This is actually for the other thread which was closed, but relevant here.
(please don't start personal attacks to close this thread like was done for two earlier threads in national pol. issues forum. try a mature, logical discussion for once)
Okay one question?
Can I be beheaded under Shariah for saying 'I don't believe in Allah, I only believe in Krishna' since that'll be considered Shirk?
that doesn't make any sense. i'm not sure about krishna, but historical people like gautam buddh and baba nanak, they were all monotheists who believed in Allah (s.w.t), just with sanskrit name instead of arabic. only thing is buddha and earlier vedic rishis gave the concept of one supreme being the name 'brahm', as the totality of all existence, an extremely impersonal form. but their message was the same, i.e. that we were created by the supreme being, attain salvation from this world and return back to 'Him' in the end. my point is, you can't compared God with mortal people that spread a message of monotheism. best to return to your vedic roots and read what was originally revealed in the Rgveda.
and no there is no compulsion you can believe what you want as long as it doesn't malign Allah or the Prophets. minorities are protected under shariah to the extent that in past they escaped witch hunts and persecution in europe to find safe refuge in muslim lands, where their well being and freedom of belief was protected for centuries thereafter.
Well depends on whose defining Shariah!
there is only one definition of Shariah as revealed in the Quran and Sunnah. but perhaps what you mean is what it would look like today. there's no easy answers to that. it has been well over a thousand years since it was last implemented in exactly the same form as the time of our Prophet (s.a.w). but that does not mean we don't strive for it and find ways.
the reconstruction of religious thought by Iqbal should definitely be looked at. to begin with, that book is so complex that i'm not sure anyone comprehensively understood what Iqbal meant except for himself. but still, the idea of Islam and reason being one and the same thing both in spirit and practice, should give some insight on what it should look like in Pakistan.
people misconstrue it to mean some kind of modern 'Islamic democracy'. put more aptly, it rather suggests a pluralistic system of governance with Islam at the core, which openly discusses different ideas that emerge over time, but the consensus on whether that is rejected or incorporated is informed fully by Islamic principles and guidance.
unlike some members, i would not call it 'shariah-compliant'. it's a model that keeps with the times and is dynamic, but evolves with thought-out consideration, toward the ends of removing any distinction between life in society and Islam.
as for those who keep repeating 'four witnesses' thinking it demeans the Shariah, it's better to see it in a logical, practical context if it were to be implemented. as science has advanced exponentially since those times, what stops forensic evidence serving as an unbiased source in addition to witnesses? nothing, except your boxed mentality and narrow view of this matter.
as for the poll, i'm not going to vote as Shariah is a matter of faith and the way people are being named and ridiculed here is quite pathetic. but let me just say that this remains the destiny of Pakistan, and we will achieve it eventually. we're not cowards to demand political separation because we were scared of being in a minority. we've always fought and prevailed against much worse odds in the past. but the whole point of this country is for it to belong every square inch, in dirt, flesh and spirit, to Allah (swt) as sovereign, nothing else.
akistanFlag:
