Selling a civil war to Pakistan

[Proud to be Pakistani]

As far as Religion is concerned, Law should be consistent with the religion and the religion is not bound to the law as the Law of a Islamic Society is derived from the teachings of Islam. This is different.

People who think that Extremism is the answer for bringing Islamic Shariah are lost and only GOD can make them think otherwise!

Lack of knowledge is the single biggest cause of extremism. The youth grow up not learning the fiqh of ibadaat (worship) and the fiqh of muamlaat (inter-personal dealings), both of which are basic and necessary for every Muslim. The youth grow up not knowing what Islam teaches them about living their life.

And then, they get mesmerized easily by anyone and everyone. Their knowledge starts coming from sources that are sometimes extreme (implication being that they can't distinguish between the extreme and the balanced due to their lack of knowledge).

As Hasan al-Basri said, "Islam is between extremism and laxity." The youth does not recognize the truth and gathers at polar opposites instead of the middle path.

Allah calls Muslims the justly balanced Ummah - Ummatan Wasataa. That is not just being in the middle in Shariah. It also means being in the middle when it comes to muamlaat and ibadaat. (It goes as far as to tell us that) we should not be a person who is always happy and we should not be a person who is always sad, rather Islam suggests the middle path even in matters that are deeply personal (and related to feelings and emotions). Even when an injustice is committed against us, Islam encourages us to be just, as it is closer to taqwa. Muslims are required to be Ummatan Wasata in minhaj (methdology), ibadaat (worship), iqtisad (economy), etc.

The middle path requires knowledge and understanding of maqasid as well as the sources. The middle path requires knowledge and understanding of the Qur'an and the Sunnah as well as the knowledge and understanding of maqasid of Shariah - the higher principles of Shariah.

Extremism comes from ignorance upon ignorance, where the ignorant is ignorant of his ignorance. This is like the Khawarij who used an Ayah of the Qur'an to say "no hukm other than Allah". Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) said about them that it is kalamat al-haq (the word of truth) but used for fasad (tyranny) and baatil (falsehood). The Shaikh said that this is because the Khawarij understood the Quran, but they failed to understand the Maqasid.

This is no Civil War but it is a seed of Extremism within a Society being exploited by Enemies of Islam and they are onroad to use Muslims against Muslims via this Uproar of Islamic Extremism. Eventually the Sufferers are the Muslims and not the ones we are meant to be united against as a Brotherhood.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

P2BP:

Lets leave religion out of this for now please.

I think Zyxius's point is a more general one, that would apply to theocracies and secular states alike.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Correct but it is not the nature of the POINT!

By Secular state you mean to flush extremisist nature of people or thinkology?... People in a Secular environment can be of extremist nature!

Theocratic Societies and Secular Societies are not the cause of Extremism or Misconception of Religion but it is the people who are!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Correct but it is not the nature of the POINT!

By Secular state you mean to flush extremisist nature of people or thinkology?... People in a Secular environment can be of extremist nature!

Theocratic Societies and Secular Societies are not the cause of Extremism or Misconception of Religion but it is the people who are!

No, no - I do not believe that a theocratic or secular state per se is the problem. In fact, despite my preference for a separation of religion from government and law, I have always argued that it is not religion that should be blamed, rather the institutions of religion (and in other cases institutions that are not religious) and men in positions of control that gain too much power and corrupt ideology (theistic and atheistic) for their own ends.

All I meant was that Zyxius's points would apply to a state based on either religion or secularism, and therefore there is no need for delving into religion at this point.

 

[Zyxius]

All I meant was that Zyxius's points would apply to a state based on either religion or secularism, and therefore there is no need for delving into religion at this point.

Thank you AG, that is exactly what I was trying to do; make a few points that applied regardless of whether we're talking about a non-ideological vs ideological ("theocratic") state.

The point was that the rule of law, openness, transparency and checks and balances must remain in place regardless of the circumstances and no leader or media is trustworthy enough for us to abandon those just because they say so. The whole nonsense about trading "freedoms" for "security" is something that has been mis-used before by too many people for any thinking person to be able to speak of accepting it without being ridiculed as an imbecile.

 

[Kasrkin]

Our government has admitted to kidnapping people and making them disappear. They have admitted to torturing people.

Excuse me Mr Zyxius, uhm, I dont mean to challenge you and all but...WHEN ON EARTH DID THIS HAPPEN?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I dont mean to challenge you and all

Oh, but please do!

Thats when all the fun begins!

 

[JK!]

Excuse me Mr Zyxius, uhm, I dont mean to challenge you and all but...WHEN ON EARTH DID THIS HAPPEN?

Right well clearly you must have missed the whole Chief Justice saga in Pakistan.

One of the alleged reasons for Iftikhar Chaudry's dismissal was that he was challenging the government on issues of security ie alleged kidnappings and torture of suspects.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Excuse me Mr Zyxius, uhm, I dont mean to challenge you and all but...WHEN ON EARTH DID THIS HAPPEN?

You might as well read this:

Missing In Pakistan

 

[ejaz007]

Well as far as this post is concerned I think I shall be sitting in Salims camp. Salims response has more depth and strength than the originators analysis.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

1 & 2. Salim, let us please leave the subject of religion aside from our discussion of the law for the time being. Since you agree that the law should not be abandoned, that it is meant for the guilty, and to regulate their punishments........then you must agree that kidnapping people, murdering them, torturing people, killing innocent civilians in bombing raids, ignoring Habeas Corpus, and not taking the guilty to court are all violation of the laws?

3. You say you agree that transparency and openness are the best solution. But then you qualify your statement to say that transparency and openness should not be the policy if "religion overtakes the law". Let us replace your word religion with "group" since you obviously don't mean to say that all Muslims or all people or all faith...but a particular segment represented by a group. I don't understand how being non-transparent, secretive, and un-open could ever be a good policy...especially if you feel that the group in question that has overtaken the law is ignorant and misguided. It seems that you are contradicting your answers for 1 & 2.

4. Again, let us replace your word religion with "group" since you obviously don't mean to say that all Muslims or all people or all faith...but a particular segment represented by a group. You answer that you believe that the guilty have a right to due process in the court of law. I don't understand how you feel that this essential part of the law should be abandoned since that actually means that your answer to all of the above is actually no rather than yes. This is an essential check and balance and an essential part of due process, transparency and openness. An integral part of the values you profess to believe in.

5, 6, & 7. So you agree that media and the government do not always tell the truth and that checks and balances are necessary. I do not understand the many contradictions in your responses.

I don't think there is any contradiction in my responses.

There can be nothing perfect or absolute.

Life or any issue cannot be either black or white. It is in shades of grey.

 

[Zyxius]

I don't think there is any contradiction in my responses.

There can be nothing perfect or absolute.

Life or any issue cannot be either black or white. It is in shades of grey.

That is quite a disingenuous response. Clearly you are contradicting yourself and justifying it by saying "Life or any issue cannot be either black or white. It is in shades of grey."

Dude...its pretty simple....you are either for the rule of law in ALL circumstances, or you believe that the law should be abandoned in some circumstances and the leaders given blank checks to act as they may. You are claiming to stand on both ends of this fence and that is simply not possible. It is a simple yes or no.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

That is quite a disingenuous response. Clearly you are contradicting yourself and justifying it by saying "Life or any issue cannot be either black or white. It is in shades of grey."

Dude...its pretty simple....you are either for the rule of law in ALL circumstances, or you believe that the law should be abandoned in some circumstances and the leaders given blank checks to act as they may. You are claiming to stand on both ends of this fence and that is simply not possible. It is a simple yes or no.

If it pleases, so be it.

In Pakistan, does religion not play and important part even in the law implementation or over issues of daily life?

There is the Civil Law and there is also the Sahriat and they need not converge.

Hasn't Hudood been applied to normal criminal acts?

Therefore, is it black or white?

 

[Zyxius]

If it pleases, so be it.

In Pakistan, does religion not play and important part even in the law implementation or over issues of daily life?

There is the Civil Law and there is also the Sahriat and they need not converge.

Hasn't Hudood been applied to normal criminal acts?

Therefore, is it black or white?

Salim,

It seems to me that this discussion is pointless. Clearly you believe in another form of logic in which 1 + 1 does not equal 2 because of your perceived shades of gray.

In one breath you are saying you believe that the rule of law and that checks and balances should never be abandoned while in the next breath you are saying you do not believe that to always be the case and there after you refuse to view that as a contradiction in statements. I'm afraid I have no response to this unique species of logic.

 

[Kasrkin]

Alright Salim and JK but that does NOT amount to the same thing! Ofcourse the goverment never said they dismissed the CJ over the missing people issue. Thats right, everything you said is "alleged", the goverment hasn't admitted to any thing. Either Zyxius chose his words badly for effect or he knows something we dont...

P.S. Zyxius I think I asked you a question..?