World Concerns Over Shariah in Swat

[zhero]

and most polls show over sixty percent of Pakistanis being supportive of 'Shariah Law'.

...so, is the rest of Pakistan next?

 

[waraich66]

- Yes, but they weren't asked, were they? This wasn't a referendum, right? Seems like the guys with the biggest guns won ....

Pl dont compare tribel society with western democracy .They are happy with their habitat ,as loin dont like air conditioned zoo .

Let them live in system as they wish , this is just first drop of rain , you see soon same type of changes or system in other parts of NWFP ,PUNJAB(Sariki belt),Balouchistan (pushtoon belt) .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

...so, is the rest of Pakistan next?

That depends on whether this government is successful in turning around the economy and delivering on governance. If it can do so, then there will be little popular support for changing the system.

I do think that moderate religious institutions such as the Council on Islamic ideology (CII) that issues recommendations on whether laws are in accordance with Islam or not shoudl be strengthened. I say this becasue the government controls appointments to this body, and can ensure that largely moderate and educated Islamic scholars are appointed.

Recent rulings from this body on Pakistan's laws have argued against certain Pakistani laws and provisions that discriminate against minorities and women. These rulings have been progressive enough to elicit criticism from 'secular party' politicians (a case of culture resisting change, even when the change has religious sanction).

Strengthening moderate religious bodies such as these then can act as a foil against potential demands for overthrowing the system in favor of 'Shariah'.

I do not foresee a Taliban style movement erupting in other parts of Pakistan becasue the dynamics just don't match. Islamist political parties have of course been campaigning on this platform for years now, with little success so far at the ballot box, but that could change in the face of a large economic and social collapse.

Alternatively, I could also see moderately Islamic parties such as those of Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif campaigning on such a platform, and winning, since they are already popular figures and/or popular parties.

 

[waraich66]

Ok - I have edited the thread title since there is nothing to suggest that the US views Shariah in Swat as a 'threat', at his point.

I think their concern is about this particular deal being similar t the past ones with the Taliban in FATA, where the Taliban were not required to disarm or disband their militias and stop their militant and terrorist training camps. Those deals were more like 'ceasefires', and allowed the Taliban to regroup and strengthen.

If the GoP does not ensure that the Taliban disarm in Swat, then this deal will likely be just as flawed as the last one. Given the GoP's record on this issue, I would say that the US is justified in being concerned.

You analysis is correct in sense that US operations in FATA may get effected by SWAT shariah implementation.

Local SAWT people are not warriors or have any permanent armed militant ,these militant just trained by CIA/ALQAEDA during Afghan WAR , there are in few thausand and have mix nationalities.

I hope these militant will leave SWAT once Sharia implemented and Sufi Muhammad have no complain with GOP.

They will go back to Afghanistan for War against US and NATO .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

They will go back to Afghanistan for War against US and NATO .

Now that is an interesting observation.

You correctly noted that a large number of the three thousand or so militants fighting in Swat are 'external'. So if Sufi Mohammed is successful, and Mullah FM is convinced and in turn convinces the commanders, then these people will have to return to wherever they were fighting before this - which is FATA and Afghanistan.

So it does increase the risk for both the PA and NATO in Afghanistan and FATA, but for Pakistan the increased risk is offset by the potential for peace in Swat.

 

[ajpirzada]

we shouldnt even oben such threads. if we start doin that we ll be sittin here all day openin new threads about india concerned over ABC........
they start thinking wheneva pakistan takes a step

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ejaz sahib,

Moved your posts to this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-terror/21908-president-approves-sharia-laws.html

 

[Patriot]

Yeah, they surely are concered.Go read WAB how they are making ignorant posts that TAlibans will take over Pakistani Nukes and F-16's and IA will step in to Save Pakistan from Talibans
You can't even call Indians dumb.

 

[Flintlock]

You might not view Sharia Law with trepidation, but the rest of the world, and especially your big neighbour in the east, would be extremely anxious to prevent this disastrous retrogression.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You might not view Sharia Law with trepidation, but the rest of the world, and especially your big neighbour in the east, would be extremely anxious to prevent this disastrous retrogression.

Its not the decision or concern of the rest of the world, nor does it automatically imply 'retrogression'. In the end societies and nations have to implement systems and evolve as they see fit, not how the rest of the world sees fit.

The only issue on which the rest of the world has a legitimate interest and cause for concern is whether the Taliban will disarm. If the Shariah deal results in creating a 'safe haven' and allows the continued presences of armed taliban militias, then it is flawed, and will ultimately fail.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged title changed.

 

[Flintlock]

Its not the decision or concern of the rest of the world, nor does it automatically imply 'retrogression'. In the end societies and nations have to implement systems and evolve as they see fit, not how the rest of the world sees fit.

If Sharia law is not retrogression, then what is it?

Also, unfortunately, what happens in Pakistan does not remain in Pakistan. A nuclear armed theocracy? No sir. Even China will desert you if things come to that.

The only issue on which the rest of the world has a legitimate interest and cause for concern is whether the Taliban will disarm. If the Shariah deal results in creating a 'safe haven' and allows the continued presences of armed taliban militias, then it is flawed, and will ultimately fail.

Even if it is proven to have failed, would it be possible to roll back to the non_Sharia period? It will be doubly difficult.

 

[roadrunner]

I do think expecting any of the tribals to disarm is asking for too much.

They've always had weapons.

What can be done is to increase development, give them something they want to protect, like financial institutions, make them work for it. Then they'd perhaps still carry guns, but they would think twice before using them so lightly.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Sharia law is not retrogression, then what is it?

That just indicates your distorted understanding of what Shariah means, we have had this discussion before. If you insist on clinging to prejudiced and flawed views on Islam then there is no point in having discourse.

Also, unfortunately, what happens in Pakistan does not remain in Pakistan. A nuclear armed theocracy? No sir. Even China will desert you if things come to that.

Rigth, as if that stopped China and Russia from supporting Iran and Hezbollah.

Even if it is proven to have failed, would it be possible to roll back to the non_Sharia period? It will be doubly difficult.

Shariah is not an issue, disarming the taliban is. If the Shariah bill does not work, then we go back to where we were before, waging a military campaign to enforce government control, but I see no reason to try and reverse Shariah, since I do not see it as inherently backward like you do. Over time the system will evolve, and flaws will be worked out, provided it exists as a system.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do think expecting any of the tribals to disarm is asking for too much.

They've always had weapons.

What can be done is to increase development, give them something they want to protect, like financial institutions, make them work for it. Then they'd perhaps still carry guns, but they would think twice before using them so lightly.

By disarming I mean the RPG's, Mortars, disbanding of the militias and expulsion of the fighters from Central Asia, Afghanistan and FATA.

Especially the disbanding of the militias and expulsion of fighters - getting rid of the RPG's etc. will be hard to enforce and unlikely to be implemented completely, but there should be no question over strongly enforcing the former.