Jinnah's Pakistan?

[Theorist]

Re: Jinnah’s Pakistan?

@psyah

Peace NomiCA

If you wish to use an argument against the other party first check to see if your own basis is itself not subject to the same argument. This problem of “which version” will occur with every order … “which democracy”, “which party” … etc, etc, just as people are not aligned in religion they are not aligned in politics either … yet it is not considered rocket science to understand that we adopt the approach of “common ground” …

Even in democractic politics people will look at the religious order the politicians follow, they will look at which family line they are from to decide who to vote for …

The question is posed in the attempt to be a show stopper, probably because of your own aversion to Islamic governance. Anyway the question is quite easy to answer.

Appoint a leader - appoint a shura - and let them decide how to implement “Islam” … I believe we need three things for it to work …

a**) Wisdom in understanding when to strengthen and relax laws
b) Sincere guidance being sought from the Qur’an and Sunnah
c) Compassionate towards other interpretations of Islam and seek common ground in matters which bear on the community … For example taxation will affect the Shi’a just as much as Sunni so there is no reason why decision on this cannot be unanimous … However if the leader decides that he wants to pass a law that is suitable for Hanafis and no others madhab then shur’a representation should regulate that decision … they will look for clear problems in a given decision and arrive at the best solutions themselves. For example some people consider eating the meat from the West so long as it is not pork as halal, but others do not, hence it would be wiser to adopt the more stringent position in this matter because it satisfies everyone …

You see although there are differing opinions in Islam the tools used to arrive at those opinions are universal … they are scientific methods that are understood by all.

**Just like when parliment debates an issue from a conservative angle and the other party debate it from a liberal angle … although they both differ they both respect the manner in which that debate is being done and they both respect the decision made as a result of that decision. The difference in this being a non-secular process is that the religious scriptures and scholars are consulted for guidance in every case where it is necessary - or they have the power to collectively oppose a decision if they unanimously see the decision of the leader as being erroneous.

why does a government have to be based on a religious scripture?
Why can’t we just have law and order like the rest of the world without dragging a holy book into it?
why can’t religion remain for what it is - a faith?
Why should it govern our lives? If it should it should be done in your homes and mosques. it has no place in state affairs.