Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ???

[asad71]

I believe he is referring to the reverence given to the printed form of the Quran by way of handling it and respect.

1.In fact I was referring to placing the palm on the Gita/Bible. We Muslims don't do such things.
2. The other erroneous view expressed here is that al Quor'an is old. The Holy Quoran is always current/relevant. It states principles and guidelines that are never redundant. Islam is a continuous revolution, a reformist movement to guide men/societies back to the righteous path.

have you studied modern law and jurisprudence?

just curious.

Yep, Punjab Unv, LHR has given me an MA in Pol Science.

 

[FaujHistorian]

2. The other erroneous view expressed here is that al Quor'an is old. The Holy Quoran is always current/relevant. It states principles and guidelines that are never redundant. Islam is a continuous revolution, a reformist movement to guide men/societies back to the righteous path.
.

That's just repetition of madrassah imam.

There is no reform allowed. If you do, you will be put to sword. So please do not spread falsehoods.

Yep, Punjab Unv, LHR has given me an MA in Pol Science.

PU, lahore, with BD and Canadian flags. Oh Well. May be, may be not.

That's besides the point.

There is not a single course on development of MODERN jurisprudence aka written law.

No wonder you are singing the songs of Mogal law for which no written document exists.

And sadly you had to revert to age old JI tactic by putting Quran in the posts.

That's catch 22. If someone challenges Quran's as not a book of jurisprudence, you all can kill him for blasphemy.

Very good tactic very good.

But in the long run you all can silence individual. But proponents of Islamism are the losers in the long run anyway.

 

[ajpirzada]

No Sir .. in the second edition (which you have with you) , Saleena has only corrected her stupid mistake (regarding "original source" of Munir quote) , not the "wrong presumption" (i.e only Justice Munir says that Jinnah wanted a modern democratic state ) .......




Tell that to any Mullah or conservative and you will be labelled "Liberal Kafir" instantly ...




And now you are saying exactly the same what I have been saying in all my posts ... to sum it up :

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" , irrespective of religion , caste etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" ... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit , was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims originally .. Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today , while "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed to be the "true spirit" of Islam , was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point , they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah when he has talked about Islam , but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah`s definition of Islam with Mullah`s definition of Islam (which is opposite to Jinnah`s def.) ... The result is that one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... Truth is , the only hypocrites are the Mullahs and the conservatives ... Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Dr. Javed Iqbal (Allama Iqbal`s son) explains this in the following words ...... it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.

Yes Sir , I have seen this "proof" quite a lot of times . mostly on sub-standard blogs and propaganda websites ... But I was not expecting that an educated and well informed person like you would use it . Firstly I have never seen anyone quote full .. just this "single line" without any context is used by everyone with exactly same wording (including "emphasis added") which means that its nothing but a mindless "copy paste" job because anyone with some knowledge of our history knows that Jinnah`s famous last press conference in New Delhi (July 14 1947) was something the conservatives didn`t like much ... He clearly told that his vision of Pakistan was a democracy that would be secular in character ... And even if we take this alleged report from Hindustan times to be true (and suppose that it was the same press conference if not from one day before) , it goes against the conservatives` narrative . Something the conservatives fail to realize .. "‘I presume from what you have said, Mr. Jinnah, that Pakistan will be a modern democratic state" ....... Now the question is `What did Jinnah say that led the correspondent to "presume" this` ?? ...

Q & A session: Quaid-e-Azam's Press Conference, Delhi (July 14th, 1947) |Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Jinnah : . Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship

Q. Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?
A. You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.

Q. Correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
A. Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a ducks’s back. When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.

Now Jinnah straight away rejects a "theocratic state" , and accepts the explanation of a "secular state" ... but he does so by saying that Muslims learnt this principle (of having a democracy with absolute equality for minorities which by definition , would be a secular democratic state) 1300 years ago ... So for him , Islam introduced concepts of secularism and democracy long before the western world came up with the idea of "modern democratic state" ... And this is what I meant when i said (above): Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Now Anyone with a little knowledge of Islamic history would not agree with Jinnah . Never in Islamic history , minorities(Non Muslims) had equal rights with the majority (Muslims) ... But the fact is that there is a little window ... and that is "Misaaq e Madina" .. !! There was a time when Muslims and Non Muslims were one nation (Ummah) with equal rights for everyone , in Medina , during the lifetime of prophet (pbuh) ... And any "Ijtehad" that legitimizes "secularism" (once again) is acceptable to Iqbal ... that is why he says about secularism "No doubt , the religio-political structure in Islam does permit such a view" .. !! and that is what he preaches "return to the original simplicity and universality of Islam" .... The biggest hurdle in this path of "return" (or "renaissance" more properly ) is the static shariah law derived from sources other than Quran ... Thus Iqbal believes that following Hadith is not mandatory .. And he has strong reasons for believing in this ... And he is not alone who thinks this way... the number of progressive Muslim scholars is increasing , and that day is not far away when we will be able to free ourselves from the unwholesome Mullah influence in our religious lives ....





I disagree with you here ... What you are saying contradicts with what you have quoted yourself ... for example , what you are saying ... Iqbal was against idea of separation of state and church , and he also criticized Halim Pasha , and he is praising "Ijtehad" (regarding language) only ... fails to explain Iqbal`s immense praise of Turkey ... one example :

The truth is that among the Muslim nations of today, Turkey alone has shaken off its dogmatic slumber, and attained to self-consciousness. She alone has claimed her right of intellectual freedom; she alone has passed from the ideal to the real– a transition which entails keen intellectual and moral struggle

Secondly you are highlighting selective parts only ... About liberalism , Iqbal says :

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam, but it must also be admitted that the appearance of liberal ideas in Islam constitutes also the most critical moment in the history of Islam ......"

rest , his concerns are understandable ..




The only thing it proves is : "Only Quran should be followed" ... try to understand ...





I am not mistaken my friend ... what I said was : Iqbal was a denier of Hadith as per Mullah definition

Go to any Mullah and tell him that you believe that following Hadith is not mandatory upon you and it was mandatory upon Sahaba only , and if that Mullah does not declare you a "Denier of Hadith" (or may be apostate) then do let me know please

About Abu Hanifa , Ibn e Khaldun has written that Imam e Azam knew 17 ahadith only ... Abu Hanifa`s contemporaries made fun of him and thought he was weak in Hadith ... This has been a frequently debated topic among Ahlussunnah , but this another discussion ...





No sir , I am not confusing anything ... may be you have not understood my point ... I have replied to this already




Muhammad Asad has made this claim which may or may not be true ... I have read a few of his writings and he does make extravagant claims at times ... But your last statement shows that you have completely misunderstood what i had been saying about Iqbal and Hadith ... Rejecting Hadith as a source of law and wholesale rejection of Hadith are two different things ...

couldnt disagree more with the conclusions you have reached. But i have made my point in my previous posts and now its simply going back in circle. It is typical of secularists to discredit by labelling anyone on the other side as 'hypocrites' so its better that i pull back.

in short, you are saying that Quran is enough according to Iqbal and then you are calling for a secular state while Iqbal says, "Thus the Qur’an considers it necessary to unite religion and state"

Thanks for the title of 'hypocrisy' for the conservatives.

Care to explain where is that translation?


Thank you

that he asked for it doesnt require that it was fulfilled.

@Azlan Haider @ajpirzada The Liberals .... specially those liars like Yasir Latif Hamdani who I talked on twitter and coward ran away will never dare to publish all the speeches of Jinah from 1940 till his last speech and interview if they would do it would only expose these liars what Jinah wanted is clear from all these speeches but as they are born to lie they quote only one and even after that speech who Jinah asked to do flag hoisting is the biggest symbol if Jinah wanted secular Pakistan he would have also asked minority members to together do flag hoisting but he choose Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani to do it and in East Pakistan he Choose another Mullah so what he wanted is clear from day one

Jinnah's words are explicit enough that he didnt restrict Islam to worship alone but extended it to spheres of politics, economics, legal and so on.

Thanks for posting.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....that he asked for it doesnt require that it was fulfilled.

Aala Hazrat,

that was precisely my point too.

Knowing Asad, he will not get into Sunnah business. This is why Mullahs drummed him out of Pakistan.

couldnt disagree more with everything you said. But i have made my point in my previous posts and now its simply going back in circle. It is typical of secularists to discredit by labelling anyone on the other side as 'hypocrites' so its better that i pull back.

in short, you are saying that Quran is enough according to Iqbal and then you are calling for a secular state while Iqbal says, "Thus the Qur’an considers it necessary to unite religion and state"

That for the title of 'hypocrisy' for the conservatives.
.

If we talk about Iqbal,

We should also go check out the philosophers whom Iqbal followed and got inspirations and ideas from.

Check out German and European philosophers.

Khudi, and Shikwa jawab shikwa etc. are all borrowed from West in general and Germany in particular.

Please study the throughts coming from German reformation, their work ethic, frugality etc. back then.

Getting stuck with Iqbal without studying his role models, is unfair to Iqbal and totally unfair to Pakistani society.



hope you understand.

thank you

......



Jinnah's words are explicit enough that he didnt restrict Islam to worship alone but extended it to spheres of politics, economics, legal and so on.

Thanks for posting.

Well said.

In fact, Jinnah's public life clearly shows that he didn't care much about worship. To be precise "ZERO".

He hated the likes of Mullah Azad by calling him precisely what he was! A "show boy".

 

[M. Sarmad]

couldnt disagree more with everything you said. But i have made my point in my previous posts and now its simply going back in circle. It is typical of secularists to discredit by labelling anyone on the other side as 'hypocrites' so its better that i pull back.

Of course you can disagree ... However , I was expecting some logical arguments , not the usual response I get every time ...

in short, you are saying that Quran is enough according to Iqbal and then you are calling for a secular state while Iqbal says, "Thus the Qur’an considers it necessary to unite religion and state"
That for the title of 'hypocrisy' for the conservatives.

Same Iqbal says that secularism , no doubt , is compatible with Quranic teachings .. And then he praises the Turks for being the only one in the Muslim world (so far) who have understood this ... revering Iqbal as "Mufakir e Pakistan" , and then rejecting secularism as if it were something totally "unislamic" ... Isn`t it hypocrisy ??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because huzoor we must not at any time let our fear of repeating what the people of the book did lead us to denying the prophets.. and especially ur Prophet.. the best of human beings the respect and admiration he/they deserve(s).

I think you are misconstruing opposition towards using the Hadith as some sort of 'iron clad set of instructions' with opposition to the Prophet.

The Hadith might be examples of how the Prophet implemented the directions in the Quran - the fact is that we just don't know for sure given how distorted over time that whole set of literature has become. When you include differences over interpreting the Quran, the Hadith end up being just another means of one set of people demanding that their interpretation of the Quran be considered authentic and accurate. It would be better if Muslims (and not just scholars) focused on trying to interpret and understand the Quran alone.

In addition, the basic, stripped down to the bone goal of faith is to encourage people to live an 'enlightened and civil life, respectful of all living things'. Whether one eats with their left hand or right, has a beard and hair X inches long, enters a mosque with their left/right foot, etc. etc. is meaningless. If the Prophet was right handed that does not mean we demand all left handed Muslims learn to do things with their right hand. And if we realize that demanding that the Quran be implemented EXACTLY in the manner of the Prophet is an absurd proposition, then what is the point of the Hadith in the presence of the Quran?

1.In fact I was referring to placing the palm on the Gita/Bible. We Muslims don't do such things.

Why shouldn't Muslims do such a thing?

2. The other erroneous view expressed here is that al Quor'an is old. The Holy Quoran is always current/relevant. It states principles and guidelines that are never redundant. Islam is a continuous revolution, a reformist movement to guide men/societies back to the righteous path.

The Quran, in terms of its actual timeline (dating back to when it was revealed), is 1400+ years old. You could however argue that 'the concepts, ideas, philosophies promoted in the Quran are timeless'. Interpretations of the Quran, however, are a different matter, and should be open to debate and discussion by anyone.

 

[ajpirzada]

Of course you can disagree ... However , I was expecting some logical arguments , not the usual response I get every time ...




Same Iqbal says that secularism is , no doubt , compatible with Quranic teachings .. And then he praises the Turks for being the only one in the Muslim world (so far) who have understand this ... revering Iqbal as "Muffakir e Pakistan" , and then rejecting secularism as something totally "unislamic" ... Isn`t it hypocrisy ??

Logical arguments have limit to their power of convincing. the only response i have got for you is the words of Iqbal and Jinnah. You have constructed a secular understanding out of them to which I dont agree. Now life is more than going round in circles.

Goodluck.

Aala Hazrat,

that was precisely my point too.

Knowing Asad, he will not get into Sunnah business. This is why Mullahs drummed him out of Pakistan.



If we talk about Iqbal,

We should also go check out the philosophers whom Iqbal followed and got inspirations and ideas from.

Check out German and European philosophers.

Khudi, and Shikwa jawab shikwa etc. are all borrowed from West in general and Germany in particular.

Please study the throughts coming from German reformation, their work ethic, frugality etc. back then.

Getting stuck with Iqbal without studying his role models, is unfair to Iqbal and totally unfair to Pakistani society.



hope you understand.

thank you



Well said.

In fact, Jinnah's public life clearly shows that he didn't care much about worship. To be precise "ZERO".

He hated the likes of Mullah Azad by calling him precisely what he was! A "show boy".

taking inspiration is not a blanket approval of everything. To me, Iqbal disagreed with their understanding of disconnecting State and Relgion. You can see my previous posts. Obviously, you dont have to agree just how i dont with the secularist view.

take care

 

[M. Sarmad]

Logical arguments have limit to their power of convincing. the only response i have got for you is the words of Iqbal and Jinnah. You have constructed a secular understanding out of them to which I dont agree. Now life is more than going round in circles.

Goodluck.

Of course sir .. logical arguments have limit to their power of convincing ....

And we were discussing views of Iqbal and Jinnah ... the founding fathers of this nation , and both were in favor of a secular state .... And I have quoted their exact words , not "my understanding" .... In fact it is you who is trying to replace Jinnah`s and Iqbal`s understanding of religion and state with your own understanding , but using their names ...

take care

 

[FaujHistorian]

...
taking inspiration is not a blanket approval of everything. To me, Iqbal disagreed with their understanding of disconnecting State and Relgion. You can see my previous posts. Obviously, you dont have to agree just how i dont with the secularist view.

take care

in the context of WW-1 and resulting chaos, Iqbal had not fully realized the impact of European philosophers.

Had he lived through post-WW2 era, I am certain he would have changed his mind.


The problem with "Iqbalists" is that they are stuck in the same time when Iqbal was living (hayat).

That should not be case.

Try to understand Iqbal in proper siaqo sabaq (i.e. proper context).

Iqbal did million times more study of European philosphers than most of Pakistani educated elite.

However "iqbalists" with relgious bent are the worst.

They all think Iqbal was reciting Quran hadees like 5 year mardrassah talib.

heck no.

Iqbal was enlightened student of West european philosophy.

And thus even in 1930s, he was miles and miles ahead "intellectually" than a typical Islamist of 2014.


So my request to all the iqbalists and Pakistanis is to do what he did in his life.

Study Western philosophers and update your understanding of the modern society, modern nation state.

Thank you.

 

[SQ8]

I think you are misconstruing opposition towards using the Hadith as some sort of 'iron clad set of instructions' with opposition to the Prophet.

The Hadith might be examples of how the Prophet implemented the directions in the Quran - the fact is that we just don't know for sure given how distorted over time that whole set of literature has become. When you include differences over interpreting the Quran, the Hadith end up being just another means of one set of people demanding that their interpretation of the Quran be considered authentic and accurate. It would be better if Muslims (and not just scholars) focused on trying to interpret and understand the Quran alone.

In addition, the basic, stripped down to the bone goal of faith is to encourage people to live an 'enlightened and civil life, respectful of all living things'. Whether one eats with their left hand or right, has a beard and hair X inches long, enters a mosque with their left/right foot, etc. etc. is meaningless. If the Prophet was right handed that does not mean we demand all left handed Muslims learn to do things with their right hand. And if we realize that demanding that the Quran be implemented EXACTLY in the manner of the Prophet is an absurd proposition, then what is the point of the Hadith in the presence of the Quran?

Not at all. I agree with what you are saying. The Hadiath too are just examples and not "this is exactly how it must be done".