so what. to quote you, i dont mind being in the minority, even if thats a minority of one.
anyone trying to make the argument that the name ‘islamic republic of Pakistan’ had any bearing on the issue of stoning women.
Yes. Never in my knowledge has shariah law been one of the demands though.
Not because they wanted sharia laws. The subcontinent has a history of communal riots that have nothing to do with wanting to stone women or cut hands or other sharia punishments.
i dont wish to enter the broader discussion on shariah laws. but I find it perfectly possible to be a Muslim without having shariah laws when I live in London or America or anywhere else. Unless I am mistaken you currently live in a country that doesnt have shariah laws too. Why its suddenly necessary to have them when you take that plane to go back otherwise society will necessarily degrade into lynching women on the street is a leap of logic you havent been able to justify.
I wouldnt mind either. I wouldnt mind some elements of religion that everyone wants to introduce. I wasnt for example opposed to NWFP provincial assembly outlawing music in public transport when MMA got elected. I wasnt opposed to those laws being revoked either.
I disagree that there is mass support for stoning etc. Religious parties arguing for shariah have been very rarely successful. Whatever shariah laws exist today could never have been passed by an assembly, they were only passed by a dictator.
Furthermore anti-kk laws exist, as in anti-murder laws exist. There is no legal sanction for karo-kari. There are certain loopholes that were introduced by zia’s shariah laws, for example blood money. What happens routinely is that since these killings are often done by family members the blood money thing is pretty much a get out of jail free card. That coupled with bad policing.
So no, it isnt the case that the laws support kk because the masses see them connected.