Should I should I not work in the Express Tribune?

[umar_italy]

Express Tribune has replied to this thread in one of their blogs on its website
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13...press-tribune/

Oh, there is even a prayer room with someone praying?!
Oh, then that must really be an Islamic-compliant newspaper....

It's really sad to see all those youngsters believing themselves to be "smart" and the "intellectual élite" of their country while they're just brainwashed by the ideologies of the dominant foreign powers.

[Starting_anew]

Express Tribune has replied to this thread in one of their blogs on its website
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13...press-tribune/

I recently came across this forum, a platform for Muslims of a particular sect

I wasn't aware we were part of a sect. I would have thought someone with such self confidence in their capabilities with the English language would know what a sect is, and is not.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sect

From Middle English secte, from Old French secte (“a sect in philosophy or religion”), from Late Latin secta (“a sect in philosophy or religion, a school, party, faction, class, gild, band, particularly a heretical doctrince or sect, etc.”), possibly, from Latin sequi (“to follow”).

Sounds a lot like Ahmedis then?
But wait there is more..

A cult or religious movement. a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs.

Sounds a lot like.. Ahmedis then?
But wait there is more..

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect

(n) sect, religious sect, religious order (a subdivision of a larger religious group)
S: (n) faction, sect (a dissenting clique)

Hmmm so that sounds like Shia??
But wait.. there is more..

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sect

a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical
b : a religious denomination

Now that sounds a lot like the Qarmatians to me

So no, we are not members of a sect. We are members of the Mainstream muslim community. We represent the vast majority of Muslims on this planet. We believe in the finality of the Prophet Muhammed sws, we do not curse his companions or his wife, we do not take Hadrat Ali (ra) to be God or Salman Al-Farisi (ra).
We are not a sect.
__
I wasn't sure which way the OP should have made her decision, but I think after reading this writer's statement, I am inclined against.
Br. Yousuf - you can state you aren't virtuous, that is fine, and I do not claim that title for myself either, but it is merely factual to state if one is practising or not, it gives one credibility when they are speaking on religious matters, which you attempted to do so.
__
Dear Express readers, if you are reading this, please come here, post and learn about our beloved religion.

[AlGhuraba]

ive seen sunnis refer to barelwis deobandis ahle hadith as sects i think the writer used the word sect for a lack of better word perhaps wallahu alam

[mh16388]

We don't equate "secular" with "anti-Islam".
We equate secularism - an ideology of kufr - with "anti-Islam"

though as many indian ulema have stated, in a country rooted in religious prejudice such as india, secularism provides protection to Muslims as the constitution does not have religious prejudices.
secularists make the grand mistake of applying the same principle to islam in muslim majority countries. it is borne out of their belief that islam does not guide us in politics (and by extension in finance, education, military etc) but that its a personal religion. like the atheists they put all religions in one box, though they don't quit practicing it at a personal private level. they see shariah as evil (naudhubillah), distorted by 'mullahs' etc.

while the reality is whatever good there is in western governance had already been coded in shariah law 1400 years ago. the westerners, using various methods, reached many same conclusions as shariah (which is also proof of islam being the religion of nature) during the course of the 1400 years. yet the reason for their current decline in many areas is because they did not adopt full shariah. and now our uneducated secular lot undermine shariah with the strawman rhetoric of 'its distorted by mullahs' when in fact what they are saying is 'we don't like it'.
it is a completely illogical argument.

[umar_italy]

though as many indian ulema have stated, in a country rooted in religious prejudice such as india, secularism provides protection to Muslims as the constitution does not have religious prejudices.

Yes, benefitting from that when Muslims are a minority and not in a condition of establishing power (and risk otherwise to fall prey of other religions' discriminatory policies) is a different matter, as outlined by Hadrat Syed Abul Hasan 'Ali Nadwi (rahimahullah)..

But "Muslims" arguing for it to be the "best system" (even in "Dar al-Islam) is utterly "anti-Islam".

secularists make the grand mistake of applying the same principle to islam in muslim majority countries. it is borne out of their belief that islam does not guide us in politics (and by extension in finance, education, military etc) but that its a personal religion. like the atheists they put all religions in one box, though they don't quit practicing it at a personal private level. they see shariah as evil (naudhubillah), distorted by 'mullahs' etc.

Exactly.
And the whole point is that such a view is not an "alternative interpretation of Islam". Is an ideology taken from anti-Islamic system (a mix of modern christianity, capitalism necessities, liberalism, "humar rights", etc.) developed in a completely different context (the reaction to church clerical power in Europe).

So secularists are just idiot fools brainwashed by ideologies of the dominant powers, which were developed as a reaction to a completely different scenario and context due to the wrongs committed by the establishment of another religion!
And they portrait themselves as "educated", "intellectual", etc. when don't even know basic history.

[mh16388]

Is an ideology taken from anti-Islamic system (a mix of modern christianity, capitalism necessities, liberalism, "humar rights", etc.) developed in a completely different context (the reaction to church clerical power in Europe)...

...which were developed as a reaction to a completely different scenario and context due to the wrongs committed by the establishment of another religion!
And they portrait themselves as "educated", "intellectual", etc. when don't even know basic history.

excellent points.

[Seekeress@0]

Allahu Akbar! This is so embarrassing........it hadnt occurred to me that somebody from ET might read my post and write an entire article quoting me and others who replied to this thread....I apologize to any and all of you to whom this might have caused an inconvenience.
After having read all this, I am inclined against going there at all.

JazakumULLAH Khair everyone
Wassalam ma'al-ikram

[Acacia]

Sister, don't worry about it. [edit] It was quite obvious to me from the article that they're likely trying to flush you out or figure out who you are.

Also, I suspect they found the post and reference to their paper by running a routine search to see who and how their name is being used online. So, for future reference (for all of us) best not to give names if we don't want to attract attention... that's how HY gets into everything here - at least that's my little theory, anyway!

Hugs to you sister and insha'Allah whatever happens will be what is best for you.

[Starting_anew]

Seeker - please delete any information which may give ET an idea of who you are.

[mh16388]

i would advice not taking the job for one simple reason: you will be asked to edit articles etc (i am assuming you are joining as sub-editor) which refer to Qadianis as ahmadis. now ahl ul sunnah do not really bother with names. shias can call them whatever they wish, bahai can call them whatever they wish. with this particular name is a connotation however.
ahmadi means 'from ahmad'.
which ahmad?
for us it is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the Seal of the Prophets.
for the qadiani kafir it is mirza ghulam ahmad qadiani!

they say when the Qur'an mentions ahmad it doesnt mean our Prophet (PBUH) naufdhubillah but that kafir mirza ghulam ahmad. his name wasnt ahmad his name was ghulam ahmad. so to call them ahmadi is a crime to say the least. it is attestation of their belief even unconsciously.
had they called themselves mirzai (from mirza), ghulam ahmadi (from ghulam ahmad) or qadiani (from qadian) that would have been fine. but his name isnt ahmad. so why ahmadi? it is because of that surah.
this is the opinion of ml. yusuf ludhianvi shaheed (in sha Allah). i do not remember whether he considers it kufr to call a mirzai 'ahmadi' but he mentioned it in strong words.
best avoid it.
express tribune with their belief of religious equality expect thier employs to uphold the same tradition at least at work. imagine if you edit a piece and the mirzais are mentioned as ahmadi and you cant edit it because of your job. would it be worth it?

just some advice. you can read further into the matter.