Re: Mechanisms for spreading Islam in Quran
Problem is that meddlesome muslims don't know when to stop. I am SORRY, but if you go by the Quran, you will find only a small amount of offenses with perscribed punishments. Yet, the same idiots in NWFP who want their "shariah" imposed on everyone - have you SEEN what that shariah says???
I think there is no such thing as a single Shariah. I think that's a myth perpetuated by certain radical organizations in the UK, who in turn reiterate a linke of political thinking started in Egypt during the colonial era, which bandy about this theory that there is a single mode of Islamic government, and a *single *corpus of law that it enforces. All else being, of course, deviant...
This is obviously not true in theory (schools of thought, Sunni-vs-Shiah, the emphasis of differences rather than similarities on the part of our scholars), and certainly not true in practice. It is (or was) attractive as it follows the rhetorical pattern established by Western and (former) Socialist/Communist ideologues. I want none of it.
Shariah is comprised of a core set of immutable laws and principles that are extended by jurists and exegists through analogy and reason. The extensions are inherently biased by the jurists cultural and political realities. This is neither good nor bad...it's simply how it is.
This *does *pose many problems...we all exist in different cultural and political setups, and so any kind of consensus (which traditionally was very important in fiqh) is nigh impossible to reach. But that's a different discussion...
Given what I said above, I think the question of what Shariat I would like to see is a bit moot...I'd expect to see many versions that fit the cultural context and political sophistication of a particular society. But I think when discussing laws, fear of being meddlesome is hardly ever a concern. Even so, Imposition of Shariah only becomes meddlesome when it is forced on a people who live outside of the socio-political context in which it was developed.
The Taliban/MMA (and the two are intrinsically related) differ from the JI, who in turn differ from the Turkish Virtue Party, who in turn differ from the Egyptian Brotherhood and so on. So whereas the Taliban were welcomed with open arms by the Pashtoons of Afghanistan during their initial push outward from Pakistan, I wouldn't expect the same to be true of Pakistan's urban centers where the JI, or simply non-Islamist traditionalists who care not one bit to separate religion and politics, have a different perception of Shariah. So treating the Taliban and MMA as exemplary is a bit of fear mongering. It's simply impossible for them to win the support, or even force themselves, on Pakistan.
In fact, by being too lenient, you may just as well be disruptive and agitate against popular sentiment. If 99% of the population would be deeply offended at public nudity, even if nudity was defined as bare arms and thighs, allowing that within the law in the name of personal “Freedom”, even if such a thing is not a shared value, is just as meddlesome and imposing on society.
Back to the question of who’s Shariah, we can ask the same question of secularism.
What kind? We won't get Jeffersonian democracy. Far from it. Do we want Turkish style secularism, where women can't wear the Hijab and attain higher education simultaneously? Contrast that with being unable to buy a CD from a street vendor. Or a little girl not being able to go to school. Do we want Algerian style secularism, where during their civil war government troops masqueraded as GIA militants, and massacred people in traditional FIS strongholds to discredit Islamists in general? Contrast that with keeping women locked up in their homes. Do we want Shah-style secularism, where rural people were neglected so much that the Revolution actually saw an increase in female literacy? Do we want Saddam-style secularism? Shia were rounded up and executed en mass...contrast this to the GIA barbarity in Algeria (indeed, some non-mainstream Islamists were guilty of barbarity too)...or even to the Shia saudi girl who was sentenced lashes for being in a car with men she shouldn't have been in a car with, and the sunni men who raped her being given reduced terms(even though this sounds more like a secular case of sectarianism rather than a literalist application of Shariah justice).
I'm not a Utopian. I could care less what version of Shariah takes hold so long as some thought and care is taken in it's establishment. Some is better than none. Nor do I buy the rhetoric of perfection...humans are imperfect and so by their very nature are incapable of implementing a "perfect system". Again, that's just nonsensical marketing from ideologues.
On the contrary, we're obliged and duty bound to make the effort...to work -and it is a lot of work and it is hard work....to establish divine law, not run away from it when we screw up. We will screw up. Secular law or not...you said it yourself. I just don't see how things can get better by sweeping the issue under the rug, which is what separation of religion and state essentially is.