So, lets settle the matter of whether Sharia calls for these brutal, harsh, and inhumane punishments. There are four major schools of Sunni Sharia law. They agree about 75% of the time. Sharia has been basically unchanged for about the past 1000 years. There is a difference between Sharia and the laws of various Muslim states. Muslim states can vary in their implementation of Sharia, but this implementation does not change the basic nature of Sharia. There are authoritative legal texts of Islamic law which spell out what Sharia law entails. Here are some quotes from Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Shafii School):
pg. 613 THE PENALTY FOR THEFT
. A persons right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam
.
pg. 616 THE PENALTY FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY
. If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold
, both his right hand and left foot are amputated
. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days.
pg. 610 THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION OR SODOMY
. If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death
.
pg. 595 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)
. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
pg. 617 THE PENALTY FOR DRINKING
. The penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes, with hands, sandals, and ends of clothes. It may be administered with a whip, but if the offender dies, an indemnity
is due
for his death. [This penalty applies only to Muslims.]
In each case, there is also a list of qualifiers for who should be punished. Of course, these punishments are not carried out much of the time today, but they certainly are a part of Sharia. They have never been removed from the books, and they can be enforced at any time and place that Sharia is considered to be a valid source of law.
In addition, there is evidence these barbaric practices are still very much alive. Aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, have found it necessary to have a policy for whether to assist with amputations meted out as punishment in Muslim countries. Stonings are being carried out by the legal system in Nigeria, Iran, and elsewhere.
So tell me, why exactly would we believe those who say they could implement Sharia family law only, without opening the door to the criminal law with its cruel medieval punishments? If we legitimize Sharia as a source of law, what exactly would stop orthodox Muslims from wantingand indeed, expectingthe whole thing?
The merits of Shariah's leniency or orthodoxy is not the same debate as Secularism vs Theocracy.
Why Secularism is important is to establish ONE law for all citizens of a nation. Not for equality between Hindus, Muslims, Christians. Between Muslims, each Muslim will have a different interpretation of what the law is. Each Alim will have his own interpretation. Shariah cannot even be applied upon Muslims let alone be applied upon minority religions.
Religions are ambiguous.
Pakistan needs EQUAL citizens, not equal religions. Religion for the state should be irrelevant. To say that you would apply Quranic values and the Sunnah upon state governance is to say you'll implement YOUR interpretation of it. It's nothing more than a dictatorship since its all interpretation.
That's why we need to implement Secular laws. Any secular and humane law would not be in violation of the Shariah and hence the Muslims can live in peace that they are not following anything evil.
Yes Secular laws will grant more freedoms. Freedom to sin as well. Sins that affect no one but the individual themselves. Alongside secularism would even grant you the freedom to CONVINCE people not to sin and preach your religion.
This is where you need to remember the words of the Quran:
لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error
This is where Black Blood's argument gains strength. You can't say that Islam is secular since that doesn't fit the dictionary definition. But yes you can claim that there is a secular nature involved in its basic tenets and we see this again and again. Very explicitly stated in the Surah Kafiroon, even though at that time it was addressed to the disbelievers who were doing the same trying to impose their religion upon us and now some of us are trying to impose our religion upon others:
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
The themes of secular nature that Black Blood mentioned reappear again and again within the Quran.
Never!
As determined by Quran and Sunnah, Religion (Islam) and the state go hand in hand! That is the way which God has ordained to us! Secularists like yourself are just as must of a threat to Pakistan as the Wahabi extremists are!
Pakistan will always be an Islamic Republic! Insha Allah!
Dude most of us are religious practitioners as well. Just because we remain in control of our faculties and have a higher degree of tolerance for the opposing point of views, you think this is some sort of anti-Islamism at play. It's not. Everything is motivated by a service to Pakistan and Pakistan alone. Try to know a little bit about a person before you term him as "the biggest threat to Pakistan".
- the taliabnised version is really not a true representation
