Nation has high hopes from CII for 'Islamisation' of country's laws, says president

[Talwar e Pakistan]

An "Islamic state" is incompatible with equal treatment under the law of all of Pakistan's citizens. Islamic law does not offer equal treatment to, for example, Christian or Ahmadiyya citizens. Therefore, an Islamic state is a recipe for either civil turmoil or religious cleansing of the non-Islamic population of Pakistan.

The only multi-ethnic or multi-religious state that has any chance of harmony is one in which the civil laws are secular. Muslims must learn to accept separation of mosque and state.

You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about and you are on wrong so many levels. You're statements is very contradictory to reality, under Islamic law itself, Islamic law is not to be applied on non-Muslims who will have their own laws, created and enforced by their own various community leaders.

Non-Muslims are supposed to have their own government(s), which are highly autonomous and enjoy very little interference from the 'central-government'. Each religion or sect is also represented in the Caliph's/Leader's council, in large numbers and greatly influence the administration.

Non-Muslims do have to pay a tax applicable only to them called the Jizyah tax, but it's far from 'oppressive' (as highlighted by people like you) and Muslims also have to pay a tax known as 'Zakat' (which both Muslim men and women have to pay, fathers also have to pay on their children's behalf) which non-Muslims don't have to pay. Only major difference is that Zakat goes to charity and Jizyah goes to the state (includes construction and maintenance of places of worship for non-Muslims).

Jizyah does not apply to the women, children, elderly, the poor, the disabled or the clergy of non-Muslims. If you pay the Jizyah tax, you are exempt from conscription or any military service which the Muslims have to do - all protection is to be guaranteed by the state and if the state fails to protect them, the Jizyah is required to be refunded.

There is so much more I can say, but I hope this provides a 'decent' look into the actual Islamic law.

"Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." ~ Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

If most Pakistanis wanted Shariah law Islamic parties would be in charge, but they are not. Pakistani don't want their country to become like Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia's laws has way more to do with the tribal culture they emerged out of than it does with Shariah law.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about and you are on wrong so many levels. You're statements is very contradictory to reality, under Islamic law itself, Islamic law is not to be applied on non-Muslims who will have their own laws, created and enforced by their own various community leaders.

Non-Muslims are supposed to have their own government(s), which are highly autonomous and enjoy very little interference from the 'central-government'. Each religion or sect is also represented in the Caliph's/Leader's council, in large numbers and greatly influence the administration.

Non-Muslims do have to pay a tax applicable only to them called the Jizyah tax, but it's far from 'oppressive' (as highlighted by people like you) and Muslims also have to pay a tax known as 'Zakat' (which both Muslim men and women have to pay, fathers also have to pay on their children's behalf) which non-Muslims don't have to pay. Only major difference is that Zakat goes to charity and Jizyah goes to the state (includes construction and maintenance of places of worship for non-Muslims).

Jizyah does not apply to the women, children, elderly, the poor, the disabled or the clergy of non-Muslims. If you pay the Jizyah tax, you are exempt from conscription or any military service which the Muslims have to do - all protection is to be guaranteed by the state and if the state fails to protect them, the Jizyah is required to be refunded.

There is so much more I can say, but I hope this provides a 'decent' look into the actual Islamic law.

"Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." ~ Prophet Muhammad (SAW)


Saudi Arabia's laws has way more to do with the tribal culture they emerged out of than it does with Shariah law.

Virtually everything you say above confirms my post to which you are responding. Your prescription of "Islamic law" is the epitome of non-equal treatment of various religious communities of citizens. Such a system cannot be harmonious. Only the violent suppression of the non-Muslims will allow civil order. Get real. Islamic law cannot be successfully used in a state composed of multi-religious groups.

 

[hussain0216]

The world is changing minorities are coming under threat

If muslim minorities are under threat elsewhere

Then why should we be so considerate in Pakistan?

If india is going hindutva, burma into buddist extremist, you have trump in america, right wing parties in europe

Then why the hell are we acting like some sort of guardian for secularism, secularism is beginning to die a dogs death world wide

Pakistan needs to get on in the action, glorify our own faith, culture and follow suit

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Well most Muslims of Pakistan want an Islamic state so what is the problem?

If most "Muslims" of Pakistan want an "Islamic governed State" then who'll be alive to live in it?

On second thought Pakistan would have like a ridiculously low population so...tough decision. Very tough decision.

 

[MultaniGuy]

If most "Muslims" of Pakistan want an "Islamic governed State" then who'll be alive to live in it?

On second thought Pakistan would have like a ridiculously low population so...tough decision. Very tough decision.

Why should Pakistan have a low population.

Having a huge population is a blessing.

larger population mean larger clout in world affairs.

Look how much influence China and India wields just because they have a large population.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Why should Pakistan have a low population.
Having a huge population is a blessing.
larger population mean larger clout in world affairs.
Look how much influence China and India wields just because they have a large population.

What about Pakistan looks like an "Islamic-ally" governed State to you?

 

[Rafi]

We need a modern state for a modern world. The old law was for a old world. Our religion is for all times. We must modernise.

 

[MBT 3000]

Nothing wrong in this. Pakistan was made in the name of islam not secularism. Right wing is on rise in the world. When neo nazis march in the street its their right when muslim exstremists does its not and why is western culture and style seen AS progressivness when IT is not (no extremist supporter)

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Well most Muslims of Pakistan want an Islamic state so what is the problem?

Most Muslims of Pakistan have 0 clue what theu want. Democracy doesn't work in a country where 80% don't have tertiary education.

 

[TMA]

it is compatible it is plural ruling, everybody lives according to their scripture law. you talking about Saudi crazy Zionist shariah. i am for system that will throw out imf/world bank, and we mint our own currency/coins. no usury.

Yes but the CII ain't gonna do that. They will just (mis)use Sharia.

Virtually everything you say above confirms my post to which you are responding. Your prescription of "Islamic law" is the epitome of non-equal treatment of various religious communities of citizens. Such a system cannot be harmonious. Only the violent suppression of the non-Muslims will allow civil order. Get real. Islamic law cannot be successfully used in a state composed of multi-religious groups.

It can. Of course it is not equal in the secular sense of the word and not harmonious to the secular mind. But to a religious state, her definitions are defined differently. (And why should a religious state accept secular definitions?)

So in order for someone to be a PM of Britain, he should be a Briton, well this is not fair on those non Britons who have have lived a considerable part of their lives in Britain but do not have or want to take British citizenship. This does not mean he is treated unfairly or living a life of non harmony.

Religious law was used in the first Divinely ordered state of Israel where David and Solomon ruled (peace be upon them), it was used in the second Divenly ordered State of Yathrib by the Last Prophet (peace be upon him).

Both these states ruled over non believers.

In Ottoman Turkey, Christian and Jews were allowed their own courts.

In secular Britain today, Orthodox Jews are allowed to settle civil matters in their own religious courts and allowed to have their own community protection squads in certain areas working together with the local police.

Althought Britain is secular, so it is not an example of a religious state allowing other religions freedom to have their own courts.

 

[Azadkashmir]

Yes but the CII ain't gonna do that. They will just (mis)use Sharia.


It can. Of course it is not equal in the secular sense of the word and not harmonious to the secular mind. But to a religious state, her definitions are defined differently. (And why should a religious state accept secular definitions?)

So in order for someone to be a PM of Britain, he should be a Briton, well this is not fair on those non Britons who have have lived a considerable part of their lives in Britain but do not have or want to take British citizenship. This does not mean he is treated unfairly or living a life of non harmony.

Religious law was used in the first Divinely ordered state of Israel where David and Solomon ruled (peace be upon them), it was used in the second Divenly ordered State of Yathrib by the Last Prophet (peace be upon him).

Both these states ruled over non believers.

In Ottoman Turkey, Christian and Jews were allowed their own courts.

In secular Britain today, Orthodox Jews are allowed to settle civil matters in their own religious courts and allowed to have their own community protection squads in certain areas working together with the local police.

Althought Britain is secular, so it is not an example of a religious state allowing other religions freedom to have their own courts.

My take is secular has killed a lot more than religious states. Saudi Arabia does not represent religion it is corrupt version of Islamic rule by a family of thieves.
Technology came from secularism like nuclear bomb and used on a country, biological weapons, usury slavery of the world, contamination of food water, air, etc. Tell me what is left of this earth everything is for sale and plunder. The worst thing is people believe this is progress like our medication which is corrupt, education corrupt, law is corrupt only applies to poor, market is corrupt, food is corrupt, water is corrupt, even using our phone is corrupt how come those at the top of these industries like CEO don't allow their child to use phone, i tell you why because the blue wavelength from screen makes you ill it turns off your melatonin, i downloaded flux and twilight apk for my android and laptop changes you screen colour to be more redish.

 

[Divergent]

I don’t want it to be strict or harsh. There’s enough hardliners as it is