in the park do have the right to do so but looking at the broader picture and the greater good of the society, should we follow the wishes of very few or the majority of the people who detest this? Differences of these sorts, where the definition of morality is different to each distinct mindset, are not like vanilla and chocolate.

“I don't think Islam is a perfect social system. No system is perfect.”
One thing which I didn’t make clear was the fact that I do not like the prevalent Pakistani culture and society at all as it is far away from Islam. I genuinely believe that Islam is the best and PERFECT in each aspect be it rituals, be it society or be it economics (in fact Islam addresses all issues pertaining to mankind). And I can debate that anytime. Islam is not like Christianity which is only a religion i.e. not discussing the economics and politics and not like Capitalism that only discusses economics and politics. Islam is a complete code of life and if implemented, it can produce dividends immediately.

Muhammad Saqib Tanveer said...

Everyone is free to do what he wishes? Should we give the people, who have the vulnerability of committing mistakes and getting strayed. One such example is driving while intoxicated. Initially there was no bar over drinking but then due to heavy amount of accidents, people were prohibited to drive under intoxication. Same is the case with dating. Dating MAY not be a problem but the events that result out of it are horrific. Don’t you think that these one night stands and adultery etc increase due to dating and all? Doesn’t one feel aroused when he is alone with opposite gender?

“I am a Pakistani like you and I don't think that khilafat/sharia law is a progressive way.”
Yes! Khilafat and Shariah Law is the only way forward for Muslim world. History is testament to that. Muslims ruled all over the world and were leading in all arenas of life when they were under caliphate and ruled by Shariah.

“My point is, if such a system is to be practiced then the practitioners must be all devoted hardcore Muslims. Not halfhearted or moderate Islam follwoing crowd (which is the majority) and since it not the case, I do not find your suggestions, appealing in this case.”
Islam recognizes that there will be people who will commit sins in the society. No one is perfect. It is the system that provides a conducive environment to the people that they don’t indulge themselves in wrong activities. So the question of hardcore Muslims in the system is not mandatory. It is the state that will facilitate people to follow Islam in its pure form. Even an Islamic state has corrupt people and for them there are Islamic laws and punishments. If it was like that people will be saints in Islamic society then there wouldn’t have been any punishments for people.
If a state is unable to provide its citizens with basic amenities then what would you expect from the citizens. I won’t be surprised if people start disregarding the law of the land in this scenario (same is happening right now).

“I mean I am a christian and I certainly had a very hard time growing up in a state like Pakistan where I was a minority.” “Muslim law may be good for you, it is not for me. I mean by Islamic law no non-Muslim should be the head of the government. I mean is that just or fair? If I am a citizen of the country why am I a discriminated?”
Why a non-Muslim can’t be a ruler in an Islamic state? Simply because in an Islamic state, the ruler has to implement Islam and that can only be done by a Muslim. No discrimination. You lived a very awkward life in Pakistan as a minority because Pakistan doesn’t follow Islam. Do you know that it is the responsibility of Islamic state to protect the minority and the ruler is accountable if any harm is brought to the minorities?

Democratic principles of liberals demand that the wishes of majority be implemented and you yourself accept that majority in Pakistan is conservative and doesn’t condone that, then why there is so much fuss when wishes of majority are undertaken?

Kamran Mir said...

"Today the world has no example of a full Islamic system whereby Muslims and Non-Muslims can benefit from the security, progress, justice and mercy of the supreme Divine Law. In Islamic history millions of non-Muslims lived under an Islamic authority and law, millions of them eventually embraced Islam due to the supremacy of that system. Today millions of Muslims in every continent are calling for the return of Darul Islam as they have tasted the horrors and oppression of the dictatorship of man-made law in all its various forms whether socalled Democracy (Capitalism), Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, Monarchy or Military dictatorship."
Ref: http://khilaafah.com/systems/belief/non-muslim/khilafah_4.html

Infact, there is need to implement a true democratic system based on rules or laws given by our (muslim, christian, hindu, all humans) one and only Creator. The only solutions of all the problems in east and west of the world. The example of this system was set by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) followed by Caliph Umar (R.A)... I also heard even now in west Umar's Law is being taught and partially implemented in their system.

John said...

Saqib, why would Islam need a majority vote of democracy to enforce a theocratic system? seems out of line.

Apart from that you are free to believe what you may want, and I can not change what you see.

As, I said earlier, the debate "whose system or religion is better" is a long and may I say quite an amateur debate at that. Not that I think there is no intelligent point in it but rather the idea is that it is a useless debate. All world views are circular at some level of philosophy, including Islam. You will just come out punching holes in my system and I will be denting yours, what's the point? That being said, I do appreciate that you are enjoying our conversation.

Though I am certainly amused at the statement about Christianity as being "just a religion", I would love to call you and your sources on that one but to be honest it will be fruitless.

Believe me, I have done this debate more than you can imagine. When you are a Christian in Pakistan, you kind of have to defend your faith at all times. I have been through this from high school to college, to my job and pretty much all of my life. So I'm not calling your debate skills in question here, just saying that we will probably end up at some point muddying the argument. It is unavoidable because all religions are exclusive at their core.

But the thing is truths are not plural and knowledge is not relative, but the kicker is that experience can always be relative. It is not equal to say that there is more than one truth or that there is no real truth at all but my truth doesn't have to be forced upon yours. That is the point I am trying to make from the start. So I will not be derailing my own train of thought here.

You are more than welcome to express what you believe. I wanted to share my opinion of your post and I have tried to do that with my thoughts as fairly as I saw fit.

For what its worth, in a simple nutshell, Christianity is not a worldly system, it doesn't deal with the material things as Islam, so they both are worlds apart. They are complete different ideologies. They may be common to some extent on the superficial level but nothing is common at the core. For making a serious argument I would suggest you read and study it in detail, you will come at a mature understanding of it. Bashing any ideology is not a tough thing to do, seriously. But making a valid concise argument while remaining true to ethics and tolerance is something that we all should learn.

...see the second post

John said...

And just to explain, I am fairly familiar with Islam, being from a converted Christian family from syeds, I was brought up in a house where I had a lot of mixed religious education. As a matter of fact I was quite young when I finished the koran. I only say this to negate any assumption which may deduce that my opinion, based on my not so pleasant experience as a minority, is not based on fact rather bad experiences. That is not the case.

However, I still see things I don't agree with. for example, religion and state policy when mixed together is the most manipulative system, one can imagine. I mean look at your own history or even of Europe, corruption in the name of religion is not something that is rare. That be anyone, as you so rightly said, an Islamic state guarantees no saints, not does any other.

I still do not see, why I should be following a religious system I don't agree with. To be frank that alone is enough. It may sound perfect to you, it doesn't to me. I don't think it is fair and equal to all. May be to Muslims it is, perhaps; but not me. This is not to say that Muslims are not good people. No, some of the most loving people I know are Muslims. there are good and bad people everywhere and religion is not a guarantee of good people. But in a theocratic system, there are no margins. I don't find it social enough or even good enough to face the challenges of a multi-ethnic culture which is equal in terms of rights, liberty and freedom. That is something that sharlia law lacks at. Not sure how one can go about it while not overlooking a lot of issue at the bottom.

I wanted to address a lot of points in your post and perhaps comment more in detail but I think I have made my concerns clear, that should be enough. Arguing on the nitty gritties at this point, where we do not share the same definitions of morals, values and authority, will be time wasting.

Anyway, I still can find much conviction in your explanations (though I appreciate you took the time to explain) but that is just my take on it. It seems we are at an impasse, and if so, I'd take my bow.

God bless.

John said...

lol..sorry, skipped the "t" in the "can't" in the last para. :)

John said...

second post.


And just to explain, I am fairly familiar with Islam, being from a converted Christian family from syeds, I was brought up in a house where I had a lot of mixed religious education. As a matter of fact I was quite young when I finished the koran. I only say this to negate any assumption which may deduce that my opinion, based on my not so pleasant experience as a minority, is not based on fact rather bad experiences. That is not the case.

However, I still see things I don't agree with. for example, religion and state policy when mixed together is the most manipulative system, one can imagine. I mean look at your own history or even of Europe, corruption in the name of religion is not something that is rare. That be anyone, as you so rightly said, an Islamic state guarantees no saints, not does any other.

I still do not see, why I should be following a religious system I don't agree with. To be frank that alone is enough. It may sound perfect to you, it doesn't to me. I don't think it is fair and equal to all. May be to Muslims it is, perhaps; but not me. This is not to say that Muslims are not good people. No, some of the most loving people I know are Muslims. there are good and bad people everywhere and religion is not a guarantee of good people. But in a theocratic system, there are no margins. I don't find it social enough or even good enough to face the challenges of a multi-ethnic culture which is equal in terms of rights, liberty and freedom. That is something that sharlia law lacks at. Not sure how one can go about it while not overlooking a lot of issue at the bottom.

I wanted to address a lot of points in your post and perhaps comment more in detail but I think I have made my concerns clear, that should be enough. Arguing on the nitty gritties at this point, where we do not share the same definitions of morals, values and authority, will be time wasting.

Anyway, I still can find much conviction in your explanations (though I appreciate you took the time to explain) but that is just my take on it. It seems we are at an impasse, and if so, I'd take my bow.

God bless.

John said...

And just to explain, I am fairly familiar with Islam, being from a converted Christian family from syeds, I was brought up in a house where I had a lot of mixed religious education. As a matter of fact I was quite young when I finished the koran. I only say this to negate any assumption which may deduce that my opinion, based on my not so pleasant experience as a minority, is not based on fact rather bad experiences. That is not the case.

However, I still see things I don't agree with. for example, religion and state policy when mixed together is the most manipulative system, one can imagine. I mean look at your own history or even of Europe, corruption in the name of religion is not something that is rare. That be anyone, as you so rightly said, an Islamic state guarantees no saints, not does any other.

I still do not see, why I should be following a religious system I don't agree with. To be frank that alone is enough. It may sound perfect to you, it doesn't to me. I don't think it is fair and equal to all. May be to Muslims it is, perhaps; but not me. This is not to say that Muslims are not good people. No, some of the most loving people I know are Muslims. there are good and bad people everywhere and religion is not a guarantee of good people. But in a theocratic system, there are no margins. I don't find it social enough or even good enough to face the challenges of a multi-ethnic culture which is equal in terms of rights, liberty and freedom. That is something that sharlia law lacks at. Not sure how one can go about it while not overlooking a lot of issue at the bottom.

I wanted to address a lot of points in your post and perhaps comment more in detail but I think I have made my concerns clear, that should be enough. Arguing on the nitty gritties at this point, where we do not share the same definitions of morals, values and authority, will be time wasting.

Anyway, I still can't find much conviction in your explanations (though I appreciate you took the time to explain) but that is just my take on it. It seems we are at an impasse, and if so, I'd take my bow.

God bless.

PS. there may be double posts of this specific post, there was something wrong with the posting.

Muhammad Saqib Tanveer said...

Actually it wasn't me who start the debate of religions, that came out of your post that Islam isn't perfect and i just responded to that. I am not stating that my debating skills are very refined.....all i know is the i am a Muslim because Islam is perfect....

I don't see Christianity giving an economic system, does it? And i feel that your second post has been deleted.....

John said...

Well, to be honest it started when you claimed Islam was perfect, I just showed you how that is just circular and not true, as I remember stating "I don't think Islam is a perfect social system. No system is perfect." There you have it.

Muhammad Saqib Tanveer said...

ok i accept it :) if it serves the purpose

Marcus B.Kimura said...

Hello.This article was extremely fascinating, especially since I was browsing for thoughts on this matter last couple of days.
Oceanlily 3 in 1 Maternity Workout Pant