Best way to implement Sharia in Pakistan ???

[M. Sarmad]

Sometimes I feel that we should update the list of founding fathers and include Dr. Asad (Leopold Wiess) alongwith Jinnah and Iqbal.

D.r Assad had a huge impact on both Jinnah and Iqbal, sort of how Ben Franklin impacted Jefferson, Madison, and Washington.

A few years ago , a controversy arose when the pathological liars of "Ghairat brigade" claimed that they had "discovered" a paper signed by Jinnah in which he had ordered to establish some Islamic department under the supervision of Dr. Asad ... Yaser Latif Hamdani wrote :

There is no reference to “Allama” Asad aka Lepold Weiss in Jinnah Papers. Jinnah never corresponded with him, never met him and never appointed him to anything. I have looked through Jinnah Papers as well Jinnah’s correspondence during this period. Even the Shamsul Hassan collection has no reference to this Allama Asad. There is absolutely no primary source evidence that shows this Allama as being associated with the Pakistan Government. How strange then that Jinnah who meticulously saved his correspondence forgot to mention this.(Yasser Hamdani)

I had a discussion about it with someone in another thread :
Islamization of Jinnah. | Page 11

I have also read about the rivalry b/w Dr. Asad and Sir Zafarullah Khan and a few excerpts from Dr. Asad`s Biographies where he has made a lot of extravagant claims ... About Iqbal , Asad met him for the first time in 1934 , so there aren`t much chances of him inspiring Iqbal as Iqbal died in 1938 and most of his works are from times before 1934 ... As far as i know , Ghulam Ahmed Pervez (of Tolu e Islam) was a very close friend of Iqbal , the latter introduced him to Jinnah .. He became an advisor to Jinnah later ... Ghulam Ahmed believed in wholesale rejection of Hadith .. If one reads the papers published by Tolu e Islam during the independence movement , one finds striking similarities b/w Jinnah`s understanding of Islam and the content of these publications ... I wonder if they have still kept the record (at their office in Model Town Lahore) ... This is one area that has been ignored generally ..a few details are available online but they need to be verified first ... Ghulam Ahmed has been declared a "heretic" and an "apostate" by all Mullahs .... !!

 

[ajpirzada]

So here is the summary .. A UK based Pakistani woman , Saleena Kareem (a graduate in human biology), gets interested in history "accidentally" ... She writes a book in 2005 claiming to expose "Munir`s big hoax" ... A few years later she realizes that the origins of "munir quote" were not in Jinnah and Zia (1979) as she had always believed , but in some other source ... She writes the second edition clarifying this mistake ... Quite understandably , Her book was an average attempt and failed to impress serious readers . She based her book on a "wrong presumption" ...

I have the 2010 version which is based on the right presumption and takes full account of the munir quote.

Fatima Jinnah writes in "My Brother" : "I can recall many occasions after independence when he (Jinnah) spoke to me about his anxiety that a new constitution should be framed, which would be liberal, and ensure fundamental freedoms to the people of Pakistan"

doesnt go against Islam.

Iskander Mirza wrote: "Before we all left Delhi, I said to the Quaid-i-Azam one day, "Sir, we are all agreed to go to Pakistan; but what kind of polity are you going to have? Are you going to have an Islamic State?" "Nonsense," he replied, "I am going to have a modern State."

Yup and the modern state is not incompatible with what he is saying here:

In an interview reported in the Press on 25th January 1948 Mr. Jinnah said that,
"he could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and made propaganda that the Constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat…" He further said that "not only the muslims but also the non-muslims have nothing to fear."

Similarly:
"But before [Jinnah] left a correspondent asked him: ‘I presume from what you have said, Mr. Jinnah, that Pakistan will be a modern democratic state.’ Mr. Jinnah quickly replied: ‘When did I ever say that? I never said anything to that effect."’ (Emphasis added) [Source: Hindustan Times, 14 July 1947 (NV Vol. VI, p. 276 fn)]

You have misunderstood him most probably ... Nowhere did he say that "separation of state and religion" is a mistake .. What he is saying is that (in his opinion) the Nationalist Party thinkers are mistaken as for them "The point of supreme interest is above all the State and not Religion .... and religion as such has no independent function" ... He has criticized them for assimilating this idea from west , but At the same time he says ".. the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view " ........ So in Iqbal`s opinion , even the western secularism is not "unislamic" !!!
Iqbal was not against separation of state and church , he was against the "western secularism" which discarded religion completely .. Iqbal argues that , unlike christianity , Reformation (including separation of state and religion) is possible in Islam , while remaining within the parameters defined in Quran .. He agrees with what the Religious Reform Party of Turkey believed in :

I am right. He did not agree with the separation of the State and Religion with regards to what he had in mind:

"The truth is that the Turkish Nationalists assimilated the idea of the separation of Church and State from the history of European political ideas. Primitive Christianity was founded, not as a political or civil unit, but as a monastic order in a profane world, having nothing to do with civil affairs, and obeying the Roman authority practically in all matters. The result of this was that when the State became Christian, State and Church confronted each other as distinct powers with interminable boundary disputes between them. Such a thing could never happen in Islam; for Islam was from the very beginning a civil society, having received from the Qur’an a set of simple legal principles which, like the twelve tables of the Romans, carried, as experience subsequently proved, great potentialities of expansion and development by interpretation. The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."

Similarly, he was seeing liberalism as a force rising within Islam and not out of it. It is in this light he expresses his fears:

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam, but it must also be admitted that the appearance of liberal ideas in Islam constitutes also the most critical moment in the history of Islam. Liberalism has a tendency to act as a force of disintegration, and the race-idea which appears to be working in modern Islam with greater force than ever may ultimately wipe off the broad human outlook which Muslim people have imbibed from their religion. Further, our religious and political reformers in their zeal for liberalism may overstep the proper limits of reform in the absence of check on their youthful fervour."

According to Iqbal, even the main reason of the decay of Western society was this very separation:

"A careful reading of history shows that the Reformation was essentially a political movement, and the net result of it in Europe was a gradual displacement of the universal ethics of Christianity by systems of national ethics.The result of this tendency we have seen with our own eyes in the Great European War which, far from bringing any workable synthesis of the two opposing systems of ethics, has made the European situation still more intolerable. It is the duty of the leaders of the world of Islam today to understand the real meaning of what has happened in Europe, and then to move forward with self-control and a clear insight into the ultimate aims of Islam as a social polity."

and how much more explicit can it get than this:

"Thus the Qur’an considers it necessary to unite religion and state, ethics and politics in a single revelation"
when you yourself are forwarding his quotation “The Book of God is sufficient for us”

" You will see that following a line of thought more in tune with the spirit of Islam, he(Said Halim Pasha) reaches practically the same conclusion as the Nationalist Party, that is to say, the freedom of Ijtihād with a view to rebuild the laws of Sharī‘ah in the light of modern thought and experience."

no where does Iqbal forward Halim Pasha as a proof for the separation of the state and religion. It is only in the context of the need for Ijtihad that Iqbal discusses his ideas. If you have read all of the lecture then you must have also read Iqbal refuting Halim Pasha where the latter went against the Quranic injunction. The praise is only restricted to Ijtihad under which fell the example of replacing Arabic with local language.

Sir , did you miss this :
The question which confronts him (Turkey) today, and which is likely to confront other Muslim countries in the near future is whether the Law of Islam is capable of evolution–a question which will require great intellectual effort, and is sure to be answered in the affirmative, provided the world of Islam approaches it in the spirit of ‘Umar-the first critical and independent mind in Islam who, at the last moments of the Prophet, had the moral courage to utter these remarkable words: “The Book of God is sufficient for us.”

Again, you are confusing hadith with fiqh. Hadith sometimes elaborates and sometimes contextualized while Quran is eternal. I stick with what I said that iqbal while considering hadith 'second great source of muhammadan law' calls only for 'not to make any indiscriminate use' and pushes for 'a further intelligent study of the literature of traditions, if used as indicative of the spirit in which the Prophet himself interpreted his revelation, may still be of great help in understanding the life-value of the legal principles enunciated in the Quran.' Instead he makes it conditional that only 'a complete grasp of their life-value alone can eqiup us in our endeavour to reinterpret the foundational principles.'

Iqbal was a rejector of Hadith (as per Mullah definition)

couldnt be more mistaken. You should read the books on Usul al-Fiqh to get a better idea of what Iqbal was asking for by frequently referring back to Abu Hanifa.

And here is a very good article that explains Iqbal`s views on Hadith :
IQBAL AND HADITH

I have already read this article. And the writer is mistaken by his inability to draw distinction between rules of fiqh (usul al-Fiqh) and hadith. And the editor rightly questioned the writer's conclusion by saying:

In view of the material available in Iqba's letters, statements and other works (poetic-prose), on the same topic it is hard to accept the finding tht Iqbal had a "philosophy of according no or minimum role to the Hadith". The matter needs further elaboration and more detailed and comprehensive research. (Editor's Note).

Moreover, Iqbal had himself asked Muhammad Asad to translate selection of Bukhari into english:

Iqbal suggested that Asad translate a selection of ahadees from Sahih Bukhari Sharif which was hitherto not available in English, and would benefit the hundreds of thousands of Muslims of India who read English but did not know the Arabic language.
Muhammad Asad: The Story of a Story of a Story | Criterion

what sane person would ask for such thing to be translated in english for the benefit of people which he himself rejected?

 

[Luftwaffe]

Was there no law in operation in Hindustan before the British arrived? Are there no instances when our rulers,princes and powerful officials were summoned before the Qadhi? What laws did we follow when Muslim civilizations prospered for centuries in al Andalusia, Mali-N Africa, Egypt, Baghdad, Damascus, Istanbul under the Ottomans, under Amir Taimur, in Hindustan, in East Asia and elsewhere? Are we English that we have to follow the English Common Law? Are Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbs-Locke-Russo, Marx-Engels and the lot part of our heritage? Do they belong to our society or culture?How many of us consult the Holy Quora'n to find answers?

Great post! and while some people declare the laws of sharia outdated on the other hand they embrace 2000 years old laws as modern the hypocrisy of these people. When they say sharia is outdated I would point out passages of Quran on Talaq or Divorce; those passages are direct laws/sharia would these so called liberals "moslems" change it to divorce a woman in 1 go talaq talaq and talaq against the Allah ordained law directly in the Quran, such are the people with no knowledge infact they criticize it alot but don't bother to even research, this discussion is going no where there is no solution currently and when these liberals are caught they would switch and resort to "which sharia" and derail the discussion. In light of Pakistan if the western laws are really implemented/forced and followed for a couple of decades until people are much civilized than can we think about injecting sharia until than the current western/british laws in places technically can have a positive out come if enforced and followed with addition of some Islamic laws infact which are in place but liberals can't digest them.

 

[M. Sarmad]

have the 2010 version which is based on the right presumption and takes full account of the munir quote.

No Sir .. in the second edition (which you have with you) , Saleena has only corrected her stupid mistake (regarding "original source" of Munir quote) , not the "wrong presumption" (i.e only Justice Munir says that Jinnah wanted a modern democratic state ) .......

doesnt go against Islam.

Tell that to any Mullah or conservative and you will be labelled "Liberal Kafir" instantly ...

Yup and the modern state is not incompatible with what he is saying here:
In an interview reported in the Press on 25th January 1948 Mr. Jinnah said that,
"he could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to create mischief and made propaganda that the Constitution of Pakistan would not be made on the basis of Shariat…" He further said that "not only the muslims but also the non-muslims have nothing to fear."

And now you are saying exactly the same what I have been saying in all my posts ... to sum it up :

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" , irrespective of religion , caste etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" ... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit , was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims originally .. Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today , while "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed to be the "true spirit" of Islam , was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point , they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah when he has talked about Islam , but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah`s definition of Islam with Mullah`s definition of Islam (which is opposite to Jinnah`s def.) ... The result is that one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... Truth is , the only hypocrites are the Mullahs and the conservatives ... Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Dr. Javed Iqbal (Allama Iqbal`s son) explains this in the following words ...... it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.

Similarly:
"But before [Jinnah] left a correspondent asked him: ‘I presume from what you have said, Mr. Jinnah, that Pakistan will be a modern democratic state.’ Mr. Jinnah quickly replied: ‘When did I ever say that? I never said anything to that effect."’ (Emphasis added) [Source: Hindustan Times, 14 July 1947 (NV Vol. VI, p. 276 fn)]

Yes Sir , I have seen this "proof" quite a lot of times . mostly on sub-standard blogs and propaganda websites ... But I was not expecting that an educated and well informed person like you would use it . Firstly I have never seen anyone quote full .. just this "single line" without any context is used by everyone with exactly same wording (including "emphasis added") which means that its nothing but a mindless "copy paste" job because anyone with some knowledge of our history knows that Jinnah`s famous last press conference in New Delhi (July 14 1947) was something the conservatives didn`t like much ... He clearly told that his vision of Pakistan was a democracy that would be secular in character ... And even if we take this alleged report from Hindustan times to be true (and suppose that it was the same press conference if not from one day before) , it goes against the conservatives` narrative . Something the conservatives fail to realize .. "‘I presume from what you have said, Mr. Jinnah, that Pakistan will be a modern democratic state" ....... Now the question is `What did Jinnah say that led the correspondent to "presume" this` ?? ...

Q & A session: Quaid-e-Azam's Press Conference, Delhi (July 14th, 1947) |Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Jinnah : . Every time I spoke about the minorities I meant what I said and what I said I meant. Minorities to whichever community they may belong will be safeguarded. Their religion or faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed. The will have their rights and privileges and no doubt along with this goes the obligations of citizenship

Q. Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic state?
A. You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.

Q. Correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.
A. Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a ducks’s back. When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.

Now Jinnah straight away rejects a "theocratic state" , and accepts the explanation of a "secular state" ... but he does so by saying that Muslims learnt this principle (of having a democracy with absolute equality for minorities which by definition , would be a secular democratic state) 1300 years ago ... So for him , Islam introduced concepts of secularism and democracy long before the western world came up with the idea of "modern democratic state" ... And this is what I meant when i said (above): Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... A progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. Secularism and democracy that would not be western but Islamic ... !!!

Now Anyone with a little knowledge of Islamic history would not agree with Jinnah . Never in Islamic history , minorities(Non Muslims) had equal rights with the majority (Muslims) ... But the fact is that there is a little window ... and that is "Misaaq e Madina" .. !! There was a time when Muslims and Non Muslims were one nation (Ummah) with equal rights for everyone , in Medina , during the lifetime of prophet (pbuh) ... And any "Ijtehad" that legitimizes "secularism" (once again) is acceptable to Iqbal ... that is why he says about secularism "No doubt , the religio-political structure in Islam does permit such a view" .. !! and that is what he preaches "return to the original simplicity and universality of Islam" .... The biggest hurdle in this path of "return" (or "renaissance" more properly ) is the static shariah law derived from sources other than Quran ... Thus Iqbal believes that following Hadith is not mandatory .. And he has strong reasons for believing in this ... And he is not alone who thinks this way... the number of progressive Muslim scholars is increasing , and that day is not far away when we will be able to free ourselves from the unwholesome Mullah influence in our religious lives ....

I am right. He did not agree with the separation of the State and Religion with regards to what he had in mind:
"The truth is that the Turkish Nationalists assimilated the idea of the separation of Church and State from the history of European political ideas. Primitive Christianity was founded, not as a political or civil unit, but as a monastic order in a profane world, having nothing to do with civil affairs, and obeying the Roman authority practically in all matters. The result of this was that when the State became Christian, State and Church confronted each other as distinct powers with interminable boundary disputes between them. Such a thing could never happen in Islam; for Islam was from the very beginning a civil society, having received from the Qur’an a set of simple legal principles which, like the twelve tables of the Romans, carried, as experience subsequently proved, great potentialities of expansion and development by interpretation. The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."
Similarly, he was seeing liberalism as a force rising within Islam and not out of it. It is in this light he expresses his fears:
"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam, but it must also be admitted that the appearance of liberal ideas in Islam constitutes also the most critical moment in the history of Islam. Liberalism has a tendency to act as a force of disintegration, and the race-idea which appears to be working in modern Islam with greater force than ever may ultimately wipe off the broad human outlook which Muslim people have imbibed from their religion. Further, our religious and political reformers in their zeal for liberalism may overstep the proper limits of reform in the absence of check on their youthful fervour."
According to Iqbal, even the main reason of the decay of Western society was this very separation:
"A careful reading of history shows that the Reformation was essentially a political movement, and the net result of it in Europe was a gradual displacement of the universal ethics of Christianity by systems of national ethics.The result of this tendency we have seen with our own eyes in the Great European War which, far from bringing any workable synthesis of the two opposing systems of ethics, has made the European situation still more intolerable. It is the duty of the leaders of the world of Islam today to understand the real meaning of what has happened in Europe, and then to move forward with self-control and a clear insight into the ultimate aims of Islam as a social polity."
and how much more explicit can it get than this:
"Thus the Qur’an considers it necessary to unite religion and state, ethics and politics in a single revelation"
when you yourself are forwarding his quotation “The Book of God is sufficient for us”

I disagree with you here ... What you are saying contradicts with what you have quoted yourself ... for example , what you are saying ... Iqbal was against idea of separation of state and church , and he also criticized Halim Pasha , and he is praising "Ijtehad" (regarding language) only ... fails to explain Iqbal`s immense praise of Turkey ... one example :

The truth is that among the Muslim nations of today, Turkey alone has shaken off its dogmatic slumber, and attained to self-consciousness. She alone has claimed her right of intellectual freedom; she alone has passed from the ideal to the real– a transition which entails keen intellectual and moral struggle

Secondly you are highlighting selective parts only ... About liberalism , Iqbal says :

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam, but it must also be admitted that the appearance of liberal ideas in Islam constitutes also the most critical moment in the history of Islam ......"

rest , his concerns are understandable ..

and how much more explicit can it get than this:
"Thus the Qur’an considers it necessary to unite religion and state, ethics and politics in a single revelation"
when you yourself are forwarding his quotation “The Book of God is sufficient for us”

The only thing it proves is : "Only Quran should be followed" ... try to understand ...

couldnt be more mistaken. You should read the books on Usul al-Fiqh to get a better idea of what Iqbal was asking for by frequently referring back to Abu Hanifa.

I am not mistaken my friend ... what I said was : Iqbal was a denier of Hadith as per Mullah definition

Go to any Mullah and tell him that you believe that following Hadith is not mandatory upon you and it was mandatory upon Sahaba only , and if that Mullah does not declare you a "Denier of Hadith" (or may be apostate) then do let me know please

About Abu Hanifa , Ibn e Khaldun has written that Imam e Azam knew 17 ahadith only ... Abu Hanifa`s contemporaries made fun of him and thought he was weak in Hadith ... This has been a frequently debated topic among Ahlussunnah , but this another discussion ...

Again, you are confusing hadith with fiqh. Hadith sometimes elaborates and sometimes contextualized while Quran is eternal. I stick with what I said that iqbal while considering hadith 'second great source of muhammadan law' calls only for 'not to make any indiscriminate use' and pushes for 'a further intelligent study of the literature of traditions, if used as indicative of the spirit in which the Prophet himself interpreted his revelation, may still be of great help in understanding the life-value of the legal principles enunciated in the Quran.' Instead he makes it conditional that only 'a complete grasp of their life-value alone can eqiup us in our endeavour to reinterpret the foundational principles.'

No sir , I am not confusing anything ... may be you have not understood my point ... I have replied to this already

Moreover, Iqbal had himself asked Muhammad Asad to translate selection of Bukhari into english what sane person would ask for such thing to be translated in english for the benefit of people which he himself rejected?:

Muhammad Asad has made this claim which may or may not be true ... I have read a few of his writings and he does make extravagant claims at times ... But your last statement shows that you have completely misunderstood what i had been saying about Iqbal and Hadith ... Rejecting Hadith as a source of law and wholesale rejection of Hadith are two different things ...

 

[FaujHistorian]

Moreover, Iqbal had himself asked Muhammad Asad to translate selection of Bukhari into english:

.

Care to explain where is that translation?


Thank you

 

[Zarvan]

@Azlan Haider @ajpirzada The Liberals .... specially those liars like Yasir Latif Hamdani who I talked on twitter and coward ran away will never dare to publish all the speeches of Jinah from 1940 till his last speech and interview if they would do it would only expose these liars what Jinah wanted is clear from all these speeches but as they are born to lie they quote only one and even after that speech who Jinah asked to do flag hoisting is the biggest symbol if Jinah wanted secular Pakistan he would have also asked minority members to together do flag hoisting but he choose Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani to do it and in East Pakistan he Choose another Mullah so what he wanted is clear from day one

 

[M. Sarmad]

When they say sharia is outdated I would point out passages of Quran on Talaq or Divorce; those passages are direct laws/sharia would these so called liberals "moslems" change it to divorce a woman in 1 go talaq talaq and talaq against the Allah ordained law directly in the Quran, such are the people with no knowledge infact they criticize it alot but don't bother to even research

Bhai jan It was Hazrat Umer r.a who gave this fatwa ... Are you calling him "liberal moslem" with no knowledge ?? And then you say people don`t bother to do research !!

 

[FaujHistorian]

Was there no law in operation in Hindustan before the British arrived?

Please provide some documentation such as "Mogal penal code" or something.

Shooting in the air will not help your cause. No matter how hot the air is.

Thank you

W

What laws did we follow when Muslim civilizations prospered for centuries in al Andalusia, Mali-N Africa, Egypt, Baghdad, Damascus, Istanbul under the Ottomans, under Amir Taimur,

The law was seldom written, and it was forcefully changed with change in the king/empror oops Khalifaha lafafah.

Those dictators would force their name to be part of the Friday Khutba.

So this is the Islamic law.

Just look around and some of the most pathetic monarchies in Muslims countries.

See if you can find the 10 volume Islamic penal code hidden inside Somalian or Yemenian seat of the government.


Bro!

jurisprudence is serious matter.
your emotional outbursts cannot help unless you have seen documented law from a given government that you are interested in.

British law?

you can find the written records from centuries ago.

Do the same for Islamic countries. And then we can have a debate.

until then it is just a bunch of hot air in a green balloon.

@Azlan Haider @ajpirzada The Liberals .... specially those liars like Yasir Latif Hamdani who I talked on twitter and coward ran away will never dare to publish all the speeches of Jinah from 1940 till his last speech and interview if they would do it would only expose these liars what Jinah wanted is clear from all these speeches but as they are born to lie they quote only one and even after that speech who Jinah asked to do flag hoisting is the biggest symbol if Jinah wanted secular Pakistan he would have also asked minority members to together do flag hoisting but he choose Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani to do it and in East Pakistan he Choose another Mullah so what he wanted is clear from day one

The only cowards running away are the 2-bit filthy Muj in Wazirastan.

 

[Zarvan]

Bhai jan It was Hazrat Umer r.a who gave this fatwa ... Are you calling him "liberal moslem" with no knowledge ?? And then you say people don`t bother to do research !!

He did it as matter of punishment for those who didn't used proper way ordered in Quran and Sunnah so for punishment he gave this ruling so people will have a lesson

 

[M. Sarmad]

He did it as matter of punishment for those who didn't used proper way ordered in Quran and Sunnah so for punishment he gave this ruling so people will have a lesson

Omar r.a Can not change Shariyah forever as Quran says in surah Al Maidah that deen is Complete ... For whatever reason , But he gave this fatwa ....... Imaam Abu Hanifa , Imaam Shaafi’ee , Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmad unanimously hold the view that three Talaaqs (at one time) take place. ............... But that is another debate ...

 

[Zarvan]

Omar r.a Can not change Shariyah forever as Quran says in surah Al Maidah that deen is Complete ... For whatever reason , But he gave this fatwa ....... Imaam Abu Hanifa , Imaam Shaafi’ee , Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmad unanimously hold the view that three Talaaqs take place. ............... But that is another debate ...

Yes deen is complete in form of Quran and Sunnah but some times treatment needs to be given to people when they start going against the law as for this he choose this

 

[asad71]

Please provide some documentation such as "Mogal penal code" or something.

Shooting in the air will not help your cause. No matter how hot the air is.

Thank you




The law was seldom written, and it was forcefully changed with change in the king/empror oops Khalifaha lafafah.

Those dictators would force their name to be part of the Friday Khutba.

So this is the Islamic law.

Just look around and some of the most pathetic monarchies in Muslims countries.

See if you can find the 10 volume Islamic penal code hidden inside Somalian or Yemenian seat of the government.


Bro!

jurisprudence is serious matter.
your emotional outbursts cannot help unless you have seen documented law from a given government that you are interested in.

British law?

you can find the written records from centuries ago.

Do the same for Islamic countries. And then we can have a debate.

until then it is just a bunch of hot air in a green balloon.




The only cowards running away are the 2-bit filthy Muj in Wazirastan.

The Moghuls as the other Muslim rulers of Hindustan and other Muslium Sultanates had followed the Shariah. Same with all the Muslim rulers/Caliphs mentioned.

 

[FaujHistorian]

The Moghuls as the other Muslim rulers of Hindustan and other Muslium Sultanates had followed the Shariah. Same with all the Muslim rulers/Caliphs mentioned.

Those are just words, rumors, heresy.

in the world of jurisprudence, written law is the king.

Bahadur Shah zafar was the last king deposed in 1857.

If he had a written law, please provide a copy.

otherwise please stop spreading falsehoods in the name of Islam.

Thank you

 

[asad71]

Those are just words, rumors, heresy.

in the world of jurisprudence, written law is the king.

Bahadur Shah zafar was the last king deposed in 1857.

If he had a written law, please provide a copy.

otherwise please stop spreading falsehoods in the name of Islam.

Thank you

The Holy Quora'n is the written copy if you didn't know. There are various explanations/elaborations in Islamic jurisprudence.The most accepted by the rulers in Hindustan is that by Nizamuddin Tusi.

 

[FaujHistorian]

The Holy Quora'n is the written copy if you didn't know. There are various explanations/elaborations in Islamic jurisprudence.The most accepted by the rulers in Hindustan is that by Nizamuddin Tusi.

OK. no jokes please.

you can use holy Quran to take oath in the court.

Give it to the judge and ask him to write mogal penal code clause 234-a.

And he will throw you out of the court

Be serious about jurisprudence. you talk about law making as if it was being done in 5th grade shcool drama.

Thank you