I don't disagree with much of what you have said, only that it is not Islam which has prescribed this rubbish that goes on in Pakistan as an option.
If you look at the history and formation of Islamic governance and law, a lot of it comes from evidence based formation, or referring to what has happened in previous cases during the Prophet's (pbuh) time. Not too dissimilar to using case law today.
The problem in the Islamic world is the stagnation of skilled jurists with actual commonsense.
The stagnation of skilled jurors goes back a few hundred years (13th century) and at no point has it been addressed so it's safe to say that Islamic scholars over the centuries accept the existing state of Islamic law to be fine. This leaves two options: do away with Islamic law as a whole or attempt to reform parts of it which would have been done at some point in the last 700 years if it were possible or if there was a will for it.
As you say, the problem is with jurists not specifying context, and ignoring hundreds of years of Islamic law discussion.
Context is rarely specified anywhere Islamic law is used because that then leaves open the possibility of situations arising that there are no laws to address. Normally, you'd make new laws but the status of Ijtihad, the way to do so in Islam, is controversial to say the least.
For example, Imam Hanafi deemed that diyyah should be an equal amount no matter who you are, Muslim or Non Muslim. Others disagreed.
Others disagreed. And herein lies the problem. Islam is divided into many sects which then have subsects which are further split into various schools of thought (Sunni-Hanfi-Deobandi, Sunni-Hanbali-Wahabi, Shia-Twelver etc), all with their own interpretations of Islamic laws that vary greatly. There is no standard and the existence of so many conflicting interpretations proves, among other things, the imperfection of Islamic law and the fact that any implementation will always be dependant on interpretation by the clergy which, for the last century, has leaned heavily towards vague, all encompassing laws incorporating the most conservative interpretations and liberal use of inhumane penalties (lashes/stoning to death for pre/extra-marital sex).
Right now, three out of four schools of thought in Sunni Islam (all except Hanfi) don't allow non-Muslims recourse to Qisas/Diyat. All four schools of thought have a tradition of scholarship spanning centuries and if, after several centuries of deliberations and tweaking, they have reached a consensus that is discriminatory, I hope you'd pardon me for not putting too much faith in proclamations that Islamic laws are not discriminatory.
When our most learned scholars could sit down and discuss legislation under Islamic principles, it angers me to see the jahil insaan we have in charge of our institutions today.
That applies to virtually any country governed by Islamic law. Laws governing blood money, blasphemy and adultery/fornication are broadly similar in several Islamic states other than Pakistan which suggests that there is a template that is broadly agreed upon by the scholarly classes of various countries and sects, so either all those scholars in ,say, Iran, UAE or Saudi Arabia are jahils or you have an idealistic view of Islam that is detached from the ground realities. Whether or not you're correct or the scholars are is irrelevant since what the scholars say has legal weight and the victims of Islamic law will take little solace from the fact that the laws used to free their rapist/murder their brother accused of blasphemy or apostasy may not necessarily be strictly compliant with the mythical concept of "real Islam". It is for this reason that the whole concept of Islamic law needs to be scrapped and replaced with modern secular laws based on scientific merit and success in other jurisdictions.
Please do not mistake me as someone who sympathises with what has happened one bit or not seeing how the Islamic laws are misused. There is nothing in Islam that stops the crime of rape being a harm to society, therefore after an evidence based trial, if there is guilt attributed to any party, then there should be no leniency. A rapist is a threat to society. It's not a civil matter, it's a criminal one.
I did not. If I did, I'd be going after you like I do Hafeezrocks etc, not having a civilized discussion on the merits of our arguments. I do not, however, agree that Islam has played no role in the proliferation of rape in our society, what with the discriminatory laws, the war on human nature with the Islamic viewpoint on premarital sexual activity, or the second class status of women.
There is nothing in Islam which would stop that from happening.
As you also say, go figure, that the laws (whjich aren't even implemented correctly or justly) which allow the rich to roam free without scrutiny are the ones which get propelled to the top.
Again, theoretical Islam is not the problem, the one that exists is. While Islam may not, in theory, stop prosecution of rapists, the vaguely worded Islamic laws, the Quran being open to interpretation and the unreliability of hadith means that if Islam is allowed to become a tool of the state, the state will use it for its own benefit. The solution is to wait another 700 years, almost certainly in vain, for the elusive true Islam to finally manifest itself or to do away with Islam as a basis for the legal system and use laws that have demonstrably been successful across various jurisdictions and time periods (secular law).
