World Concerns Over Shariah in Swat

[Flintlock]

Fine! If you refuse to see the obvious, I'm not arguing over it.

 

[roadrunner]

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.

I do agree that these foreign fighters are a nuisance and making use of something they should not. They're central asians and arabs. Those must go or lay down their arms. Not just RPG, but also their rifles.

The common tribals or Pashtun resident from these areas I would say would not give up their rifles as it is part cultural. The RPGs might be tempted to go, but there is a big business. I suppose an alternative business might arise and RPGs can be removed. But this needs development in the region to provide those alternatives.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fine! If you refuse to see the obvious, I'm not arguing over it.

What would you like me to see?

That just becasue the word Shariah is used it is somethign horrible? Sorry, I disagree - I may be an 'agnostic Muslim', but I still respect my faith, and what you are implying is nothing but generalized denigration of that faith. Shariah does not automatically equal retrogression.

What else would you like me to see? China not supporting Pakistan becasue it might become a theocratic state, or a more theocratic state than it is right now? But the evidence contradicts you there. Both China and Russia have supported and supplied Iran and Saudi Arabia. So why the fuss over Pakistan becoming a more theocratic state?

So long as the government in Islamabad treats China as an ally and our interests do not clash, the Chinese will continue as they are.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged again

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Australia sees Sharia deal as ‘positive development’ Baqir Sajjad Syed
Tuesday, 17 Feb, 2009 | 12:42 AM PST | Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith arrives with his Pakistan counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi for talks at the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad. -AFP Photo ISLAMABAD: Australia on Monday saw the agreement between NWFP government and Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariah Mohammadi (TNSM) as a ‘positive development’ and said military enforcement was not the only option in counter-terrorism.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who is on a three day visit to Pakistan and traveled to Peshawar and tribal areas on Monday, told media at a joint press conference with his counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi that ‘what we have is a positive development’.

‘We certainly believe that combating extremism and terrorism is not just military enforcement, it also needs civil capacity building, civilian reconstruction and dialogue,’ said Mr Smith.

However, the Australian foreign minister, whose country holds significant influence in Commonwealth, cautioned against an unfavourable outcome, similar to the fate of agreements made by the government with extremists in the past.

The remarks by Foreign Minister Smith on the peace deal are given great importance by the diplomatic observers because it was being expected that the agreement would irk the US and other western countries, which have been skeptical of such arrangements on the grounds that they give time and opportunity to the militants to regroup and rearm.

Australia that has significant interest in counter-terrorism further proposed a four times increase in the number of Pakistani armed forces personnel being trained in Australia and making the military dialogue between the services chiefs of the two countries a regular feature.

He believed that the most effective way through which Australia could share its wealth of experience in counter-terrorism with Pakistani forces was through training. This thinking led to ‘substantial increase in the number of training arrangements open to Pakistani military personnel’.

He acknowledged that difficulty of topography and terrain, the complexity of history of people living in the tribal areas and the porous Pak-Afghan borders were some of the attributes that made the counter-insurgency job in this region difficult.

Stressing on Australia’s counter-terrorism support for Pakistan, he said, Australia ‘stood shoulder to shoulder’ with Pakistan as it dealt with this most difficult challenge.

He further hoped that Pakistan with international support would be able to surmount this challenge by the extremists and make normal everyday occurrences to take place.

The Australian foreign minister also announced a significant increase in development assistance for Pakistan in areas requiring capacity building like health, civil society, democracy and tolerance. However, he did not exactly quantify the increase in development assistance.

Speaking on the issue of strained Pak-India relations, Mr Smith said, Australia had a significant interest in South Asia and also in Mumbai incident in which two Australians were killed.

He welcomed Pakistan’s response to the Indian dossier and called on India to respond favourably to it. He also called for resumption of the stalled Composite Dialogue between the two neighbours.

‘We welcome the first steps in last couple of days, we hope there is a positive ongoing response to that.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Australia sees Sharia deal as ?positive development?

The Aussies seem to have so far understood the situation better than anyone else, and they have highlighted correctly where cause for concern lies, and why this move should be treated as positive.

 

[muse]

Shariah does not automatically equal retrogression.

That's a rather general statement - in the context of Pakistan and the understanding of Shariah as "Divine" -- it is most certainly retrogressive.

After all, is Shariah understood as man made laws? Are they amenable to alteration? Who is qualified to alter them?? What use of lawyers, what use of the many years of training and learning, after all we now will have half literates transmitting the Laws of God on us, especially on women, the enemies of all Islamists.

If this is not retrogressive, what then is it ?? Just because some horrible Hindu Indian is concerned does that automatically mean we have to oppose it??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That's a rather general statement - in the context of Pakistan and the understanding of Shariah as "Divine" -- it is most certainly retrogressive.

After all, is Shariah understood as man made laws? Are they amenable to alteration? Who is qualified to alter them?? What use of lawyers, what use of the many years of training and learning, after all we now will have half literates transmitting the Laws of God on us, especially on women, the enemies of all Islamists.

If this is not retrogressive, what then is it ?? Just because some horrible Hindu Indian is concerned does that automatically mean we have to oppose it??

They are amenable to different interpretations - that much is obvious. When you look at the rulings issued by the CII and FSC and compare them to the Saudis or taliban, the difference is clear.

As I implied earlier, it is the system that is important. You talk of half literates passing judgment, and that could indeed be a possibility. We will have to wait and see what qualification requirements shall be imposed upon the people selected to be Qazi's, who will conduct their Annual Confidential Reports, who will evaluate them, what course of action shall be open to the government in case of negative evaluations etc.

There are plenty of 'fully literate' judges and lawyers in Pakistan who have passed decisions that woudl fit right into a Saudi or Taliban court. The judiciary in the US was in the not so recent past passing judgements in support of segregation - this from a 'secular' and 'highly educated' judicial process.

So I would respectfully disagree with your argument that Shariah inherently implies retrogression. It is not what the process is called, but whether or not a proper system with checks and balances exists. The system can then evolve over time, as society evolves.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just because some horrible Hindu Indian is concerned does that automatically mean we have to oppose it??

Don't raise useless strawman canards please - I expected a little more intellectual honesty from you.

You have no idea of what discussions Flint and I have had in the past, that have colored my perceptions of him, nor do you have any grounds to argue that I am opposing his argument merely becasue he is a 'Hindu'.

You disagree with me, fine, but there is no need to resort to disingenuous distortions of my position.

 

[Flintlock]

If this is not retrogressive, what then is it ?? Just because some horrible Hindu Indian is concerned does that automatically mean we have to oppose it??

Thank you muse, but I hope that I'm not considered a "horrible hindu Indian" you know - I've been here a long time!

 

[Solomon2]

That just indicates your distorted understanding of what Shariah means -

I think the world is less concerned with what Shariah "means" than how it actually works in practice. To me, Shariah doesn't appear to be a work of human legislation but a system of divine law interpreted by those with the means to enforce it - that is, the law of the gun. Once Shariah is successfully implemented in one region, those with the guns usually seek new regions to impose their will. That this is undesirable to many can be seen by counting the feet of those who flee Shariah-run areas.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think the world is less concerned with what Shariah "means" than how it actually works in practice. To me, Shariah doesn't appear to be a work of human legislation but a system of divine law interpreted by those with the means to enforce it - that is, the law of the gun. Once Shariah is successfully implemented in one region, those with the guns usually seek new regions to impose their will. That this is undesirable to many can be seen by counting the feet of those who flee Shariah-run areas.

How it works varies from place to place, hence my caveat that its imposition in Swat be as part of a system with checks and balances, which the few details about the Shariah Bill in Swat seem to indicate it might have.

 

[muse]

Thank you muse, but I hope that I'm not considered a "horrible hindu Indian" you know - I've been here a long time

!

Oh yes you are

They are amenable to different interpretations - that much is obvious. When you look at the rulings issued by the CII and FSC and compare them to the Saudis or taliban, the difference is clear

Have the Talib ever referred to CII or FSC? And when they have a problem with either of these they will do what they have done to the GoP -- it's who they are -

There is a larger issue, if differences should appear with CII of FSC, it will only serve to create greater confusion among muslims. A new islam by is being created by Islamists and I don't think you are following this line.

Recall that this so called agreement is to be sold to the public, domestic and international and we need to understand that unless we know where we stand, we may fall for a good number of sillyness -- here the "we" is those of us who want governance to be about rights and responsiblites and religion about volunatrily accepted personal duties and obligations.

 

[Solomon2]

my caveat that its imposition in Swat be as part of a system with checks and balances

With what does one "check and balance" divine law?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

With what does one "check and balance" divine law?

Interpretation of 'divine law' - read my prior posts to understand my perspective on this.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

!

Have the Talib ever referred to CII or FSC? And when they have a problem with either of these they will do what they have done to the GoP -- it's who they are -

There is a larger issue, if differences should appear with CII of FSC, it will only serve to create greater confusion among muslims. A new islam by is being created by Islamists and I don't think you are following this line.

Recall that this so called agreement is to be sold to the public, domestic and international and we need to understand that unless we know where we stand, we may fall for a good number of sillyness -- here the "we" is those of us who want governance to be about rights and responsiblites and religion about volunatrily accepted personal duties and obligations.

Whether the Taliban accept this or not is an issue of course - however my argument against this out of hand dismissal of Shariah, under a system, was in a more general context of any system with checks and balances evolving as society evolves.