Mar 20, 2009 - Uncategorized    43 Comments

A wake up call to all Shariah apologists

There are people, educated and well traveled people, who actually believed that Shariah courts will be good and will bring speedy justice to people. Quite a few commentators on this post had similar things to say. One of them actually warned me that I should be afraid when people will want Shariah Courts in Karachi and Lahore. I don’t need to say anything to defend myself. Here is an interview of a man, Maulana Sufi Mohammed, who will most probably be appointing Qazis (judges in Sharoah courts), which clearly reveals how well versed he is in matters of jurisprudence and what kind of justice will be meted out to people in his able guidance. A few priceless quotes from the interview are:

Keeping weapons is halal in Islam.

We will not discuss what has happened in the past. Sharia law does not allow this.

Democracy is not permissible in sharia law.

Here is the complete text.

The influential pro-Taliban cleric of Swat, Sufi Muhammad has said that the sharia law does not allow debate on the past, and therefore he will not term what his son-in-law Mullah Fazlullah did against the state of Pakistan during the last year and a half as haram or halal. In an exclusive interview with Daily Times’ Peshawar Bureau Chief Iqbal Khattak in Mingora city, the 74-year-old cleric said keeping weapons is Islamic, and that he did not demand that the Taliban surrender their weapons after a peace deal with the NWFP government. Excerpts follow:

Daily Times (DT): You said in a 2005 interview with us that what Al Qaeda and the Taliban are doing in Pakistan is haram. Are Maulana Fazlullah’s activities over the last sixteen months also haram?

Sufi Muhammad (SM): Yes, I said that about Al Qaeda, but not about the Taliban. Let me say…that debate on past happenings is disallowed in Islam. A hadith sharif says, what has happened in the past should not be discussed.

DT: But how can we proceed without debating the past?

SM: The hadith sharif says a Muslim should not discuss past happenings because he may not remember all the [details] and, therefore, he may…sin by not speaking the truth.

DT: A majority of Swat residents do not think the peace deal recently signed between the TNSM and the NWFP government will last long.

SM: God Almighty does everything; he builds and destroys countries.

DT: Residents also doubt whether peace is possible in the presence of armed Taliban.

SM: Everyone keeps weapons. People in Peshawar have weapons with them.

DT: You support keeping weapons?

SM: Yes, you can keep weapons with you.

DT: Did you ask Fazlullah to surrender weapons after the sharia law deal?

SM: Keeping weapons is halal in Islam.

DT: President Zardari said recently that force would be used if the Taliban do not surrender weapons in Swat.

SM: His statement is childish…immature.

DT: With sharia law in Swat, there will be a complete ban on music and girls’ education, and people will be forced to grow beards?

SM: There are five subjects — judiciary, politics, economics, education and the executive. The judicial subject will be with us, the rest is beyond our control.

DT: The Taliban are kidnapping government officials and killing soldiers, yet you still hold the army responsible for ceasefire violations.

SM: Kidnapping cases are taking place all over the world. The military violated the ceasefire.

DT: The military says some of its soldiers were shot dead while bringing water.

SM:No. This is not the case. The soldiers were not killed near any stream.

DT: Are soldiers moving freely in Swat after the peace deal?

SM: No. The military cannot move freely unless peace is restored.

DT: After peace is restored, will the army leave Swat?

SM: This is Pakistan’s army and Swat is within Pakistan’s borders. I will have no objection if a military cantonment is established here.

DT: Locals say innocent people have been killed. Will the aggrieved families be able to get justice?

SM: I have told you already: we will not discuss what has happened in the past. Sharia law does not allow this.

DT: If a court summons a key Taliban commander, will he appear before the court?

SM: If Caliph Umar (RA) can appear before a court, then why can’t others?

DT: So Fazlullah will also appear in court if summoned?

SM: If he does not…he will be acting against the sharia law.

DT: What you did in Malakand in the 1990s and then in Afghanistan in 2001 you called ‘jihad’. Are Fazlullah’s activities over the last 16 months in Swat also jihad?

SM: I do not want to speak on this.

DT: What are Fazlullah’s plans after the peace deal?

SM: He will support imposition of sharia law.

DT: You have termed democracy ‘infidelity’. But Maulana Sami-ul Haq, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Qazi Hussain Ahmad are taking part in the democratic process.

SM: Democracy is not permissible in sharia law. I will not name [these leaders] but they are taking part in infidelity. I will not offer prayers if one of [these leaders] is leading those prayers.

DT: Do you intend to export sharia law to other parts of Pakistan?

SM: If people help me, I will. Otherwise, no.

PS: I also wonder why none of the Political maulvis responded to being called infidels.

Clip to Evernote

43 Comments

  • Shariah being just is akin to spitefulness being a lesser form of love.

    Shariah, a jurisprudence based on Allah’s edict, while never having been much of a successful system, since it enforces second class citizenship of those who are not Muslims, is inherently flawed.

    It is sad yet again to see people supporting such a system that justifies discrimination based on religious beliefs or gender.

    -Zoobee

  • We as a naion at large are self centered and arrogant or we are not realizing the gravity of the situation that Swat holds. Why are we not taking any action against all of this? Or we are just wating for the Talibans to personally knock on our doors to eradiacte razors?

    Democracy sadly may not be the system for us maybe we just lack the ability to choose thats why we end up with hags as our state-runners.

  • God save us from the Shariah of the Hirsute Hero Brigade. The clergy of our country, and most Muslim countries in general, tend to be, and have historically always been, THE MOST regressive members of society. They will thump their chests and scream about their way being “the path of peace” the “law of love” etc etc, but facts speak louder than words.

    This “peace treaty” is offensive…now criminals in the guise of religion will be running bits of our country along with the criminals of a secular persuasion.

    I suppose someday when public executions are the only form of entertainment left in Pakistan,we will sit back, behind our beards / one eye revealing niqabs and think about the days when renting a DVD was not cause for torture and flogging. We will then realize that this demented-Sufi, his roving bandits, the Taliban and all other vile incranations of hatred should have been locked up and left to rot when we had the chance…

  • So let me get this straight. If I kill someone and am caught the next day, Sufi Mohammad’s court (I won’t call it Shariah court) won’t be able to pursue the case against me, cuz it’s already in past, and debate on past is not allowed according to Sufi’s law, right?

  • what i expected after your preamble tazeen that this would be an interview of a simpleton who is being used as a pawn in the whole deal…

    but this guy is chilling in terms of his cynical, and i suppose intelligent usage of what he passes of as the sharia. you and i may be able to rip into his argument about discussions into the past not being permissible, but by quoting that hadith he has effectively shut up most people, who are frozen into revered silence as soon as one mention to any divine or religious edict is made.

    a general point i wanted to make about this whole militant mullah issue is that the words stone-age and regressive are often used for them…

    yet their embrace of modern technology, and modern strategies seems to suggest that they are very much a product of their times. they all use mobiles, they depend on the internet, they use modern weaponry. clearly their problem isn’t with modernism, which is why i think him calling democracy as infidelity is bullshit. his problem isn’t with the concept at all, because democracy is also a product of modernism.

    what i haven’t satisfactorily understood is what is it that is creating this strain of thought. i mean the apologists would point to US invasions and what not, but previous response to imperialism in muslim societies had taken a communist or socialist vein, especially in the arab world. why has this particular strain of thought emerged of late?

    its staggering to see this happening. so i’m going to pretend it isn’t happening. thanks. see you when you post something funny! 🙂

  • its like this…lets not judge the car based on the drivers skill.
    sharia law itself is wholly inclusive and encompassing but in the hands of preposterous proponents its merely ridiculous…to say that women education is not allowed acc to sharia law is making a mockery of the ideals of Islam itself.
    the interview is a joke really!!!

  • These dimwits rule, and able scholars like Ghamidi are blamed of being Jewish and/or CIA agents!

    A family friend of mine has been accused of blasphemy, has had an FIR lodged against him, all bail pleas rejected. Why? Because he had the nerve – yes, nerve! – to say that the Qur’an does not say that Muhammad (pbuh)’s life was perfect; rather, that his is the perfect example of how a life ought to be lived.

  • Yeah I remember my cousin, who is a politically active member of the Jamaat e Islami (and doesn’t let his wife learn driving) call Ghamdi something like that at the dinner table once, when my dad praised the scholar’s show on TV. They all pretty much despise him, for being an ‘infidel’ I’m sure.

    An answer that I didn’t understand and feel should have received more cross-questioning from the interviewers was this:

    DT: With sharia law in Swat, there will be a complete ban on music and girls’ education, and people will be forced to grow beards?

    SM: There are five subjects — judiciary, politics, economics, education and the executive. The judicial subject will be with us, the rest is beyond our control.

    So is the guy saying they’re not going to interfere in girls’ education? I highly doubt that. This isn’t just about changing the face of who sits in judgment in the courts, it’s also about implementing new laws that are in direct conflict with federal laws.

  • Madiha W.Q. said…

    “””””So is the guy saying they’re not going to interfere in girls’ education? I highly doubt that””””

    DEAR MADIHA

    You missed the point.

    SM says:

    “”””””””There are five subjects — judiciary, politics, economics, education and the executive. The judicial subject will be with us, the rest is beyond our control.
    . “””””””

    See, if these guys have judiciary under their control then they can control the rest easily…..

  • Again, I sit here in amazement. I can’t believe that there are still people in the world, seemingly smart and educated people, that would back up a guy like Sufi Muhammad.

    There’s really nothing else that I can do from here but shake my head in disbelief.

  • KEEPING WEAPONS IS HALAL IN ISLAM??!!!
    I am shocked beyond belief…So is mass murder Halal as well??

  • I have always maintained that a country cannot be a religious state AND a democracy at the same time. Because most of the religious texts were written in times that were not exactly fair or equal, and no debate is allowed on whether there can be an issue, however small, with these texts. Democracy, on the other hand, thrives on debate, equality, re-evaluation of laws as per new circumstances.

    It is unfortunate that countries are choosing religion over democracy. Religions penultimate goal is to connect with the divine, and is something deeply personal. It can never be used as a basis for public conduct and laws.

  • KK,

    Please read the comments in latest edition of iRant on dawn.com, you will swear off irony, sarcasm and humour for the rest of your life.

    Cluelessness,

    The dilemma is that most people are not choosing this kind of lifestyle/justice style. It is being thrust upon them. Almost all people I have spoken to who are from these areas do not want it but they have been abandoned by their government.

  • Tazeen, I would have to ask – What is government but a collective representation of the people? Who elected the government that takes decisions like this? And why is the government not afraid of a backlash from its people for such undemocratic stances? It all comes back to the attitude of the people and what they are willing to put up with.

    If every Pakistani refuses to let Islam be dragged into politics or law, then politicians will abstain from using Islam to get votes, or promising Islamic rule. They after all play for the gallery, and we end up getting the government we deserve.

  • When india was crying itself hoarse that islamist terrorists are ruining the sub continent we Pakistanis very conveniently said that they are fighting for Islam and we should support it. That was sic and very very few Pakistanis opposed that stance. Now that those very people are torching our arses they have suddenly become unIslamic, afghani, uzbeki, etc?

    When will we realize, and India is no saint here either, that if we sow evil it come back to bite us down the line.

    Islamic fascism was given rise to by our collective and majority will to donate to terror organizations to go and fight for Islam.

    India has its own taliban in BJP but atleast the majority of the Indians in recent times have been denouncing their acts.

    When we will start doing that?

  • Actually, this Sufi is following the real Islam. The Prophet’s life in Medina is the Sharia mainly. Apostates or critics were to be beheaded and every Non-Muslim to be deprived of any basic human rights. There is no such thing as moderate Islam basically if one sticks to Quran and Hadees only.
    A true religion has to hold true even after 1400 years, so why the need to reinterpret Islam?

  • i can see quite strong telltale signs of an out and out civil war breaking out in pakistan…

    the government is brokering deals with an armed opposition party which works outside of the recognized constitution

    the in place government, the president, the judiciary and the army all working on their own tangents…

    in my view this can lead only to one thing…

    may allah save us all

  • @cluelessness:
    “What is government but a collective representation of the people? Who elected the government that takes decisions like this? “

    – I really am disappointed with the so-called educated class of society. We deabte on dinner-table, we debate over blogs and where not… but its just when it comes to go out and vote, we dont turn out (lest their is some deep emotional issue involved where we put all our rationality at bay, as I dont see no other reason how else PPP minus benazir could have got power) .. Most people who turn out to vote are either paid for doing so (majority poor class) or are fanatics… So the government formed is not exactly based on merits… in fact all but merits.

    The only way to counter these people is mobilize people like us to go and vote!! I mean see poeple around you… Most of us consider too elite to stand in queue to vote. Yet we can debate for hours stting in AC rooms.
    Dude, we asked for it!! And they are giving it back.

  • That is interpretation of Pucktoon Islam it has no relation with actual Islam as he said in hadith its not allowed to talk about past, I have a question for him then why Allah describe past in Quran as Allah discussed previous prophets era ……. i m sure he has no answer to me b/c it’s his own word not Prophet Muhammad words or accept rubbish statement from pucktoon Islam which is not a recognize religion it is actually a terrorism.

  • if ppl in Swat want to have Sharia courts then who are we to object ?t

    Seems that the ‘liberal extremists’ here are too obsessed with Islam and Shariah

  • @ the guy who says that islam is true and doesn’t need to hange for 1400 years blah blah

    that is remarkably stupid. islam was evolving even while the prophet was alive, and continued to change and be re-interpreted from the moment after his death until this day. what you seem to imagine is that there was some static version of islam that was revealed on a certain day, and every day after that was supposed to be the same. such a view is insulting of what the entire point of human experience is supposed to be, IMHO.

    secondly, i am not speaking for everyone on the ‘liberal extremist’ side here, but i don’t think that sharia is a problem. its that sharia cannot seem to be approached honestly in pakistan. if a guy like this can use a particular hadith and twist it for his own good, people should be up in arms for the desecration of our religion. but because sufi came to this position of power through the butchery of his clients, the TTP, everyone is too afraid to say anything lest the violence continue again. the people of swat only wanted sharia because it meant peace.

    i would love to have a sharia based system which is open, inclusive, and not based on our perception of mohammedan meccan society.

    sirry for this being so long, but one last thing. for all those who think that the taliban’s version of islam corresponds with Mecca circa 1 AH should remmeber that today if a businesswoman proposes to marry her younger manager, she would be called a whore. back then they called her the Holy Prophet’s wife.

  • @ karachi khatmal: you totally oversaw what I wrote before that and you completely failed to grasp the irony of my statement. I dont think that Islam or any other religion should provide the basis for a system of government. These are blemished ideologies, which don’t need to be reinterpreted, rather should be forgotten. The good is in the human, it doesn’t need any “holy book” to be sought out.

    I find Islam to have a very barbaric and shameful history, even in the times of the Prophet. Any other religion having done the same is no excuse for the “true religion” to do the wrong thing. I hope you get now what I meant with “no need for reinterpretation”. Maybe I should have added “rather needs to be disposed off”.

  • it’s just an amazing interview. It would really shut the apologists up if they bothered to read it and if they weren’t so dishonest.

    KK: have you ever considered that one of the reasons no society is ever “good enough for sharia” is not because of the failures of the society but because the perfect islamic state is pretty much an unattainable ideal? A little bit like the perfect marxist state. I think there’s something very dangerous about trying to build a political system based on an ideal rather than a flexible system that is just based on adherence to certain rules like free speech, right to property, etc.

  • The right to bear Arms is American guys come on this guys is progressive I know its bad if Sharia approves but if Americans do then ti must be halal even for you guys 😀

    By the way what exactly did he say that was so ominous?

    X

  • Hi TazNeen, sorry Tazeen,
    The cleric is CORRECT. If any of the people here who criticise his answers must also have the courage(which have to face the blashpemy laws)to say Holy Quoran needs change because it was written by humans during 1300 years back.Holy Bible says a ” mentallyill person ” is possessed by devils.the modern Christian Taliban Pope will not talk about changing this text but will talk about banning use of condoms in Africa which actually fights AIDS because as per Bible he is correct.
    We have to change the Holy texts writtten centuries ago.

  • DT: The Taliban are kidnapping government officials and killing soldiers, yet you still hold the army responsible for ceasefire violations.

    SM: Kidnapping cases are taking place all over the world. The military violated the ceasefire.

    This conversation rings a bell in Kashmir too. Just replace the word Taliban with Kashmiri militants.

  • “DT: Locals say innocent people have been killed. Will the aggrieved families be able to get justice?

    SM: I have told you already: we will not discuss what has happened in the past. Sharia law does not allow this.”

    How convenient. I like this guy!

  • Ever feel like you’re yelling yourself hoarse but nobody listens?

  • Ever feel like you’re yelling yourself hoarse but nobody listens?

  • The interview is a joke…reminds me of Sarah Palin giving interview to Katie Couric. Could have been in an evening tabloid (oops…its DT…my bad).

    Won’t go through the whole thing. Will just try to discuss the highlighted points.

    There is nothing wrong with keeping arms, per se. Even in US, everyone has a right to bear arms as per Bill of Rights (I think). And in Pakistan, a lot of people do have arms. And even if he had said that no one is allowed to keep arms, how many in Swat would have given it up. It was mere sensationalization by you. Its what one does with those arms is what makes it right or wrong but I digress…

    I would love to read that Hadith. Can anyone please provide a copy of that Hadith and the context? As is common in all jurisprudence, everything has a context. You can quote anything out of context and justify your actions. Just don’t buy what the guy says or the interviewer wrote.

    I am sure that all of us (read liberal, intelligent, educated) who wholeheartedly supported the treasonous coup of Musharraf and his authoritarian 8 year rule would be pulling our hairs in madness for our beloved democracy being brandished non-shariah-compliant.

    I cannot vouch for my Shia brothers as they might have different point of view but from a Sunni viewpoint (as SM is a sunni) will anyone ask SM how leadership transferred from Muhammad to Abu Bakr then to Umar to Usman to Ali… It may not be democracy as is practiced today but by the standards of those times, the process was very democratic and centuries ahead.

    You should not take anyone’s word what shariah says or does not say. You should research it yourself. I am sure if one puts half the effort in finding out than he puts in commenting and blogging against it, he can refute a lot of claims made by these so called Mullahs. But why do that. Why not quote some ignorant person and based on it claim Shariah is bad…

    As mentioned in the beginning, just commenting on the highlighted parts…


  • Keeping weapons is halal in Islam.

    I second what Ibrahim Khalil said. If you consider arms so “Haram”ful than why on you landed at Manchester and got education in a country where Arms are legal and used by groups of people? you are a hypocrite.


    We will not discuss what has happened in the past. Sharia law does not allow this.

    Sufi was being political like his opponents like Musharraf and Zardari. They also say same. NRO itself is all about forgetting black past but shallow minds like you get turn off to figure it out


    Democracy is not permissible in sharia law

    I agree with Sufi.
    From Wikipedia:

    Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system.

    There is no criteria of merit mentioned in democracy and according to this, if all citizens get agreed to appoint a theif then he should rule over us. Zardari is a perfect example of so called democracy. Now why do you people cry about Zardari?

    Islam’s concept of democracy is based on merit rather based on “feudalism”. Muhammad did not believe in “quota system” that’s why he did not appoint Ali as a 1st caliph becuase Abu bakr was a lot better than Ali that’s why Muhamamd chose him. I laugh when so called democratic lover shias whine that why Ali was not chosen. Their democracy blow in air at that time. Ibrahim also mentioned very clearly the concept of democracy in Islam.

    The point is that when there is a haterd for a religion then anything associated with it will not be accepted. Ibrahim expect you to make a research but you are not different than that bearded sufi who did not make any research to form his opinion. you are a “sleeveless” sufi who is not capable to use a brain.

    get over it. such verbal orgasm is not going to give you any relief.

  • dear umer,

    you are a fascinating little piece of asshole shit…

    firstly, one does not pass up education opportunities just because they disagree with the norms in that society.

    secondly, it is disturbing how easily you defend the twisting of the words of our Holy Prophet as a political necessity. the reason we have, or are supposed to have, faith in our religion is because we believe it to have the intellectual and spiritual quality that does not need resorting to the underhanded tactics of the world in order to be propagated. if you need to twist the word of God or his messenger then you are not justified, even if your end is spreading islam. islam does not allow for hypocrisy, or lies, which is what Sufi Mohammad was going.

    i do not want to begin a debate over the appointment of the first caliph, and the reasons behind it, but i am not sure how you are linking it to the concept of democracy. but if the prophet chose the first caliph as you claim, then it was not a democratic process. thus you can’t go on to claim that islam allows democracy if that is what you believe happened.

    moreover, researching democracy on wikipedia does not make you an expert on it. most democratic systems, including ours, stipulate for certain merit based criteria, such as a university degree. however, eventually, the reason people like me support democracy is because it puts choice and responsibility in the hands of the citizens. if the citizens make a stupid mistake, it is our fault.

    if you are against democracy, i suppose you are in favor of someone taking over power. such a situation means that you don’t take responsibility for your leaders. and that is a tactic people who are too afraid of making their own choices, who are too stupid to be responsible prefer. it is ok to disagree with the leaders, even if they are chosen democratically. because that is the point of democracy. but if democracy becomes a sham, it is the fault of the citizenry, because they allowed themselves to be hoodwinked.

    finally, i suppose there is no coincidence in the fact that the words sleeveless and orgasm are used so closely in your comment. its probably because you are the sort who brandishes blind defense of anything you believe is islamic and thus enjoys thrashing ‘liberals.’ but that doesn’t stop you from ogling at those without sleeves so you can masturbate in peace.

    this is a shamelessly personal attack, and i apologize for that tazeen. but i’m at work on a public holiday, and mr. umer i felt was deserving of my wrath.

  • khatmal: your alias says all why are you pissed about appointment of 1st caliph.

    as far as personal attack is concerned, where is the personal attack? I used the same liberty which this girl uses in her rants. It’s plain hypocrisy that one is getting education in a country where weapons are used. Even they are used illegally on other countries like IRaq and Afghanistan.

    Instead of peeing here. Go to washroom and get cleaned and stop sucking up every crap of West. Use your own frikkin brain too(if there is any).

  • People who support shariah laws are just good for nothing zealots who dont know any better!
    Shariah law is subject to interpretation and these people, they insist on an interpretation tht was suitable for 1400 years ago not for todays world!
    They are a lot of issues involved in the implementation and interpretation of shariah, Islam has around 50+ factions and in order for the laws to be representative of all, all of them have to agree on each and everything. And frankly speaking. I don’t see that happening any time soon! 🙂

  • From the BBC News site this morning…

    ——————————

    “Maulana Rahman is a qazi, or judge, in one of the newly appointed Islamic Sharia courts in Pakistan’s troubled district of Swat. He is addressing about a dozen people standing in front of the bench in the circuit courthouse of Mingora, Swat’s main town.

    They are led by a tall, fierce looking man who adamantly demands an explanation for the court’s decision. He is a commander in the Swat Taleban who fought Pakistan’s army to a recent standstill. […]

    But the common people in Swat have welcomed the establishment of the courts and have thronged to them.

    “We believe we will get quick and impartial justice from the Sharia courts,” says Umar Hayat, a local man waiting to file his petition.

    “In the past, cases used to drag on for years, but now they are settled in days. More importantly, everybody is equal in front of the law.”

    The “Taleban case” before the court vividly illustrates this.

    It pertains to the creation of a dirt track through the fields of a local farmer at the behest of the Taleban.

    The farmer filed a case in the Sharia courts and the matter was adjudicated by Maulana Rahman. The ruling was in the farmer’s favour.

    “But the members of the Taleban present refused to accept the verdict and said they would take up the matter with senior Taleban commanders,” an eyewitness says.

    “They also twisted the judge’s words and brought in the commander after telling him that Maulana Rahman had said that he did not care if Maulana Fazlullah himself had demanded a repeal.”

    Maulana Fazlullah is head of the Taleban in the Swat region. His power is said to be absolute.

    The clearly incensed Taleban commander demanded an explanation from Maulana Rahman.

    The qazi made it clear he had not made any such comments.

    But he also reiterated the fact that the ruling was final.

    For several minutes, the Taleban commander and his henchmen continued to argue.

    But Maulana Rahman refused to budge, and fellow qazis waded into the argument in his support.

    Finally, they managed to convince the Taleban after quoting examples supporting the decision from the Koran.

    They also said they would personally come and investigate the matter if the ruling was not followed.

    At this, the Taleban agreed to the decision and beat a hasty retreat.

    “This a system that works for us,” says Qari Fazal Maula, a petitioner at the court.

    He had just received a ruling in his favour over a dispute involving the ownership of his rickshaw taxi.

    “I couldn’t get a decision despite having filed two years ago in a local court,” he says.

    “It was a waste of money with all the lawyers’ fees and other costs. Here I had to spend 20 rupees (25 US cents) on a piece of official stamp paper.” […]

    the Nizam-e-Adl, or Order of Justice, for Swat talks of interpreting Sharia according to the demands of the relevant sects involved.

    —————————————-
    /end quote

    PS:Tazeen, should this be titled ‘A wake up call to all Shariah detractors’….? 🙂

  • thanks for shahrayar. These “pee”nuts brain who hardly come out from chilled AC offices and bedrooms will never understand this at all. They just know how to babble.

  • @ shahryar

    what you have posted is an example of rough-and-ready justice, like getting a Big Mac from the drive through at seaview.

    Even if one argues that justice is meant to be dispensed in such a manner in the modern age, please keep in mind that one of the defining characteristics of Islamic thought was the development of Islamic jurisprudence.

    To see that proud tradition of jurisprudence being boiled down to its current version should be a wake-up call – that the bedrocks of the intellectual basis of our religion are being eroded, and for what end? for expediency? for getting sure that people can get a decision quickly, regardless of its feasibility and its veracity in terms of the religion?

    I suppose that if you find this example a cause for celebration, then there is little point in further argument.

    @ Umer
    Perhaps one day you will be able to see that blindly adhering to whatever view you can safely assume to be anti-Western says a lot less about your beliefs, and a lot more about the insecurity you feel about your identity.

    Modern western thought flows directly from the influence of Islamic culture – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (the foundations of Western philosohpy) Mathematics and Logic, Rational Approaches to Science and the investigation of nature were all developed in Islamic cultures.

    I am of course, since this is a blog, going to come to your level, and ask you where are you posting your comments from? from a non-electrified cave amongst your common man bretheren? sorry to burst your bubble kiddo, but access to a blog means that socially and financially we are all here in the same boat.

  • Shehreyar,

    Its interesting how you just pasted a selection of that report. And the BBC report just reported the inaugural day in one court. The problem with such courts is that justice is dependent on the discretion of the person presiding over the court that day and not on a written law which cannot be maneuvered by less scrupulous forces.

    Please dont insult either your education or intelligence by saying that the BBC article is a wake up call to Shariah detractors. If you choose to read it carefully, I think it poses a bigger concern than this comical interview of Sufi Mohammed and that concern is that of fragility of an institution.

    We cannot take out marches in Lahore and Islamabad and strengthen democracy and judiciary while allowing shariah courts in another part of the country.

  • I have recently been called an apologist. Baffled me. Who would’ve thought that writing about child marriages and tatooed muslims could get me labeled.

    Labels. Sheesh. Am I really?

    Going off context, what’s the opposite of apologetic/apologist? Is it confrontist? Offensive?

  • Interesting.

    I don’t think the bigger issue here is “weapon in islam are halal” – the bigger issue is ideology. You can never get rid of weapons in NWFP – they love their guns – so let them be. The change we need is ideological and philosophical.

    As for Ghamidi and scholars like him, I don’t exactly remember when was the last time Him and liberal muslims like him OPENLY condemned – as repeatedly as they condemn US and NATO – Talebans and their crazy leaders.

    It’s so easy to say that it’s not Sharia, but then what IS Sharia? You do realize that as long as you believe in those 7 crazy books, someone is going to continue digging stuff up to justify their acts.

  • If speaking about past is not as per Sharia according to him, thn why do the terrorist whom he represents attack innocent citing past wars? MORONS of first grade. He should be bombed!!!!!

  • Mohsin have some sense b4 speaking, comparing BJP with Taliban. I am not a supporter of BJP infact I hate them for some of their leaders supporting hardliners. But Taliban really? BJP does not ask us to grow beards, or bomb schools, or against entertainment, education, etc. Infact they are very pro-corporate. So choose ur words carefully. Just bcos some BJP leaders have given hate speeches (and I oppose them for tht, they shud be hanged for disrupting peace!) does not give right to Muslims of Pak to attack India on tht behalf. U guys have to agree tht u r not the messiah of every Muslim in India bcos no Indian Muslim wants to live in Pak. Put ur house in order first. Tht will do entire world proud!

Leave a comment to Justin Credible

Protected by WP Anti Spam

``