Not with these kind of nutjobs present in Pakistan...I.e Taliban, JUI etc...Shariah is not bad, but with the kind of extremists people we have living among us, it would legitimize the mass killing of anyone Hindu or Christian.
For Shariah you need to have sadiq and ameen people who would work on the principles of Hazrat Umar RA, Hazrat Abu Bakr RA etc, not self made Islamic scholars by Abdul Rashid Ghazi and HakeemUllah Mehsud.
very well said and this must be a pre-requisite.
the mechanism of the implementation of shariah is much more important than the debate on whether there should be shariah or not. And there is already some sort of mechanism in-place in the form of Shariah Court which is not fully utilized. Any law which violated Shariah can be challenged at this court and thus revoked. In fact most of our constitution is already in accordance with the Shariah but its more like implicit Shariah rather than of explicit form. For example implicit shariah is when nothing in the constitution must be against the Shariah while it does not necessarily have to be in accordance with it.
However, the idea of islamic welfare state is much more subtle which focuses a lot more on the social/economic aspects as well. Just using 'shariah' state kind of limits the whole idea to what individuals can do and what they cannot do. This is extremely unfair to the term 'shariah state' which encompasses much more than the individual aspects of the law. Infact governance has much more weight in the Shariah State than the aspects of civil law. but people generally tend to overlook this side because it is much more complex and requires one to be innovative in its application.
let me give some examples to make you understand its scope and how unfair we often are to its understanding:
1) in Shariah State any state land can be utilized by anyone of the citizens for agriculture without any formal permission - although you can formalize this if you want to. Similarly, if the land remains un-utilized for 2 years (or 3, i cant remember) then the state has the right to take it away and give it to someone else or keep it to itself.
2) Government is not allowed to get itself involved in any interest based borrowing or lending. However, interest free borrowing like the prize bond schemes etc are allowed. At the same time, government can impose taxes to raise money for any project/expenditure even prior to undertaking the particular project. But once the project finishes, that tax has to be withdrawn.
3) Any CEO or Board members of the company - who make business decisions - have to be shareholders at the same time. You cannot have an employee (who is not a shareholder) making decisions on behalf of the shareholders. Simultaneously, such shareholders who are responsible for taking business decisions must be given autonomy in their decision making.
4) State should assist in paying back loans of those who cannot payback. Even if the person borrowed that money on interest, state has to pay back the interest as well if it decides to get involved. Also, state does not have the right to tell the lender to simply write-off the loan.
etc etc.....
There are 100s of rulings by Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, which are to do with broader governance. Thus to me an Islamic Welfare State is a much better term than a simple 'Shariah State.' Although its the same thing but people in today's world tend to perceive it very differently.
