- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,978
The Taliban have said that Shariah will be the law of the land but is it practical or a just a political statement?
-
Contact the PP Team
Is it possible to run a country based on Shariah Laws alone?
- Thread starter MenInG
- Start date
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
Yes.
100%.
100%.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,387
Is it possible? Yes.
Is it preferable? No, but each to their own.
What actually is the legitimacy of Shariah anyway? Is this something which was carved in stone at the advent of Islam or was it applied later on by scholars?
Is it preferable? No, but each to their own.
What actually is the legitimacy of Shariah anyway? Is this something which was carved in stone at the advent of Islam or was it applied later on by scholars?
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,978
I understand that but question is, is there room for interpretation to bring things in line with today's realities?
Colorblind Genius
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Runs
- 4,208
- Post of the Week
- 3
Sharia Law IMO has more chances of success only if the vast majority of the population is honest and genuine Muslims who practice Taqwa at their own choice.
This starts with choosing to live with minimalistic life style. No ambition to pile up wealth. No greed. No lust.
Be honest and truthful in your day to day life and at your work places.
Being forgiving and generous towards the needy.
Honestly pay entire zakaat that one owes.
Sharia Law if applied to modern day Muslims, will end up with 90% of them being missing limbs, or being stoned to death or being wiped out.
Islam and Sharlia Law is not about that.
So, theoretically, Yes it's possible.
But practically, No. It won't work in modern day world where many Muslim countries rank very high on the list of world's most corrupt countries.
Almost everyone is greedy, full of lust, everyone wants to make as much money as they can, everyone wants to pile up, almost everyone is crook to the core. Sharlia Law won't work here IMO.
This starts with choosing to live with minimalistic life style. No ambition to pile up wealth. No greed. No lust.
Be honest and truthful in your day to day life and at your work places.
Being forgiving and generous towards the needy.
Honestly pay entire zakaat that one owes.
Sharia Law if applied to modern day Muslims, will end up with 90% of them being missing limbs, or being stoned to death or being wiped out.
Islam and Sharlia Law is not about that.
So, theoretically, Yes it's possible.
But practically, No. It won't work in modern day world where many Muslim countries rank very high on the list of world's most corrupt countries.
Almost everyone is greedy, full of lust, everyone wants to make as much money as they can, everyone wants to pile up, almost everyone is crook to the core. Sharlia Law won't work here IMO.
the Great Khan
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Runs
- 27,106
- Post of the Week
- 1
You guys need to read the Ottoman Empire by Halil Incarlik..The ottoman empire was the last big Islamic superpower that wrestled with this question. There were certain practicalities that were not defined in the Shariah. For example the zakat wasnt enough to run a massive state. There were other unique situaations that arose due to the age they lived in which were not accounted for in detail in the shariah. Hence why the Ottomans created the Kanoon which was used to deal with issues that the shariah had not specifically commented on. The Kanoon was made to be compatible with the shariah as judges who were versed in both would oversee its implementation.
Therefore I submit that in todays modern world the Shariah on its own wont be enough. You need to ensure you have a kanoon that is compatible with the shariah but addresses issues that the shriah couldnt at the time. A good example is cyber security, online payments, interest free banking, monetary fraud, pornography, modern international trade mechanisms, labour laws, sexual harrassment in the workplace, bullying, etc etc...you need legislation to cover things..Islam gives you that leeway..
Therefore I submit that in todays modern world the Shariah on its own wont be enough. You need to ensure you have a kanoon that is compatible with the shariah but addresses issues that the shriah couldnt at the time. A good example is cyber security, online payments, interest free banking, monetary fraud, pornography, modern international trade mechanisms, labour laws, sexual harrassment in the workplace, bullying, etc etc...you need legislation to cover things..Islam gives you that leeway..
No not all, not in today's world .
Perhaps it was possible if the someone had the wisdom of interpreting the sharia law based upon today;s realities . But the problem is that every moulvi has his own interpretation of Sharia law according to his own benefits .
Perhaps it was possible if the someone had the wisdom of interpreting the sharia law based upon today;s realities . But the problem is that every moulvi has his own interpretation of Sharia law according to his own benefits .
Shariah is the religion , it is Allah's law prescribed.
The commands come in the quran and from the sunnah the tradition of the prophet pbuh.
If u reject Shariah you are basically rejecting islam because Shariah is the religion since as Muslim we follow the law and commands sent by Allah through his messenger.
The commands come in the quran and from the sunnah the tradition of the prophet pbuh.
If u reject Shariah you are basically rejecting islam because Shariah is the religion since as Muslim we follow the law and commands sent by Allah through his messenger.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Does your notion of "Shariah" change with time or is it the same "Shariah" that was practiced 1400 years ago by political leaders in the deserts of Arabia?
Also, do you think a city run under your notion of "Shariah" laws alone can function better than your home city of Toronto?
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Of course it is just a political statement. Since 1443 years ago, such statements about "shariah" have always been political.
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
You have asked me two questions.
For first answer, see post #9 (response of MazKhan). My answer is the same.
Regarding your second question, answer is yes. If shariah is implemented correctly, any city (including my city) can function better.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
I see. I don't want to get into a long list of questions about your views on various so-called "Shariah laws". So I will only mention four issues and I wonder what your views are on them. Anyone else can feel free to join in on this discussion of course:
1. I assume you would be supportive of a 'jizya' tax on non-Muslim men. Do you view this jizya system as a fairer system than the tax system you have in Toronto which does not discriminate people based on their religion?
2. Should zakat be enforced on people living under "Shariah law"? Specifically, do you agree with Caliph Abu Bakr As-Siddiq's approach to "Shariah law" when he announced those people who did not pay the zakat as apostates, declared war on them, and fought a bloody war over this issue? Was he correct in his interpretation of "Shariah law" in this instance?
3. In your view of "Shariah law", can dress codes be enforced on Muslims? Specifically, would the "Shariah"-based government force Muslim men to wear pants of a certain length and Muslim women to cover their hair or body in a certain way? And if so, is this more preferred than the dress laws that you have in Toronto?
4. Which aspect of society or the law do you find deficient or problematic in Toronto that bothers you, and how would "Shariah law" help improve this aspect of life in Toronto?
I would appreciate a sincere effort to engage.
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
Canada is not a Muslim state and hence these questions are probably not applicable to Canada/Toronto. Muslims are minorities in both Toronto and Canada.
But, all these can definitely be applied to any Muslim state.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,985
- Post of the Week
- 1
Will Sharia mean application of Jaziya on no muslims?
Do you support that Jaziya be applied on non muslims in a muslim majority country?
Do you support that Jaziya be applied on non muslims in a muslim majority country?
Colorblind Genius
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Runs
- 4,208
- Post of the Week
- 3
If non Muslims live in a Muslim country then should they be allowed to use roads, public parks, public libraries, public schools and other public services/facilities provided by the govt based on collection of zakat and taxes paid by Muslims? If yes, then it’s only fair that non Muslims should also chip in their share to take benefit of these services.
In an ideal sharia jurisdiction, paying taxes is not mandatory. However, Muslims pay zakat and non Muslims pay Jaziyah, and that’s how things are fairly run.
Last edited by a moderator:
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
What's the problem with jizwa? It is a tax. It is needed to run a state.
Here in Canada, if you do not file for tax, you can go to jail or be fined. Same in United States.
Jizwa doesn't mean non-Muslims have to pay double taxes. They just pay jizwa while Muslims pay zakah. Both are taxes. Also, if someone is unable, he/she doesn't have to pay.
Here is a description of Jizwa:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,387
Just read that according to the PEW Research Centre, 99% of Afghans support Sharia law. Must be Pakistan's fault.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,985
- Post of the Week
- 1
Will you be okay if a separate tax is put on you in Canada just because you are a muslim?
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
So, by that I suppose you mean you would support a state that would impose the three points I mentioned above. And I suppose you believe such a state that would implement shariah correctly would function better than Toronto.
I find it rather surprising that in 2021, sitting in Toronto (one of the most beautiful cities in the history of civilization where people from all corners of the world reside peacefully and prosperously with minimal fear of government or God), you believe it is ok if an "Islamic state" in another part of the world deems any of its Muslims who do not pay zakah to the state to be "apostates" and wages a violent war on them on this basis. You believe Abu Bakr was correctly applying "shariah law" in this instance and you would have no problem if a modern state does the same.
Is it possible that Abu Bakr was wrong in his implementation of "shariah law"? And is it possible in this instance that Abu Bakr was using "shariah law" politically to generate more support so that he could wage war on people who did not recognize his claim to leadership?
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
You are putting words in my mouth.
These issues are not black and white. You seem like someone who visits Islamophobic sites and read materials that are often taken out of contexts.
All these things you are saying are not applicable to Toronto or Canada as these are not Muslim regions. These can be applied in Muslim states but again these are not very black and white. Whatever Muslim authorities and scholars decide should happen.
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,786
Shariah laws will sound draconian, I agree but it’s a framework like any other. Some of it is loosely interpreted. For instance, I’ll use the example of the punishment of theft. They cut off the right hand. But you have to understand, in those days that was like putting a sign or putting someone’s record that he/she is a thief in the absence of proper record keeping systems. Also, the society was so prosperous, there were more people paying zakat, that those who had to take it…. That theft was considered a big crime.. nobody had to do it. If you did, it’s because of criminal tendencies or whatever.
In the modern day, a Muslim State has to make sure it gets itself up to that level of prosperity before it enforces such a punishment, in my opinion. You cannot cut off the hand of a man who resorted to thievery to feed his starving family. That’s just a very general or loose example I could think of. But in an ideal “Muslim” society, with some modern day adjustments, I believe the Islamic jurisprudence will actually work very well.
With that said, I think it’s folly to suggest you can make these laws work in the majority non Muslim countries (east or west) or even your average Muslim states of today where there is not much “Muslim” left in them.
In the modern day, a Muslim State has to make sure it gets itself up to that level of prosperity before it enforces such a punishment, in my opinion. You cannot cut off the hand of a man who resorted to thievery to feed his starving family. That’s just a very general or loose example I could think of. But in an ideal “Muslim” society, with some modern day adjustments, I believe the Islamic jurisprudence will actually work very well.
With that said, I think it’s folly to suggest you can make these laws work in the majority non Muslim countries (east or west) or even your average Muslim states of today where there is not much “Muslim” left in them.
Loralai
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2016
- Runs
- 1,128
No. Its 2021 not 1021.
We need to move with the times. Look at the countries around us which are improving and making things better for their people. They adopt a secular, open minded approach of equality and fairness. Didn't Imran Khan say he wanted to model Pakistan on Sweden? That's the kind of country we should be following.
We need to move with the times. Look at the countries around us which are improving and making things better for their people. They adopt a secular, open minded approach of equality and fairness. Didn't Imran Khan say he wanted to model Pakistan on Sweden? That's the kind of country we should be following.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks about my choice of Internet websites, it is better to stop being intellectually lazy and start engaging with these issues sincerely.
1. You said: "all these can definitely be applied to [sic] any Muslim state." And you simply referred to a quote by another poster that you completely agreed with, which included: "Whoever follows the sharee‘ah of Allah...will triumph." So, I had to reasonably "suppose" your views due to your lack of specific details. Please help me understand specifically which one of your views I misrepresented. I did not mean to put words in your mouth. Notice I made reference to the first "three points". I did not suggest that you said you would support the application of "shariah laws" in Toronto.
2. I agree that these issues are not black and white and I am trying to help you come out of that way of thinking by posing some questions to ponder upon. In your very first post, you said "Yes. 100%." When you frequently use words like "definitely" and "100%", it is you who is thinking in terms of black and white. This kind of binary thinking about the world is not helpful in life. I think we both agree on this point.
3. I find it odd that you still have this way of viewing the world whilst residing in Toronto. The beauty of how the city of Toronto operates has not inspired you yet to think more critically about these issues. I encourage you to go out there, observe life in Toronto, and get a local education in a subject that teaches critical thinking. And while doing that, do reflect on how the "100%" application of "Shariah laws alone" would be useful or even possible in other "Muslim" parts of the world in a way as to help those other cities function as harmoniously as Toronto does, or perhaps, even better than Toronto.
4. You seem to have already decided on the main question of this thread by saying "100%" in your very first post. I am simply encouraging you to think more deeply before you decide, or at least to explain what you mean by "100%".
5. On the issue of scholars, the ironic thing is that I am perhaps one of these 'scholars' who would be deliberating on these issues with other 'scholars'. And you would be blindly following our 'scholarly' thoughts if they already agree with your pre-conceived beliefs. I prefer it not to be the case. You need to engage and come up with your own critical thoughts rather than blindly following people who simply confirm what you already believe.
6. If you put your favorite scholars in a room--which I have done many times in my life--they hardly agree on any important contemporary issue. Who would you follow? The one who simply re-confirms what you already believed in? Or the one who makes the most coherent and compelling argument? And how would you judge what is a strong argument versus what is a weak argument? Is it simply a matter of quoting some sections of the Quran and Hadith accurately, or is there something more to it?
7. You live in one of the most beautiful cities in human history. Go to the public libraries there. They have all the greatest books of human civilization that you can possibly think of. Your Internet is completely uncensored. You also have access to some of the greatest institutes of learning in history right at your doorstep. And you share the same city with some of the greatest living scholars in the world today. I encourage you to immerse yourself in that ocean of knowledge.
sweep_shot
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 47,565
I have made my points. There is no need to drag the thread further.
My answer is again the same. Muslim rulers and scholars should decide how to proceed based on Quran and Sunnah.
Last edited:
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Really? What's the point of this forum then?
It's ok. You don't have to engage, of course. I just sincerely hope you evolve away from looking at issues related to Islam through a black and white lens.
Well if they want true Shariah they will have to get rid of fiat currency and usury system that modern day monetary banking system works on
They will have to go back to the gold standard mint their own gold and silver coins, and trade on barter trade , with local domestic trade being based on the sa , mudd , ratl measurements, because the early muslims traded this way
They will have to go back to the gold standard mint their own gold and silver coins, and trade on barter trade , with local domestic trade being based on the sa , mudd , ratl measurements, because the early muslims traded this way
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,105
The West is ruled and governed based on Judeo-Christian law.
Move on.
Move on.
In theory yes, in practice no.
In theory you can run a country based on any law you want. However, the outcomes will vary vastly.
Religious people will say sharia is allah’s law drop the mic - discussion over. But the practical issue is that sharia does not explicitly deal with some of the most important issues of today. It is silent on DNA evidence, on intellectual property rights, on taxation of multinationals, on ownership and control of data and on the responsibility for AI on decisions which affect lives and properties. Clearly, the list is not exhaustive but gives a flavour of the complexity that is the modern world.
In the absence of specific guidance on these areas, a sharia system has to become a system inspired by sharia or based on interpretation of sharia principles.
The next question that arises is who will do the interpreting ? Experts in the field or moulvis? If moulvis - then the moulvis of which sect and which sub sect ? How can you ensure the moulvis will ever come to an agreement ?
Hence, I come to the conclusion that it is very difficult if not practically impossible to run a 21st century state based entirely on sharia.
In theory you can run a country based on any law you want. However, the outcomes will vary vastly.
Religious people will say sharia is allah’s law drop the mic - discussion over. But the practical issue is that sharia does not explicitly deal with some of the most important issues of today. It is silent on DNA evidence, on intellectual property rights, on taxation of multinationals, on ownership and control of data and on the responsibility for AI on decisions which affect lives and properties. Clearly, the list is not exhaustive but gives a flavour of the complexity that is the modern world.
In the absence of specific guidance on these areas, a sharia system has to become a system inspired by sharia or based on interpretation of sharia principles.
The next question that arises is who will do the interpreting ? Experts in the field or moulvis? If moulvis - then the moulvis of which sect and which sub sect ? How can you ensure the moulvis will ever come to an agreement ?
Hence, I come to the conclusion that it is very difficult if not practically impossible to run a 21st century state based entirely on sharia.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
I agree with you.
And I would go further and say that even on matters on which the primary texts proscribe detailed laws or guidelines (e.g. inheritance, Zakat, riba, slavery, marriage, etc., and other rituals like animal slaughter, dress codes, grooming practices, etc.), there are a myriad of practical considerations and dramatically diverse opinions on these issues even amongst the scholarly giants.
I pointed out the one issue of how Abu Bakr dealt with people who refused to pay him zakat. He declared them as apostates and waged a brutal war on them. This is not a disputable fact of history. It is in all the most credible Sunni historical texts and is taught to school children in all "Islamic" schools as if it was a noble, pious action on the part of Abu Bakr. And the people in this thread supportive of "shariah law" cannot directly or openly discuss their views on this issue in a sincere way. Rather, it seems they accept this as a justified course of action in an "ideal Islamic state" and an example of a correct application of "shariah law".
Greenstorm
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Runs
- 6,390
No law of a state should be against the principles of Quran. It we take that as a definition of shariah, then yes it possible to run a country. Pakistan already has it.
I think many Muslims and anti Muslims alike are heavily misguided about shariah. They believe that the laws applied by the four rightly guided caliphs is sharia itself where in fact those laws were just an interpretation of Quran and Sunnah for that time.
I think many Muslims and anti Muslims alike are heavily misguided about shariah. They believe that the laws applied by the four rightly guided caliphs is sharia itself where in fact those laws were just an interpretation of Quran and Sunnah for that time.
Gharib Aadmi
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
- Runs
- 4,199
Whether a country is successful or not depends on the people, and not on what type of government they have. People always think of secular Europe and think if only Pakistan became like that the country would become prosperous. This ignores all the secular countries which are not doing well.
Congo is a secular state.
Ivory Coast is a secular state.
Philippines is a secular state.
Tajikistan is a secular state.
Nepal is a secular state.
Are any of these countries doing economically well?
Europe was prosperous before they became secular. If Europeans once again become religious they will still have very well run counties with terrific economies.
Congo is a secular state.
Ivory Coast is a secular state.
Philippines is a secular state.
Tajikistan is a secular state.
Nepal is a secular state.
Are any of these countries doing economically well?
Europe was prosperous before they became secular. If Europeans once again become religious they will still have very well run counties with terrific economies.
Greenstorm
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Runs
- 6,390
Abu Bakr (ra) did not declared Musalymah as apostate. He proclaimed himself prophet when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was alive.
These tribes had initially accepted Islam, essentially coming into agreement with the state and then went back on it refusing to pay taxes (zakat). Moreover, they launched an open military rebellion and even tried to lay siege to Medina when Muslim armies were out on expedition.
Even today, tax evasion and sedition are a big crime. Abu Bakr (ra) was in the right going against these tribes.
OMB
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Runs
- 4,288
No, they are not. Type of government doesn't guarantee economic success.
It depends upon people as you say. and also depends upon other factors (like we use PESTEL analysis in business development).
Regarding Secularism, one minor correction - Secularism is more of a religious concept and different than "form of the Government" like Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy or Dictatorships etc.
Probably you meant Democratic which Pakistan already is. Anyway, economic success alone may not mean Success and Happiness for the people.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I hope you will agree that the act of executing people who refuse to pay zakat to the state or executing people who refuse to answer the call for prayers in state-sponsored mosques has no place in any 21st century society, even though these were committed by Abu Bakr and his forces under the excuse of "Shariah law".
The thread is about whether it is possible to run a country based on "shariah laws" alone, or whether such claims are merely political tools to justify or legitimize certain political actions by the state. I am arguing that it is almost always the latter. It is virtually impossible to even define what does and what does not constitute "shariah law" in most cases. And to claim that contemporary laws in non-Muslim and Muslim societies somehow conflict with "shariah law" in an unambiguous way is a dishonest game of identity politics.
Greenstorm
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Runs
- 6,390
I understand that the initial four Caliphs took some decisions that were justifiable at the time but cannot be implemented in the same manner today. But this act of Abu Bakr (ra) was not one of them. You have to understand that refusal to pay taxes was not the reason for the execution of those people. It was violation of agreement and launch of an open rebellion that forced the Caliph to go against them. Even in 21st Century, penalty for sedition is death in many countries.
I agree with the bolded part. Everybody has there own perception of sharia law. Its a vague term that is used by certain 'leaders' to gain legitimacy among Muslims. Anti-Muslims use it to malign Islam/Muslims.
Chief Destroyer
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Runs
- 10,763
This is not even a question if you're actually a Muslim. But for Shariah to be implemented, the scholarship has to be in place first.
Third_Umpire
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Runs
- 1,290
Isn’t Saudi Arabia run purely on Shariah law? So technically it may be possible, but we can all see what a pile of you-know-what Saudi is
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Fair comment. I respect the overall message and agree with it to some extent.
You say their acts were justifiable probably because of the immense respect we have for these personalities. However, when viewed objectively, it becomes evident that many of their acts were prone to human error and the human thirst for power. It is their human-like attributes that made them compelling characters, not their supposed angelic qualities.
The refusal by certain groups of people to pay zakah was very much a factor leading to the wars. I agree with you that it had more to do with politics than with "shariah law", but the lines get blurred because he claimed he was trying to establish an "Islamic" rule all over Arabia. Certain tribes did not recognize the legitimacy of his rule and the act of not paying zakah to his government was symbolic of this rebellion. The question of who attacked who first or whether any agreements were violated (such as agreements to pay zakat) is for the historians to answer, but most would agree that there was a concerted effort by Abu Bakr and his government to extract zakat payments from residents which was a contributing factor in the tensions. To gain legitimacy for the wars, it was convenient to label the rebels as apostates and give it the veneer of an Islamically justified war.
Rather than discussing this incident as a political issue, the claimed Islamic justifications for the wars is how the incident is taught to children in Islamic schools to this very day.
So, to downplay the religious dimension of these wars is not entirely accurate. Because of this episode, Islamic legal scholars from the earliest days (e.g. Abu Hanifa) pondered on the question of whether it is legally justified to wage war on people who refuse to pay zakah. It seems they were also troubled by this question.
Whether the whole episode is an example of an application of "shariah law" is ambiguous, which is my point. This much is clear to me: religion was used a political tool then as it is now.
So when someone asks whether it is possible to run a country based on "shariah laws" alone, I know that there's enough ambiguity in the idea which makes it impossible.
The thing is if zakat was collected properly and given to needy , there wouldn't be hungry people around, or people stealing phones or selling their kids .
The problem is the money is being siphoned of by the corrupt elite whether its the generals , maryam nawaz plastic surgery , or khans cabal profiteering of the shaukat khanum charity
That's the problem the corrupt elite eating haram.
The problem is the money is being siphoned of by the corrupt elite whether its the generals , maryam nawaz plastic surgery , or khans cabal profiteering of the shaukat khanum charity
That's the problem the corrupt elite eating haram.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,387
At least you wouldn't get 400 men playing pass the parcel with females making TikTok videos over there.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Here is a reasonable opinion by a lecturer of law living in Kabul:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/...may-be-getting-wrong-about-islamic-governance
Hopefully those people here who think this kind of thing is "100%" possible are starting to be open to alternative possibilities.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/...may-be-getting-wrong-about-islamic-governance
Hopefully those people here who think this kind of thing is "100%" possible are starting to be open to alternative possibilities.
CricFan2012
First Class Star
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Runs
- 3,228
Religion should nowhere be near government, haven't you guys seen enough ignorance?
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Interview of Taliban spokesman with New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/world/asia/taliban-spokesman-interview.html
"Music is forbidden in Islam," he said, "but we’re hoping that we can persuade people not to do such things, instead of pressuring them."
He added that the requirement women be accompanied by a male guardian, known as a mahram, was misunderstood. It applies only to journeys of three days or longer, he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/world/asia/taliban-spokesman-interview.html
"Music is forbidden in Islam," he said, "but we’re hoping that we can persuade people not to do such things, instead of pressuring them."
He added that the requirement women be accompanied by a male guardian, known as a mahram, was misunderstood. It applies only to journeys of three days or longer, he said.
Greenstorm
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Runs
- 6,390
No, justification is not based on immense respect. It is based on the realization that these caliphs were in charge of 7th century nomadic Arabia where they had to take decisions which may seem harsh now but were considerate for that time. Judging them with 21st century values and sensitivities makes no sense.
Secondly, I disagree with your view that those caliphs used religion to gain political power. There lives are a testament to their devotion to Prophet and Islam. I can gain into the reasons behind the insistence of Abu Bakr (ra) to impose Islamic rule on Arabian peninsula but we will go off topic.
These Caliphs made best use of sharia as they wisely interpreted Quran and Sunnah to deal with the challenges they faced at the time. Later, many Muslim jurists made the mistake of copy pasting the interpretations of Caliphs instead of extracting direct guidance from Quran and sunnah for their own times.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Fair enough. I respect your views.
This may not apply to you, but there is a tendency among orthodox Muslims to idolize the early caliphs or refrain from any serious critique of their actions, whether it is done through the lens of their time or through the lens of modern times. In many Muslim circles and societies, such kind of discourse is considered blasphemous, which I am sure you would agree is an incorrect stance and an impediment to intellectual and societal progress.
For example, there is a tendency to be nostalgic about the first Islamic state of Madinah and to view it as some sort of model city to emulate. The reality is that while Madinah of 1400 years ago was way ahead of its time on various measures, it falls a long way short of modern pluralistic cities like Toronto on pretty much every single metric that you can think of. However, the tendency to idolize the past makes many people want to re-create precisely those same sorts of living conditions as they existed 1400 years ago, without any appreciation for human values beyond the so-called "Muslim ummah" and without critically placing that first state of Madinah in its right context. This is where part of the problem lies when attempts are made to re-engineer societies based solely on so-called "shariah law".
Greenstorm
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Runs
- 6,390
I agree with you on this. This 'idolization of ephemeral self' as Toynbee calls it has been the hallmark of most declining civilizations and Muslims are suffering from this ailment for a long time now.
The past accomplishments like the 'state of Madina' should only be used as source of inspiration and general guidance instead of attempting a pale mimicry of the past.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Good post, thanks for this info [MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] ! This is part of the reason for my reading PP.
Romali_rotti
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Runs
- 21,881
To the OP, my opinion is YES, you can run a country based on Shariah Law alone.
That country will have the privilege of progressing backwards a 1000 years while rest of the world will be moving forward..
That country will have the privilege of progressing backwards a 1000 years while rest of the world will be moving forward..
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Is this "Shariah law"?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">the following rules. To be mentioned this is the plan through which male and female students will be separated.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434226173962297344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2: all the private universities are obliged to separate the entrance gates for females as per followings.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434226584739880962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">prepare that from the market for them, the sample is attached here).<br>2: all the private universities are obliged to separate the entrance gates for females as per followings. should be separated for female and male.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434227008494620678?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">D. The directors of the departments and the principles of the faculties are obliged to obey the following rules for the movements of female students:</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434227449840218113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Prior to the males where they should reach their transport vehicles or may go the waiting room. <br>(3) all the universities are obliged to prepare separated places for females including mosques and waiting areas.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434228145872384001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">female students. And also there should be curtains over the windows. <br>(6). Universities are obliged to recruit female teachers for female students according to their facilities, and also they should try to hire old males who are famous for their good behavior.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434235632134594560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">the following rules. To be mentioned this is the plan through which male and female students will be separated.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434226173962297344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2: all the private universities are obliged to separate the entrance gates for females as per followings.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434226584739880962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">prepare that from the market for them, the sample is attached here).<br>2: all the private universities are obliged to separate the entrance gates for females as per followings. should be separated for female and male.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434227008494620678?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">D. The directors of the departments and the principles of the faculties are obliged to obey the following rules for the movements of female students:</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434227449840218113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Prior to the males where they should reach their transport vehicles or may go the waiting room. <br>(3) all the universities are obliged to prepare separated places for females including mosques and waiting areas.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434228145872384001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">female students. And also there should be curtains over the windows. <br>(6). Universities are obliged to recruit female teachers for female students according to their facilities, and also they should try to hire old males who are famous for their good behavior.</p>— BILAL SARWARY (@bsarwary) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1434235632134594560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,233
- Post of the Week
- 7
2 years ago, in islamabad, we had a university rector who was a conservative. He had implemented such lawe and was in transitions to do so. Infact, he even got tariq jamil to give a seminar at our uni and to legitimate his laws.
Students were furious and eventually, he was ousted through protests after some months.
Point being, you cant have such laws in society. A law that worked 100 years back cant work today, you have to update it.
With shariah comes another law called that is sood, interest. Now if you want to control your inflation in your country you have to make sure that the currency people have don't keep it in their pockets but place it in banks. For that you have to give them an incentive which is interest. That interest will also have to come from somwhere so its charged upon the person who borrows.
Today, interest and taxation are the ffective ways to control inflation especially in a country where demand is high for products.
If you want to live in a country where interest is considered haram than you are to bare the heavy inflation that would come.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
Which university was this?
Justcrazy
ATG
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Runs
- 109,232
What you are saying is not clear unless you give example. It will remain ambiguous.
A country can be ruled according to shariah in matters which are clearly defined by shariah, there is room for ijtihad in matters in which shariah is quiet.
Justcrazy
ATG
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Runs
- 109,232
Did not declare Musalym as apostate ? They waged a war against him and killed him !
Justcrazy
ATG
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Runs
- 109,232
Moulvi is not an authority in Islam.
Wiji
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Runs
- 2,934
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Not surprising but worth noting that the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Taliban?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Taliban</a> omitted Ministry of Women Affairs and replaced it with the Ministry of Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy aan al Munkar (Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice). <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Afghanistan?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Afghanistan</a> <a href="https://t.co/tTOlqbpz9K">pic.twitter.com/tTOlqbpz9K</a></p>— Malali Bashir (@MalaliBashir) <a href="https://twitter.com/MalaliBashir/status/1435303129029906433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Shariah law opposes taxes. A country cannot be run without taxes unless they have massive natural resources. Also taxes makes the state accountable to the tax payer. Shariah is not compatible with democracy. These things worked for Saudis etc but once the oil demand reduces in a couple of decades, things will have to change there too
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,387
I wasn't aware that Sharia law opposes taxes, are you sure about that? Or perhaps Zakat is a rudimentary form of taxation which was never developed in the same way of tax in the modern world.
I think there is a form of wealth tax acceptable in Sharia. It's not income tax though. The wealth tax is taken from the 'excess' after necessities and luxuries as per wiki. In this day and age, it's impossible to implement it.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,387
That's not the same as Sharia being opposed to taxes though, it's just a rudimentary form of it.
Similar threads
