What's new

Indian lies exposed over mumbai attack.

Arab world is in shambles bro. Trust me on this though...I have read on Shariah for most of my life and I can say without reservation that if such a system is implemented it would solve much of Pakistan's problems. Many people fear Shariah with no rational reason because they associate the chaos in the current Muslim world with Shariah. The reality is that Shariah in its truest essence is a just and reasonable system. Indians like yourself perhaps view it negatively because you were ruled by "muslims" for a long period and you perhaps did not find it favorable...I myself have not found much Shariah in the rule of the Mughals.

when shariah came, Hindus suffered. Any ways we are talking about Sharia in Pakistan. I am sure majority will say NO.
 
. .
your bank system will change
No, not entirely. A good portion of Pakistan's banking is already done through Islamic systems and the majority of banks already provides Islamic Banking services - it will need to be reformed but not changed entirely.
http://www.sbp.org.pk/departments/pdf/StrategicPlanPDF/Strategy Paper-Final.pdf
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/913S.pdf
Why Islamic banking is growing rapidly in Pakistan – The Express Tribune
no film industry, no fashion industry
As @Selous has mentioned, it can continue with some added restrictions.
women won't be able to drive
They will. We're talking about Sharia, not some bits of Saudi idiocy. There is no basis in Islam to say that women can't drive - the Prophet (pbuh) 's own wife used to ride around in camels without any problems and he didn't say anything about it.

If the Shariah is implemented by the government then militancy will basically end. The militants will have no reason to continue
This I disagree with - the political militants and proxies will not end because they don't want Sharia. They want power and money, which they gain through extortion, assassinations/target killings and the drug trade. None of these things are Islamic, all are forbidden and the militants do all of these.

But yes, their recruit base may decrease if Sharia is implemented since they can't use it as an excuse anymore but the issue is that different sects and Mullahs have different views of Sharia, so if you implement Sharia based on one interpretation, the other people will say your Sharia is wrong and they'll continue supporting Militant groups. It's a very complicated issue.
If they do then Islamically they will be committing treason and can be killed without qualms.
They already are.
 
.
No, not entirely. A good portion of Pakistan's banking is already done through Islamic systems and the majority of banks already provides Islamic Banking services - it will need to be reformed but not changed entirely.
http://www.sbp.org.pk/departments/pdf/StrategicPlanPDF/Strategy Paper-Final.pdf
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/913S.pdf
Why Islamic banking is growing rapidly in Pakistan – The Express Tribune

As @Selous has mentioned, it can continue with some added restrictions.

They will. We're talking about Sharia, not some bits of Saudi idiocy. There is no basis in Islam to say that women can't drive - the Prophet (pbuh) 's own wife used to ride around in camels without any problems and he didn't say anything about it.


.
Then this is not Sharia, this is Pakistan's version of Sharia, and Militancy will remain calling to further conflict in the region .
 
.
@TankMan then perhaps we can create many small provinces with slightly different interpretations of Shariah to appease all the other sects. If you don't like the Shariah in your province then move to the province that is more in line with your views :D But perhaps a better option would be to create a council that will decide what interpretation of Shariah to follow...if a scholar can present proof for a better ruling on some matter then the ruling can be changed.
 
. .
Then this is not Sharia, this is Pakistan's version of Sharia, and Militancy will remain calling to further conflict in the region .
Incorrect - it is Sharia. Sharia is not a specifically prescribed legal system that perfectly restricts each and every rule. All it does is set some guidelines, limitations and general ideals (justice, especially). Sharia does allow amendments and small changes as long as the basic principles and guidelines are not violated - for example, replacing camels with cars or handwriting with the printing press are perfectly valid in Sharia.

Militancy is the new mode of war, of course it'll remain. Sharia won't do anything to militancy as long as there are states and politicians fighting proxy wars through these militants.
 
. .
No, not entirely. A good portion of Pakistan's banking is already done through Islamic systems and the majority of banks already provides Islamic Banking services - it will need to be reformed but not changed entirely.
http://www.sbp.org.pk/departments/pdf/StrategicPlanPDF/Strategy Paper-Final.pdf
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/913S.pdf
Why Islamic banking is growing rapidly in Pakistan – The Express Tribune

As @Selous has mentioned, it can continue with some added restrictions.

They will. We're talking about Sharia, not some bits of Saudi idiocy. There is no basis in Islam to say that women can't drive - the Prophet (pbuh) 's own wife used to ride around in camels without any problems and he didn't say anything about it.


This I disagree with - the political militants and proxies will not end because they don't want Sharia. They want power and money, which they gain through extortion, assassinations/target killings and the drug trade. None of these things are Islamic, all are forbidden and the militants do all of these.

But yes, their recruit base may decrease if Sharia is implemented since they can't use it as an excuse anymore but the issue is that different sects and Mullahs have different views of Sharia, so if you implement Sharia based on one interpretation, the other people will say your Sharia is wrong and they'll continue supporting Militant groups. It's a very complicated issue.

They already are.
And I thought you were one of the saner pakistani or uk citizen(of pakistani descent). how would you feel if you have to live like a second class citizen in UK. Sharia is a 7th century law .would you like if you have to pay jiziya ( not the taxes the majority pays , but separate taxes ) , how would like to have to someone restrict you from serving in the military (officially) . tell me how one would. would you like to live as a nonmuslim citizen in shariat rule . how it is just , a hand for a petty thieving . thats outrageous. it has no role in a modern nation state . would you put on your hand on your heart and say which one you would prefer a sharia ruled islamic country or a liberal Scandinavian country.
 
. .
And I thought you were one of the saner pakistani or uk citizen(of pakistani descent). how would you feel if you have to live like a second class citizen in UK. Sharia is a 7th century law .would you like if you have to pay jiziya ( not the taxes the majority pays , but separate taxes ) , how would like to have to someone restrict you from serving in the military (officially) . tell me how one would. would you like to live as a nonmuslim citizen in shariat rule . how it is just , a hand for a petty thieving . thats outrageous. it has no role in a modern nation state . would you put on your hand on your heart and say which one you would prefer a sharia ruled islamic country or a liberal Scandinavian country.
You get insulted so quickly by the dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state) issue. Don't sensationalize the issue by calling dhimmis second class citizens. An Islamic state is founded upon the principles of Muslim brotherhood. If you are a Muslim then you are a citizen. This is opposed to a nationalistic state wherein citizenship is based on birth or some other arbitrary factor like how long you stay in the country. If you do not have citizenship in a nationalistic country like the UK you are in effect a second class citizen. You do not have the freedom that citizenship grants you. In a Islamic state dhimmis are actually citizens if they agree to pay jizya (protection tax) and abide by some basic rules of behavior. They have the same rights that Muslims do as far as basic human rights are concerned. They are even allowed to practice their own jurisprudence and deal with their own legal issues. Muslims do not interfere with their religious practices. Muslims end up paying more tax than non- Muslims (zakat, ushar). The dhimmis are not restricted from joining Muslim armies...they are just not obliged to fight for the defense of the land since they pay jizya and technically it is the Muslims responsibility to protect them. Cutting off hands for PETTY thieving...you do not even have your basic facts straight. Hudud punishments are never for petty crimes. Please look up the Millet system of the Ottoman Khilafat.
 
.
______________________________________________________________________________________

By- Moeed Pirzada

thanks! to Nasir Bhatti who once again reminded us of this video, the Confessional Video of Ajmal Kasab...

http://www.ndtv.com/…/the-confessions-of-ajmal-kasab/255625…

Do Pakistanis and all those who 'liked' this OP really believe 26/11 to be a 'conspiracy' theory? Do you even realize that you are accusing Indian Intelligence Agencies of killing 166 their own innocent people (including US/UK/Israeli and other citizens) in cold blood just to show Pakistan in bad light?

Most of us Indians have given up on bringing the perpetrators of this heinous carnage to justice but how can you guys be so insensitive? It is just sick, subhuman, absurd!

How would you like it if someone sick on this side of the border, pays it back with some absurd conspiracy theories of involvement of ISI in the killing of all those innocent children in Peshawar?
 
.
And I thought you were one of the saner pakistani or uk citizen(of pakistani descent).
I am a Pakistani citizen, and am perfectly sane thank you very much for your concern, Sir. :enjoy:
how would you feel if you have to live like a second class citizen in UK. Sharia is a 7th century law
Sharia is not a law at all - it is a set of guidelines for law. The actual law is called fiqh and is developed by Jurists and scholars (fuqaha) within those guidelines.
would you like if you have to pay jiziya ( not the taxes the majority pays , but separate taxes )
Jizya isn't considered to be part of the fixed guidelines of Sharia and can be amended. However, it is important to note that it was originally a replacement for Zakat, since Zakat was a religious obligation for Muslims (but not non Muslims), non Muslims had to pay Jizya instead of the Zakat Muslims paid, i.e it was the same thing with a different name.
Is Jizyah a Discriminatory Tax on Non-Muslims? - Aspects of Worship - counsels - OnIslam.net

I wouldn't mind paying the same taxes as the majority but with a different name.
how would like to have to someone restrict you from serving in the military (officially)
I already can not join, say, the UK military unless I give up my Pakistani nationality and/or apply for and successfully acquire a British citizenship - how is that any different from the restriction in Islamic law?

tell me how one would. would you like to live as a nonmuslim citizen in shariat rule
If the Shariat rule is actually Sharia-based and not some creation of moronic Mullahs or Talibaboons, then I'd love it and probably accept Islam in a while.

a hand for a petty thieving . thats outrageous
That's news to me! Sharia does not, under any circumstances, allow for cutting off the hand for petty thieving - it has to be massive theft and the accused has to under go a fair trial and must be given a warning and chance to compensate for the theft before the punishment can be carried out.

The Islamic state under Muhammad (and the following caliphs) was a welfare state. Therefore, any thief was a greedy criminal who can't justify his crime with "desperation". Cutting off the hand might be a too harsh punishment in the eyes of some, not in the others. It is worth noting that the form of language used in this indicates a possibility of it being metaphorical (as in: restraining or preventing one from theft, similar to jail). Whatever interpretation you chose, the Quran also has a proper ruling of proportionate punishment. So you can't just go around cutting someone's hands if he steals an apple from a fruit stall.
Good link: Misconception: Islam and The Quran orders hands to be cut offfor theft

would you put on your hand on your heart and say which one you would prefer a sharia ruled islamic country or a liberal Scandinavian country.
A Sharia state that fulfills the guidelines set by Islam, which are mainly Justice (proportionality, equality) and Accountability - quite similar to Scandinavian Liberalism in that sense.
 
.
You get insulted so quickly by the dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state) issue. Don't sensationalize the issue by calling dhimmis second class citizens. An Islamic state is founded upon the principles of Muslim brotherhood. If you are a Muslim then you are a citizen. This is opposed to a nationalistic state wherein citizenship is based on birth or some other arbitrary factor like how long you stay in the country. If you do not have citizenship in a nationalistic country like the UK you are in effect a second class citizen. You do not have the freedom that citizenship grants you. In a Islamic state dhimmis are actually citizens if they agree to pay jizya (protection tax) and abide by some basic rules of behavior. They have the same rights that Muslims do as far as basic human rights are concerned. They are even allowed to practice their own jurisprudence and deal with their own legal issues. Muslims do not interfere with their religious practices. Muslims end up paying more tax than non- Muslims (zakat, ushar). The dhimmis are not restricted from joining Muslim armies...they are just not obliged to fight for the defense of the land since they pay jizya and technically it is the Muslims responsibility to protect them. Cutting off hands for PETTY thieving...you do not even have your basic facts straight. Hudud punishments are never for petty crimes. Please look up the Millet system of the Ottoman Khilafat.
Oh really , either you are a citizen in modern nation state or not, unlike in shariat where if you are a muslim you are the preferred one.now tell me how does a non citizen is treated in UK for criminal offence , same way as other citizen or there is a separate law regarding the non citizen if they commit criminal offence. now compare that with a sharia one , a muslim is treated separately for criminal offence .does the UK courts discriminate if an Indian kills an UK citizen and in another case an UK citizen kills an Indian , both in UK territory , the rules are same. Now tell me can one non-muslim get away by paying blood money after killing a muslim in sharia stae while muslims can get away. .
also a modern nation state allows a person can renounce the citizenship and also later be allowed to return to the same country if need arises , can the same be said about a shariat state . you can be killed legally after converting . now dont tell me that how todays modern islamic states are not islamic. action only counts not words. even islamic countries which practice democracy have these laws . the proof lies in the pudding not the how tasty it is decribed in the cook book.
this answer is also to you @TankMan
 
Last edited:
.
You get insulted so quickly by the dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state) issue. Don't sensationalize the issue by calling dhimmis second class citizens. An Islamic state is founded upon the principles of Muslim brotherhood. If you are a Muslim then you are a citizen. This is opposed to a nationalistic state wherein citizenship is based on birth or some other arbitrary factor like how long you stay in the country. If you do not have citizenship in a nationalistic country like the UK you are in effect a second class citizen. You do not have the freedom that citizenship grants you. In a Islamic state dhimmis are actually citizens if they agree to pay jizya (protection tax) and abide by some basic rules of behavior. They have the same rights that Muslims do as far as basic human rights are concerned. They are even allowed to practice their own jurisprudence and deal with their own legal issues. Muslims do not interfere with their religious practices. Muslims end up paying more tax than non- Muslims (zakat, ushar). The dhimmis are not restricted from joining Muslim armies...they are just not obliged to fight for the defense of the land since they pay jizya and technically it is the Muslims responsibility to protect them. Cutting off hands for PETTY thieving...you do not even have your basic facts straight. Hudud punishments are never for petty crimes. Please look up the Millet system of the Ottoman Khilafat.

The Non Muslims (Europe, India, China, Russia, US) are not at all interested in paying Jizya to their minorities :rofl:

and also Europe, India, China, Russia, US do not need protection from their tiny minority of Muslims.

I sometimes wonder who gives protection, money and arms to Pakistan, Saudi and Qatar. Hmm (USA, China). I thought the Non Muslims protect these Muslims right? So why don't you pay Jizya to Hindus/Christians/Buddhists? lol

So please implement your Shariah in Pakistan, or any other Muslim country. For that matter, implement whatever you like in your country. No one cares but outside of Muslims world people find Shariah cruel, discriminatory, backward and unfit for humans.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom