It can't be done because every group/sect follows their own version of Islam. Besides, not everyone is a muslim or is not considered one under the Islamic government. What amendments would you recommend for the existing laws against minorities and women?
Under a secular government, everybody is treated equally! And it's not like the governing body itself will be all atheists. It will be a mix of different people of different religious background.
Peace Theorist
This version argument is fake - in fact religion aligns people more readily than would a secular state hope to achieve ... Yes there are differences ... but Islam teaches us to come to common terms - aspects of Islam that we can agree on and we act accordingly.
Aha a bit of reason ... Theorist, yes exactly, Secularism does not see morality as the responsibility of the government ... however you phrase it as though it is a universal fact ... *not so to Muslim we believe that morality is the governments responsiblity as well as our own.
*
Also I have never assumed that a secular goverment will only appoint atheists - that is ridiculous ... I have never made that claim ... I said that secularism is against state affairs being run by religious values ... in which case whatever values are in office will be enforced ... **it will not necessarily be based on fairness or justice - **it could just as well be based on nazism IF that is the dominant opinion of those in office at the time.
Therefore, justice will never be served!
It's fair enough for me that everyone's treated equally under a system. Morality is subjective. Your morality will not define mine. law enforcement cannot stop someone from committing a sin but they can stop someone from committing a crime. I cannot sacrifice justice for morality's sake.
Ok my morality will not define yours … but at least we can talk about those moralities that we share … instead of trying to show that one position is wrong.
Forget about the Muslim world … let’s talk about you and me … If we can’t agree how can we get more support?
So I want to concentrate on common values between us …
Islam says the maximum punishment for murder is to be killed by the state after trial now do your values agree with this or disagree … and if they agree then we can tick that off and move on … but if they do not then let’s simplify it a bit and see if they do agree.
^I am not against death penalty but I don't exactly believe in "an eye for an eye" type of punishment either.
Ok Islam says "retaliate equal to what was taken, but if you forgive that is better" so as long as we agree the maximum penalty for killing is death then all other lesser sentences for killing will be less than death sentence. I think we are in agreement ... So this is your personal value it is in agreement with Islam ... let's move on.
I believe the maximum punishment for theft is to have the hand severed ... what would you say to this?
It can't be done because every group/sect follows their own version of Islam.
This is a false justification to bring secular law. Reasons may include but not limited to:
1) The rulings about System of Justice in Islam is largely the same across different schools of thoughts, it's the same Quranic commands that everyone follows. For minor difference of understanding, there is enormous room for 'common grounds' as, for example, it was adopted in Baghdad.
2) Even if there is major difference that may perhaps come in case of Shia and Sunni in some issues, it is very easy to see that the ruling will be according to the faith the defendent follows.
[quote]
Besides, not everyone is a muslim or is not considered one under the Islamic government. What amendments would you recommend for the existing laws against minorities and women?
[/quote]
Funny that you put monorities and women in the same question. Anyway, as I said earlier that laws concerning minorities can be devised according to the faith defendent follows.
[quote]
Under a secular government, everybody is treated equally! And it's not like the governing body itself will be all atheists. It will be a mix of different people of different religious background.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saying that. Because, then, whatever a muslim criminal gets as a punishment should be the same for non-muslim. What's your argument? Why even treat non-muslims differently and as Islam prescribes, according to their scripture? Because this is the only just way to make a law.
I believe the maximum punishment for theft is to have the hand severed ... what would you say to this?
psyah,
Aren't there some pre-requisites for this maximum punishment, such as, state is truly unable to provide job/food to its people?
I also remember reading the value of the stolen item and the age of the criminal is also considered.
Ok Islam says "retaliate equal to what was taken, but if you forgive that is better" so as long as we agree the maximum penalty for killing is death then all other lesser sentences for killing will be less than death sentence. I think we are in agreement ... So this is your personal value it is in agreement with Islam ... let's move on.
I believe the maximum punishment for theft is to have the hand severed ... what would you say to this?
Totally depends on the crime. I don't believe dismemberment should be a punishment for ANY crime.
Dont dodge the question - just answer it in good old plain english :)
I specifically asked that are you implying that Imans of early Muslims ( whom we call sha'bis ) were so weak that we badly needed these laws implemented in first Muslim state ?
[QUOTE]
No, they were more concerned about the spread of Islam and to make sure it stayed that way they made amendments to the existing law to show off they are the boss now. It's been a customary thing all throughout history for conquerers. When the British occupied the Subcontinent, they implemented their own laws and called it the British Raj. When they occupied the first colonies in America, they implemented their own laws. It has nothing to do with religion. It's more imperialism than anything
IceSoul,
Do you believe in the prophet who came in 7th century or do you prefer a prophet be sent in 21st century?
Allah was same back in 7th century as we have in 21st. His guidance remained the same. "They" did not make laws themselves. They followed the guidance of the Allah and Prophet (saw).
The example of stoning for adultery is right in the Quran. Have you read it or do you believe in Quran?
It does not matter what I believe in, what matters is that the world has changed VERY MUCH since the 7th century. You talk about adultery, even the most hardcore Islamic nation aka Iran has put stoning on hold.
well the laws dated back 1400 years but you can say the current Pakistani interpretation exists from last 20 years or so - Thus it proves my point that you havent studied them in detail to actually understand their pros and cons :)
No, the interpretations are long established ones.
[QUOTE]
The condition of bringing four witnesses is there to balance the strict observance of the punishment Islam orders- if the charge is proven . We are talking about death penalty here !
Is it just there to stop the misuse of the law , the misuse we see in form of karo'kariii
[/QUOTE]
You must have your head in the sand if you consider this four witness requirement "justice".
It does not matter what I believe in, what matters is that the world has changed VERY MUCH since the 7th century. You talk about adultery, even the most hardcore Islamic nation aka Iran has put stoning on hold.
Nice way to dodge the simple valid questions. Your example of Iran is more ridiculous than your dodging the question because Iran is no authority on Islam, so, if they do anything against Islam does not automatically makes it a ruling in Islam all of a sudden.
Likewise dear.
Now, Pakistani Justice system has very little, in fact allow me to say: nothing, to do with Islam. In a just Islamic system, no Christian would be worngfully blamed for being blesphemous.
It is utter stupidity to assume that a blasphemy law like that in Pakistan won't be misused. Why? Because it's easy as hell to twist it to suit your purpose.
It is utter stupidity to assume that a blasphemy law like that in Pakistan won't be misused. Why? Because it's easy as hell to twist it to suit your purpose.
Agreed 100%.
Not just the blesphemy law, but any Islamic law in a Non-Islamic Justice System can easily be twisted to suite one's purpose.
That is not true. You don't need a religion to be a moral person or know what kind of harm that can be done by things you have mentioned. In many western countries, including the US, there are laws against gambling, drinking, etc. However, you are confusing crime and sins. Not all sins are crimes.
They are very selective laws against gambling, drinking, etc in USA. And yes, because not all sins are crimes, not all sins at social level can be stopped without a law and only religious laws can take care of that.
Nice way to dodge the simple valid questions. Your example of Iran is more ridiculous than your dodging the question because Iran is no authority on Islam, so, if they do anything against Islam does not automatically makes it a ruling in Islam all of a sudden.
I rest my case.
Not so quick my friend; the Quran doesn't mention stoning anywhere. Now what do you say?
Agreed 100%.
Not just the blesphemy law, but any Islamic law in a Non-Islamic Justice System can easily be twisted to suite one's purpose.
Secularism will give you an Islamic Justice System. May sound contradictory, but look at Europe and the US. A common man has MUCH GREATER chance of getting justice in the US than he does in Pakistan.
