We can continue to have this nonsensical back and forth, or we can let reality take its course. If the people of Pakistan want to implement some form of sharia, they will. But until they do, Pakistan is not a Sharia-run state.
And as far as Sharia goes, there is no ONE interpretation of Islam. Iran and Saudi Arabia both claim to be Islamic states under Sharia. Afghanistan under the Taliban was another such example. The Ottoman Caliphate pretended to be under Sharia also. Yet, do you find that all four of these states/empires were governed the same way?
If there was ONE interpretation of Sharia Law, then there would be complete agreement on all practical and doctrinal matters between muslims, but the reality is that this is not the case. So, given that there are these disagreements even amongst muslims, how do you decide on who is right and who is wrong? One man's sahih hadith is another man's cooked-up propaganda published by corrupt caliphs in Baghdad. So unfortunately, the entire Islamic world is not united on the hadith. They are similarly not united on scholars either. What they are united on is the Quran, and the Quran, as I said, has interpretations.
By the way, if God wanted to forcibly impose an absolutely rigid law that governed every single aspect of life and that left absolutely nothing to judgement or the imagination, then I think he wouldn't have given us minds. There would be no point in blessing us with the one gift no other creature has been blessed with. We are human, we have the ability to think and make up our own minds, and there IS more than one way to salvation. I have read the Quran a few times and I believe the Quran itself says this when it talks about the people of the book (Christians, for example). This is my view. And I am a muslim. Now you may disagree with me, but then how do we decide? I may not buy into your idea of who is a scholar. I may not buy into your idea of Islamic jurisprudence. And you may disagree with my ideas of both. So, how do we impose a Sharia law on 180 million people when 180 million people do not subscribe to the same interpretations?
To address this issue of arbitration or decision making, ultimately the will of the people is included in some form or fashion. Whether you call that western style democracy, or simply "mushavrat" or whatever else, the fact is that at the end of the day it is the people who have to decide how they will be governed. And until and unless the people of Pakistan choose one particular mullah's interpretation of Islam over all the other mullahs, no one interpretation can be thought to be the law of the land.
La-ikraha-fiddin. Those too are the words of God. If you think Pakistan is not an Islamic republic because it is not being governed under Sharia law, then you are welcome to that conclusion. But you, nor I, nor anyone else can impose our concept of what *should be* on the people of Pakistan. Let them decide. And if they have thus far rejected the notions of sharia as espoused by the major religious parties, then that is the people's will.
