Re: Pakistan Islamic or Secular?
Once again, your saying something doesn’t make that the case; you are treating Shariah as something that is set in stone, when in fact, it is a fluid and dynamic thing, which can change from generation to generation depending on contemporary realities. The primary aim of Shariah is the practical implementation of Allah’s laws which we find in the Quran and the *Sunnah *of the Prophet (PBUH). It is obligatory on Muslims to rule themselves by Allah’s laws, and the freedoms and restrictions contained therein. It isn’t a question of 'should we implement *Shariah *or not?'because that particular debate isn’t even on the table; Islam is not just a personal faith; it is a social and political order, and requires its believers to implement its principles in government, in economics, in foreign policy, in taxation, in hudood etc.
Secondly, there is no such thing as ‘Sunni Shariat’ - you speak from ignorance if you think that’s the case. There is simply Shariah and different scholars have different opinions on how different aspects of Shariah should be implemented, and an Islamic state would tolerate those differences. As I said earlier, Muslims agree on those aspects of Islam that are required to run a state; the differences of opinion are primarily in theological debates and personal law, both of which are outside the remit of the State.
An Islamic State has an ethos of small government; people think that under Shariah, the State would be able to dicate ever minute aspect of their lives when this is simply not the case. A ‘moral/religious/ethical’ police such as the Muttuwa in Saudi Arabia is something that is completely out of the question; it wasn’t around in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and a true Islamic State wouldn’t have it around now.
Actually, prior to 1973, Pakistan ***was ***a secular state; it did not have a State religion. Alchohol was sold freely and publicly; no one had to sign a declaration on a passport application against Mirza Ghulam Ahmed being an imposter (which he was, but that’s a debate for another time). The laws of the State were not required to be in conjunction with the values of any particular religion. That is the essence of secularity.
Also, what’s with this ‘Sunni Shariat’ business you keep on mentioning? The 1973 Constitution which made Islam the State Religion was introduced by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was a Shia’. Qaid-e-Azam was a Shia’. Benazir was a Shia.’ In fact, half of Pakistan’s leadership was Shia’ and none of them suffered under this so called ‘Sunni Shariat’.
You seem to be a Shia’ who thinks that Pakistan is anti-Shia’, which it isn’t, or you are an Ahmedi, in which case I agree with you, you have genuine grievances against the State of Pakistan. You could also be an Indian, or a Western-born Pakistani who knows very little about Pakistan, because you have posted some things which show a lack of knowledge about even the very superficial things (i.e. that Pakistan only became non-secular after 1973). You should realise though that a true Islamic System in Pakistan would respect the non-Muslim minorities more than a democratic system (which we have) can ever do.
Those words mean ‘I begin in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful’ - and I’m glad you mention that, because every thing a Muslim does should be for Allah, including how he rules and governs himself.
The reason you feel that Shariah will not ‘let live’ is because you have a lack of knowledge about what exactly Shariah is. I would recommend you to read this article by Professor Sherman Jackson: What Is Shariah and Why Does It Matter
The fact is that Shariah makes it an obligation upon Muslims to protect the rights of the non-Muslims in an Islamic State. Non-Muslims would be equal citizens of the State and protected under the law. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “Someone who unjustly kills a non-Muslim living in an Islamic State (a dhimmi) cannot get a whiff of Heaven…" He (PBUH) also said: **“Whoever oppresses a dhimmi or burdens a weight over him more than he can carry, I will be his enemy."
As for Islamic Law being 7th century, well Islam, as a codified religion also began in the 7th Century, so are you here to argue against its veracity? Just because something is old, doesn’t make it *untrue. ***Islam protected rights, particularly for women, which only came about in the West in the 20th century. *For example, right to land ownership, right to do business, right to own property, right to marry whosoever she wanted, rights after divorce etc etc so you need to get out of this mentality that Shariah is some pre-dated or anitquated thing. The fact is, it was a lot more forward thinking and progressive in the 7th century than Western law is even today.
Shariah *itself employs mechanisms to allow Muslims to adapt to the changing circumstances around them; for example, just because 7th Century Muslims traveled on camels, doesn’t mean we have to either. You seem to believe that Shariah entails a literalist reading of the primary texts, when in fact, ijma and qiyas also play a huge role. It isn’t just about following to the letter what our Prophet (PBUH) did; it’s about trying to adapt the underlying principles of his actions to today’s society.
A Muslim believing in secularism as a superior form of governance is basically admitting that human law supercedes God’s Law. Secularism restricts Islam to the category of a personal faith, when Islam is just as much a social and political order also. Anyone promoting secularism in Pakistan is essentially asking people to reject one half of their faith, the half that calls for collective, public responsibilities from the Muslims. That is not the correct path. Allah says:
“This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” — ***Quran 5:3
By setting aside their public duties, Muslims would be setting aside a part of their completed faith, making it incomplete and by extension, imperfect.* Shariah* is just as much of an obligation as prayer and zakah, you need to understand this.
As for whether or not Shariah will allow these ‘freedoms’ as you call it… Well, it already allows these freedoms. You need to look at the Charter of Medina (i.e. the meesaq-e-Medina) to see just how secular *Shariah *really is. Some salient excerpts (from wikipedia):
** Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.
** Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.
** Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.
This idea that Shariah would force people to do things is based on ignorance and lack of knowledge.
There are many hadith that mention the Khilafah will be re-established before the end-time, and the Khilafah has the Islamic obligation to rule by *Shariah. *So your claim is fallacious.
As for superiority in beliefs, Islam *is *superior to any man-made laws. I have no shame in saying this; Islam protects the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups like women better than any man-made laws can. Our injunctions come straight from God, so we cannot change them; but in a secular society, you realise that the mechanisms are in place for society to democratically decide that (for example) black people should be made slaves? The emancipation proclomation in America could be withdrawn, Congress could pass laws delcaring that Slavery should be brought back into law, the President could sign any such laws into power; the Supreme Court could be filled with like-minded judges and all of this could be done legally and lawfully.
So please, spare me this tirade of how a secular system can ‘protect’ people; if you’re talking about ‘superiority of beliefs’ doesn’t a secular, liberal democracy also assume superiority over a communist one? Point being, all systems believe in their superiority over any other.
Mind your words carefully; if you think Shariah is a fraud, then you are calling Islam a fraud. Whilst you may think that, be aware that the majority of people in Pakistan, whom you seem to have such concern for, believe in Islam to be the truth.
As for whether Shariah is implemented in Islam, Pakistan is as much an Islamic State as Saudi Arabia is a liberal democracy. Pakistan may call itself Islamic, but that doesn’t make it so; our foreign policy, economic system, domestic policies, systems of governance, taxation systems, justice system, penal codes etc are not Islamic, hence we are not Islamic, and hence we do not have Shariah.
