Reducing the Role of Political Islam

[kugga]

where the hell is progressive Islamic mindset been preached? are we taught that early secular ideas came from Ibn Rushd, NO!



People of Pakistan are just too sensitive to the minute things about their religion & religion becomes a point of 'madness' & overshadows the judgment...

why is that needed?? you know this what benefit it brought to your life ?? NO!

Are the only progressive ideas left are secular ones??

 

[T-Faz]

From the Justice Munir-Kiyani report:

“Pakistan is being taken by the common man, though it is not, as an Islamic State. This belief has been encouraged by the ceaseless clamour for Islam and Islamic State that is being heard from all quarters since the establishment of Pakistan. The phantom of an Islamic State has haunted the Musalman throughout the ages and is a result of the memory of the glorious past when Islam rising like a storm from the least expected quarter of the world—wilds of Arabia—instantly enveloped the world, pulling down from their high pedestal gods who had ruled over man since the creation, uprooting centuries old institutions and superstitions and supplanting all civilisations that had been built on an enslaved humanity…………..

He (the Musalman) therefore finds himself in a state of helplessness, waiting for someone to come and help him out of this morass of uncertainty and confusion. And he will go on waiting like this without anything happening. Nothing but a bold re-orientation of Islam to separate the vital from the lifeless can preserve it as a World Idea and convert the Musalman into a citizen of the present and the future world from the archaic in congruity that he is today….

It is this lack of bold and clear thinking, the inability to understand and take decisions which has brought about in Pakistan a confusion which will persist and repeatedly create situations of the kind we have been inquiring into until our leaders have a clear conception of the goal and of the means to reach it.

And as long as we rely on the hammer when a file is needed and press Islam into service to solve situations it was never intended to solve, frustration and disappointment must dog our steps. The sublime faith called Islam will live even if our leaders are not there to enforce it. It lives in the individual, in his soul and outlook, in all his relations with God and men, from the cradle to the grave, and our politicians should understand that if Divine commands cannot make or keep a man a Musalman, their statutes will not.”

 

[Ababeel]

Reducing the Role of Political Islam​

It is easy, to debate a taboo, once it has been shattered. The de-mystification of Islam is necessary in Pakistan and what needs to be argued; to counter the misuse of Islam in Pakistan is not to parse and quibble over interpretations, but to frame the questions. No general has ever won a war by fighting it according to the plans of the enemy and so it is, with the religious debate in Pakistan.

For too long, and with painfully hurtful results, we the so-called and rightly contemptible moderates and enlightened cowards and liberal hypocrites, and deceitful secularists, have appeased the intolerant clergy and have abdicated our responsibilities of civic participation. We have allowed the religious discourse in Pakistan to be taken over and dominated by mullahs – the washers of the dead – and have argued according to their rules. The first step to regain and reclaim the debating space for the idea of a new Pakistan, is to ask questions and make the defenders of the faith actually defend their faith.

This new, re-energized, debate needs to focus on the simplicity of its message and it needs to propagate that message with all the venom of a cobra. The message of this debate is to make the people realize the dichotomy that exists in this world and in the Hereafter, as promised in religion.

The first point which needs to be articulated is to make a case for the separation of justice; from God’s and humans. The best and the most effective manner to whittle Islam to its rightful place in Pakistan is argue, convince and make the people understand that in the Hereafter, we will all be judged by God’s laws. In this Present World (which is what the term secular actually means), we will be judged by laws made by humans.

The next logical step is to argue that if Islam, as a religion, wanted to become political and exercise control in this world, then it loses its “divine immunity” and will be judged by human laws. This should be seen as breach of a contractual agreement, because the understanding was that God’s laws will apply in the Kingdom of God, but human laws will apply in the kingdom of human beings. If Islam wants to have influence in “our world”, then it will be judged according to “our” laws and it will be responsible and accountable to our laws just as we will be responsible to God’s laws once we enter His kingdom. This will happen, and it will happen not without a cost, but Islam and religion as an idea in Pakistan will stand disabused.

Religious intolerance, and when a religion becomes political, pushes people into a sense of alienation because the main functionality of a religion and its legitimacy is to offer a sense of spirituality to the people and act as anchor in times of need and uncertainties. When religion itself, instead of standing aloof from the secular concerns, becomes a partisan in the secular debates of the day, it loses its spirituality. People become alienated from religion, when instead of offering them a promise of certainty and hope; religion becomes the very cause of their hopeless and loss of certainty and of increasing doubts. When people start to question the very foundations of their belief systems and religion cannot provide them with convincing answers, the end is apparent.

The power of a religion, over its people, lies in the absolutism of its dogma, but the vulnerability of dogma is that it is supreme as long as believed and not questioned. When religion is questioned and its answers prove inadequate, or its actions are seen in violation with its professed teachings, questions ferment in the mind and once the mind acquires the confidence to think rationally and independently, religion loses the fear of its dread over a person.

Pakistanis are questioning their religion. They are questioning their religion, because it does not make sense; from what they were taught , and what is being practiced in the name of the religion itself. The next evolutionary step will be increasing self-doubts as people start to make independent personal decisions about their acts of devotion and if organized religion does not provide them with the answers they are searching from; they will move away from organized religion itself.

This does not and should not be taken as step towards atheism, because it is not. All religions are political constructs of behavior control and the purpose of every organized religion is to control the lives of its followers and it controls the lives of its faithful by decreeing an existence for them and a code by which that existence is rationalized and makes sense.

When people lose faith in their religion and start to question it; it does not mean they have become non-believers. All it means they do not follow the precepts of an organized religion and instead of searching for answers within an organized religion, they start to search for it outside the hierarchical organization of the religion and instead, follow their religion outside of the organized manner or the established code of conduct.

They become independent of a religious control over their lives and become free to think on their own and break the shackles of mind control and in the words of Bob Marley, emancipate themselves from mental slavery. Devotion in this sense then becomes very personalized and individualistic and in the process, religion loses it ability to control the lives of the person and furthermore, becomes gradually less significant.

The insignificance of a religion and its importance in the daily lives of its adherents becomes pronounced as people start to search for answers, to the issues which plight them, outside of the religious experience and based on their own experiences in the present (secular) world. Once, it becomes self-evident that religion is not capable of providing all the answers and what it says does not mesh with the reality of the experience, and then the thoughts of the people become more pre-occupied by the present (secular) world and how to live in it.

When this happens, something else also happens. Once people start to question an experience outside of a religious explanation, they realize by their own experience and awareness the subjectivity of a religion and its place in their lives. Religion then becomes a part of the diversity and the plurality of a person’s experience instead of being the centrality of their existence.

This is the threat, which politically enforced and manipulated Islam will face in Pakistan. As it becomes more intolerant towards Pakistanis, and forces them into submission and not to question it, Pakistanis will move away from the practice of organized religion and will practice more varied and individual forms of devotion. They will still be Muslims and they will still read the Quran, and they will still pray but they will do it on the basis of their own experiences and not on the basis of what someone tells them their experiences should be!

Once this happens, organized religion or political Islam will lose its hold over the average Pakistani and in time, will find its own niche in the lives of the people and once this balance is attained, Pakistanis will be better positioned to exist in this world (secular) and will stop living their lives in the present world as they were living in the Hereafter. Once, Pakistanis realize this and start to understand the role of religion in the proper perspective of life and its experience as one of many, they will start to think outside of the organized religious thought and that will be the beginning of the end of political Islam in Pakistan and first step towards the idea of secularism!

Reducing the Role of Political Islam Pak Tea House

A hadith was reported by Imam Muslim on the authority of Nafi' that the Messenger (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

''The one who removes his hand from obedience he will meet Allah without a proof for himself' and Whosoever dies without a bay'ah on his neck dies the death of Jahiliyyah.''


From this hadith can be deduced the Hukm Shar'i for a situation when Muslims die without the presence of a Khaleefah to rule over them. Perhaps it is the unusual nature of such a situation that explains why so few Fuqahaa (jurists) addressed this hadith while the numerous other evidences which establish the obligation of Khilafah have received greater attention and scrutiny. They could not have imagined a situation when a Muslim would die without the presence of a Khaleefah. Hence most of their discussions tended to centre on the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah after the death of the previous Khaleefah; or that it was obligatory to obey the existing Khaleefah and so having a Khaleefah must be obligatory. Yet, the unthinkable happened, the Khilafah was destroyed, and consequently generations of Muslims have died while having no Khaleefah over them. This noble hadith of the Prophet SAW assumes a relevance that those scholars did not envisage.

The process of extraction

What is the Manaat (reality) of the text?

The hadith is describing not one but two types of people since it came in two parts as indicated by the waw al-isti`naaf or ibtidaa` (in English the word 'and' is used) (i.e. the disjunctive syntax where the waw begins a new sentence).

In the first part it says: 'The one who removes his hand from obedience he will meet Allah without a proof for himself' This is when the Khaleefah exists and someone withholds his obedience to the Khaleefah.

In the second part it is not describing the same person since the waw al- isti`naaf indicates it is beginning a new sentence to make a different point. This time he (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) says: And (waw al- isti`naaf) the one who dies without a bay'ah on his neck he dies the death of jahiliyyah' This is further confirmed by the fact that he repeats the personal pronoun 'man' (the one who or whosoever). This also indicates the hadith discusses two types of people in two different situations.

To appreciate this point better it helps to look at another hadith where exactly the same thing happens. He (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: man maata fee sabeelillah fahuwa shaheed wa man maata bit-taa'oon fahuwa shaheed [Sahih Muslim]. Meaning: ''The one who dies in the Path of Allah he is shaeed and (waw al- isti`naaf) the one who dies in a plague he is a shaeed''

The death here occurs in two states separated by the waw al- isti`naaf. So the first death is in the Path of Allah whilst the second death occurs in a plague. It would be absurd if someone claimed here that the hadith is talking about the same situation.

Thus the hadith in question is talking about two different situations. The first situation as we said is when someone withholds his obedience to the existing Khaleefah. The second part is about 'the one who dies without a bay'ah on his neck.' The waw al-Haal (waw of condition) in wa laysa fi 'unuqihi bay'ah clarifies the state in which the person dies, and in this case it is when he dies 'without a bay'ah on his neck'.

So what is that state when someone dies without a bay'ah on his neck? It cannot mean giving the bay'ah because the hadith did not say 'wa lam yu'til bay'ah' (and he did not give the bay'ah). Giving the bay'ah (pledge) is a kifayah duty (sufficiency) and not an individual obligation as indicated by the Ijma' as-sahabah (consensus of the Sahabah). The contractual bay'ah does not require every single person to physically give it, rather it is enough for the Ahlul Halli wal 'Aqd (those who represent the Muslims) to give the bay'ah on behalf of the people. The result of this contracting by the representatives of the Muslims ‘Aqd is that every Muslim, even those living outside the Islamic authority, would have a bay'ah on his neck.

Thus, the hadith is very precise in its description. It is not talking about giving bay'ah to a Khaleefah but rather having a 'Bay'ah on the neck for a Khaleefah' which describes a situation when someone dies without the presence of a Khaleefah having been contracted. Also there is nothing in this hadith that specifies this situation to a selected few so it cannot be said that the hadith is addressing the only representatives of Muslims e.g. Scholars or others in positions of authority. Rather it addresses all Muslims.

Finally, the use of the expression 'man maata' deserves a further comment. The reference to the point of death indicates that the hukm (rule) must exist throughout his life. There cannot be a point in his life when he is in a state without a bay'ah on his neck i.e. without the presence of a Khaleefah. So the hukm is continuous unlike the ahkam of obeying parents where the hukm ends upon their death or the hukm of giving to the poor which ends when poverty ceases. But the obligation of having a Khaleefah over you never ceases because text says 'the one who dies' indicating the continuity of the hukm throughout the life of a person for he is not allowed to die in situation where the Khaleefah is not present.

What is the Hukm Shar'I on this issue?

The above discussion allows us to extract two ahkaam: That it is Fard 'ayni (individual obligation) to have a Khaleefah present and that it is Fard Kifayah (obligation of sufficiency) to appoint a Khaleefah.

The first hukm is deduced from the request (talab) in the hadith that a Muslim should not die without a Khaleefah present. As we said before 'bay'ah on the neck' is not possible to have without the presence of the Khaleefah. So if it is not allowed to die without a bay'ah on the neck, this means it is not allowed to die without the presence of a Khaleefah. This type of indication (dalaalah) in Usul al-Fiqh is known as dalaalat al-Iqtidaa (the required meaning of the text). I.e. this is when the truthfulness or correctness of a statement (sidq al-mutakallim wa sihhatul malfooz bihi) cannot be established unless one understands the lafz (expression) in a certain way.

The mafhoom (implied meaning) of 'bayah on the neck' is the presence of the Khaleefah by the required meaning (dalalaatul iqtidaa). Thus for the expression 'bayah on the neck' to be truthful we must understand it to mean presence of the Khaleefah.

Thus, the one who dies without the presence of the Khaleefah would be sinful due to the qaraa'in which makes the request decisive. The preposition 'fee unuqihi' actually means 'ala unuqihi ie obligation to have on one's neck much like when we say in English someone has 'a debt on his neck' i.e. he has a debt he has to pay.

In addition to this is the explicit qareenah (indication) 'dies the death of Jahiliiayh'. The attribution of a death occurring in the days of Ignorance establishes beyond any doubt the decisiveness of the request. This means the command is a Fard which if neglected would entail sin and punishment. Also, since the personal pronoun 'man' is general this means it includes every single Muslim i.e. every individual faces death and therefore the indefinite term 'maata' i.e. dies, coupled with the negation is clear that every single individual is addressed and hence it is a Fard 'ayni (individual obligation) to have a Khaleefah present.

Further proof can be found in other supporting daleel. It is narrated on the authority of 'Umar that the Messenger (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

''The One who dies without an Imam he dies the death of Jahiliyyah''. [Reported on the authority of 'Umar by at-Tabarani and Abu Nu'aym. The latter declared the hadith as authentic]

Yet in another hadith narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak we have the following version:

''He who abandons the Jamaa'ah by even so much as a hand span is as if he has taken the knot of Islam off his neck, until he returns.' And he (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: 'whoever dies while there was no Imaam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.''

It well known the scholars of hadith permitted the narration of hadith by meaning (riwayah bilma'na). So in the above hadiths the raawi (transmitter) narrated the meaning of the saying of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam). So whilst the extraction of the hukm from the man maata hadith in Sahih Muslim is from the implicit meaning (mafhoom), the above two hadiths however are even more explicit as they make the same point in the uttered meaning (manTooq). Incidentally, the hadith in Sahih Muslim and the one above from al-Hakim are both narrated by Ibn 'Umar. The first says 'bay'ah on the neck' while the second says 'while there was no Imaam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him'. The meaning is same but the difference is that the former is understood from the implicit meaning (mafhoom) while the latter is taken from the uttered or pronounced meaning (mantooq).

As for the second hukm which is that it is Fard to appoint a Khaleefah, this is deduced from the dalalaatul Ishaarah (the alluded meaning of the text). The ishaarah is a hukm derived from the text which was not intended directly from the speech. The 'man maata' hadith establishes the obligation of having a Khaleefah present; this means by ishaarah that it is an obligation to appoint a Khaleefah. Therefore, when the text says it is Fard to have a Khaleefah present it also alludes to the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah such that he is present over us.

CONCLUSION

Thus, this hadith clearly establishes the obligation of having a Khaleefah over us and the obligation of working to appoint a Khaleefah.

On WHOM does the Hukm shar'i apply? Is it an individual (Fard 'ayni) or collective obligation (Fard kifaa`i) and what does that mean for the Muslim?

The obligation of having a Khaleefah present is an individual duty. This is because the personal pronoun 'man' (which means whoever) is from the general expression (seeghatul 'umoom) and it encompasses all people. Its nature is such that if the Khaleefah is present then he is present for all and if he is absent then he is absent for all thus the obligation covers all people. It is well known in Usul that the general remains general until there is another evidence to specify it. The insane, non-baligh are excluded from this generality because there is a text to say they are not legally responsible (ghayr mukallaf) and hence they cannot be held responsible for duties they did not have capacity for.

He (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

''Three types of people are exempted from accountability, the one who sleeps until he wakes up, a child until he reaches the age of puberty and the insane until he is cured.''[Reported by Abu Dawood]

Thus, the general remains in its generality unless another text comes to specify it. And in this case the obligation of having a Khaleefah present is on every legally responsible (mukallaf) Muslim whether man, woman, layman or scholar.

As for the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah this is Fard kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency). However this should not be taken as an excuse for inaction. This is because in terms of obligation (wujoob) and removal of the sin (isqaat) the Fard 'ayn and kifayah are the same. This is because Fard means the Legislator has demanded in a decisive form the performance of an action which if neglected will result in sin. Thus the obligation to fulfil the command is on all. Only if the command has been fulfilled by some then the sin is removed from the rest. This is because the consideration is for the accomplishment of the Fard and not the undertaking of the Fard. Until and unless the Fard is accomplished it continues to be an obligation on all no matter how many people undertook it. That is why the definition of Fard kifayah is: 'What some have accomplished then the rest are absolved from sin' (maa aqaamuhul ba'd saqata 'anil baaqeen) not 'what some have undertaken …' (maa qaama bihil ba'd). There is a big difference between undertaking an action and accomplishing it. So until the Fard is accomplished the obligation remains on all. That is why if the kifayah obligation neglected everyone is sinful and not just a few people.

For example it is Fard Kifayah for a group to respond when salam is given to them. The obligation remains on all of them until the obligation is fulfilled. If one responds with the salam and the Fard is accomplished then all are saved from sin because the consideration is the accomplishment of the Fard but if no one respond then all are sinful. Thus Fard kifayah and 'ayn are the same in obligation and removal of the sin.

So, in our view, it would be incorrect for someone to say the duty to re-establish the Khilafah is Fard kifayah - so let some people do it and we will be saved – because the Fard has not been accomplished and hence the obligation remains on every single neck. The Ummah has only three days and two nights to choose a Khaleefah, if they fail to do this after this time the obligation continues on all and those who undertake the Fard are saved from the sin. But those who neglect will be sinful for not fulfilling their Lord's command and they will have to explain themselves to Him on the Day when His Account (Hisab) is swift.

 

[Ababeel]

There are no versions of Islam as some jahils mention e.g. Moderate Islam, Extremist Islam, Sufi Islam, Salafist Islam or Political Islam etc.

Islam is a way of life, spanned over all aspects of life whether its individual life, social life, judiciary, economy, politics orwar zone. Islam has all the rules for all these aspect.
Just reciting Kalima tayyabah is not enough for being a muslim. Then there will be nodifference between a muslim and a non muslim.

SUBMISSION IN ISLAM

Islam means submission to God. It is an Arabic word, derived from ‘Aslama’, which means submission. The name ‘Islam’ is conferred on the divine religion in this verse of the Quran:
“Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My favour to you, and I have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (5:3)
The Quran tells us that submission to God should be total: “O you who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly…” (2:208) A Muslim is required to submit himself or herself to God with total devotion and in all sincerity. This submission implies complete obedience to God in all matters.
Islam is the name chosen by God for the religion approved by Him for human beings. All the messengers sent by God (from Adam to the Prophet Muhammad, the last messenger of God), brought the same religion: the religion of total submission and surrender to God. The Quran states:
“The same religion has He established for you as that which we enjoined on Nuh and that which We have revealed to you, and that which We ordained for Ibrahim, Musa and Isa, saying that you should remain steadfast in religion, and make no division therein…” (42:13).
God’s religion is one religion. It is the same religion, which has always been revealed by God to His prophets. According to the Quran, all the previous apostles, Nuh, Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaqub, Lut, Yusuf, Musa, and Isa were Muslims.
The Quran also tells us that submission to God is the only religion for both man and the universe: “Are they seeking a religion other than God’s, when all creatures in heaven and on earth have submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion? To Him they shall all return.” (3:83)
Islam is the religion of the universe. Everything in the universe—the sun, the moon, the stars—have all completely submitted themselves to the will of God. This means that submission to God is the only true religion for both man and the universe. All the things on the earth or in space follow God’s commands to the letter. The revolution of the stars, the flowing of water, the growing of trees, in short, all things are following the same course, which was determined for them by God. Nothing is allowed to deviate from the divine path.

 

[pak-marine]

Sharia of which sect? lol

There are somethings in Sharia which are not compatible with the times in which we are living & now read the article again...

well said sharia of which sect , which islamic law shia suni barelvi etc this will further encourage sectarianism which is our case where wahabi sect which have managed to influence some however they stil remain a smal minority in majority barelvi pakistan.

 

[Ababeel]

The relationship between Islam and a true believer should be like that of colour and water, not of stone and water. Islam should not just be an accessory to a Muslim’s life; it should merge with his whole being; as the Quran says, Islam should be entered into ‘in its totality’ (2:208).
When a person adopts Islam in this manner, it becomes like his own heartbeat as it permeates his emotions. It enters his thoughts, moulding his intellect in its own fashion. It becomes the eye with which he sees, the tongue with which he speaks, the hands and feet with which he performs his day- to-day functions. It takes possession of a person, to the exclusion of everything else. His every statement bears the stamp of Islam and his actions reflect Islamic colours. If Islam is like a stone dropped into in water, it is not Islam at all. Faith should be absorbed by a person in the way colour is dissolved in water. Just as the emotions of love and hate are felt by the whole body, so, when one adopts Islam in the real sense of the word, it becomes an issue affecting one’s whole existence. The Muslim and Islam become inseparably attached to each other.

 

[marky1234]

well said sharia of which sect , which islamic law shia suni barelvi etc this will further encourage sectarianism which is our case where wahabi sect which have managed to influence some however they still remain a smal minority in majority barelvi pakistan.

And whose interpretation is right? Anyway I am still waiting to see any reasonable and rational reasons, as to why sharia law is the best other than reasons like because Islam said so. Laws should be based on pragmatic and rational thinking not on Islam said so.

 

[Saleem]

We need to understand that the Koran calls itself "and Arabic Koran". It follows that any discussion of what is says is contingent on one being well versed in the Koranic Arabic. Any attempt at translation is an interpretation of the Koran. A simple illustration is the word "religion" - the Koran talks of a "din" and not what is meant by the english word religion. A good english language discussion may be found in the book: "A Vision of Islam" by Chittick & Murata.

The basis of a muslim society is a conscious, willing acceptance of the Koran as the word of God. It assumes that all decisions will be made with the belief that nothing can be done without the knowledge of an entity which will, at the end of times, judge ones actions. The Koran gives a set of guidelines which are enduring for the very reason that they are guidelines and that details are subject to interpretation in order for them to be implemented practically. It is here that the preceding assumption comes into play and it is assumed that all laws will be detailed in such a manner as to satisfy the requirements for justice and fairplay. If one accepts that one has to justify ones actions to an entity which not only knows what and how one did something but also why one did it then the course of action one must take becomes evident.

As to which school of law should play, popular wishes are accomodated - In the Osmanli Devlet (this is the official name of the Ottoman Empire = Osmanli Commonwealth) the hanafi osmanlis permitted use of a different school of law, which was more common there, for the Egyptians (I think it was Shafi'i).

As for the muslims one needs to bear in mind that after the Banu Umayya usurped the khilafa the rulers of muslims have always had an air of illegitimacy over them since the basic requirements for rulers such as popular support were not being met. To legitimize their rule they used the scholars (ulama) to give opinions in their support - hence the numerous rulings advising obedience to rulers and confining religion to the individual. One needs to understand that that in mainstream sunni islam the ulama do not have divine sanction i.e. what they give in terms of fatawa etc. are legal opinions which, by definition, are not the word of God or relayed by God in any way - given the belief that the age of prophecy has ended until the end of times. Hence to follow or not follow these rulings is subject to the aforementioned rule i.e. one has to justify any action before God regardless of the public standing of the individual or organization issuing the ruling.

So it seems that the debate about the secular and Islam is basically academic here since, if one is to accept the aforementioned proposition, nobody can claim to be infallible and having divine sanction for his actions. What he does is his own responsibility no matter how sincerely he believes he is following what God requires of him.

 

[greatsequence]

well said sharia of which sect , which islamic law shia suni barelvi etc this will further encourage sectarianism which is our case where wahabi sect which have managed to influence some however they stil remain a smal minority in majority barelvi pakistan.

Man in the matters of law 90% of Pakistanis are hanafi. The hanafi fiqh can be successfully implemented. It is also worth remembering that most of the Former Muslim empires of the past were Hanafi in law.

This argument of "which sect" comes from those who neither understand Sharia nor the differences between different sects in Pakistan.