Lol you are missing the context of the verse. @
RAMPAGE I was just trolling he is right on the translation but he is wrong on the context. These verse talks about spreading the message to the disbelievers, God tells the prophet PBUH to invite them and leave the rest to him. The commandments that believers must follow are independent to this invitation which is directed towards the non-Muslims.
You are wrong to say that the cutting of the thieves arm is a command from the Prophet, it is not. That is a law of God's directed towards the thieves who steal for greed, by that I mean people who rob out of necessity such as due to a state of poverty are exempt from such punishment. The purpose of the hadith was to illustrate that no one is exempt from punishment not even a member of the house of the Prophet, so you guys are arguing over apples and oranges.
You have come to a wrong conclusion, Muslims who disobey certain commandments of God can and will be punished. The verses are directed towards those who reject the message of Islam they cannot be punished by Muslims.
@
RAMPAGE ... Alright guys ... After going through your posts , one thing is clear ... You guys have absolutely no idea about what Quran teaches , and yet you are talking about implementing Shariah in Pakistan ...
let me try ....
There are only four offences for which a specified punishment is stipulated in the Quran , namely adultery, theft, slanderous accusation and highway robbery .... Now if one were to review the whole theory of these hudud from a strictly Quranic perspective, the hudud can no longer be seen as mandatory and fixed penalties ....
The four Quranic verses on hudud consist basically of two provisions each, one specifying the offence and its punishment, and the other that provides for reformation and repentance. There is no expatiation beyond these terms. The question that
arises is that the fiqh blueprint on hudud has essentially ignored the latter portion of the text. Only the penalties were adopted but no provision was made to implement or contextualise the repentance (tawbah) and reformation (islah) aspects of the hudud. A structure of penalties, indeed a penal system, was thus envisaged that provide virtually no space for an educational and reformative exercise - presumably because of the shortcomings of the pre-modern system of criminal justice .
Modern criminal law and jurisprudence (like Quran) also advise a restrictive approach to punishments. Two things become absolutely clear if one reads Holy Quran :
1) Allah says that there is no compulsion in religion , It is a matter of free choice , No one is allowed to to force anyone in religious affairs . It is only for Allah to decide the punishment for religious offences (in the after life)
2) Crimes that cause disturbance in the society (theft , robbery etc.) are punishable offenses
In any modern Secular state ;
1) Religion is a personal matter and state has got nothing to do with it
2) Crimes that cause disturbance in the society are punishable offenses
It might be surprising for many ,
but a state based on Quranic teachings is essentially secular in character !!
Now coming to the so called Islamic Laws that give an impression that Islam is some "stone age", barbaric religion , one finds out that all such laws have been derived from Hadith books compiled centuries after the death of prophet , on the orders of tyrant kings (for political gains) ... Apostasy and Blasphemy laws are prime examples ...
No Mullah (or his followers) can ever prove the unfounded claim that the sayings attributed to Muhammad (pbuh) two centuries (two centuries of political turmoil and exhaustive civil wars) after his death aka Sahih Hadith books are "free of errors" and perfect .. It is not humanly possible .. their best defense is that they would declare any one an apostate who tries to challenge the absurd claims of Mullahs ....
And before you dismiss this explanation as being some western or jewish propaganda against Islam , I would like to tell you that this is exactly what the "Thinker of Pakistan" believed in ... Yes , Allama Muhammad Iqbal was a rejector of Ahadith (as per Mullah definition) and he didn`t believe in deriving Sharia laws from Ahadith the way Mullahs did ... No wonder he was declared an apostate by the Mullahs ,,,
Besides, Iqbal does not seem impressed by the contention that after the Quran, the Hadith is a mandatory guide for Muslim Ummah for all times. He considers it valid only to the generation in which the Prophet (s.a.w) was born and does not favour its enforceability in the case of future generations
The fact is that Iqbal does not favour usage of Hadith as a source of law; rather his indifference to it as a legal source is writ large. In order to give weightage to such a view about the Hadith he comes out with the theory of legal and non-legal traditions and attaches too many conditions to legal traditions.70A In The Reconstruction, he writes:
For our present purposes, however, we must distinguish traditions of a purely legal import from those which are of a non-legal character. With regard to the former, there arises a very important question as to how far they embody the pre-Islamic usages of Arabia which were in some cases left intact, and in others modified by the Prophet. It is difficult to make this discovery, for our early writers do not always refer to pre-islamic usages. Nor is it possible to discover that the usages, left by the express or tacit approval of the Prophet, were intended to be universal in their application.[71]
IQBAL AND HADITH
And quite understandably , Iqbal thought that "A secular Turkey" was perfectly Islamic as the idea of a secular state was not opposed to what Islam teaches ...
While defending the Republic of Turkey and its actions,
Allama said in his famous lecture on
‟The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam‟:
“They therefore reject old ideas about functions of state and religion and accentuate the separation of church and state. The structure of Islam as a religio-political system no doubt does permit such a view.”
