If you understand Urdu then please watch the video below
[youtube]yOcDmlgRoxI[/youtube]
Female students of Jamia Hafsa seminary, backed by male students of other Madrassas, prevailed on the Islamabad police after a day long showdown here on Wednesday.
The trouble started when the seminary students and teachers, supported by their patrons in Lal Masjid, decided to take the “community correction role�? in their hands and kidnapped an old woman, her young daughter and daughter-in-law on Tuesday night blaming them for “immoral activities�? in the area.[Source]
I firmly believe that forcing shariah laws down people’s throat is definitely not acceptable. The argument of the above group was that Pakistan was formed on Islamic principles so why its still to adopt complete shariah laws? As far as my knowledge about Pakistan is concerned, the society is divided between the high non-pious class and the ultra-conservative lower class (based on economic divide) so that implies there is no middle class dominance. The rich keep growing richer, and also away from religion, and the lower class keeps falling into the deep chasm of poverty, it uses religion to satiate itself that they one day everyone will be judged on religious deeds and not worldly wealth. This cry for the implementation of ardent laws will leave the society in shatters as the non-pious class cannot come to terms with the ardent laws. This is what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power; people were forced to pray in mosques and even beaten for this, public execution of culprits which was heavily criticized by the western media as barbaric, restriction of TV,movies and any sort of entertainment. What did they achieve by these? People becoming embittered against the regime and ready to leave the country at earliest given opportunity!
I firmly believe that in this present day world shariah laws cannot be enforced on people because Muslim society in general has diverted away from religion. Concepts which invite death punishment in Islam are now acceptable in many cultures, like live in relationships and extra marital affairs. Westernisation has deeply affected Muslims of all culture alike for reasons which I am not going to delve into here. You cannot amend mistakes by imposing strict laws now. This is actually a way to avoid the complexities involved in bringing the society back to religion.
The current situation requires the Muslim countries to rethink their strategies. I am not asking for a total change in laws so as to make in west compatible but a gradual implementation of shariah so that the inhabitants don’t feel the pinch. Muslims who settled in the western world can be a role model for us. There were certain things in Islam which were pushed to a level where it left a thin line between Islamic laws and western laws. Concepts like women empowerment, freedom of expression and entertainment had to be rethought of by Muslims in western countries to accommodate western way of life. Its not that these concepts were alien to Islam but just that Muslims seems to have paid no heed towards them in the Arab world. Islam was constantly under scrutiny and thus it became imperative for the Muslims to shun these voices of dissent arising from within by adjusting and pushing laws to extreme. It became a must for Islam to exist in the modern day world.
Well just to end this discussion, the disease doesn’t lies with Islam but it lies with the Muslims. They have been reduced from kings to beggars, which is something Muslims in general are still to digest, and they should learn to face circumstances which are not ideally suited for shariah laws to exist.
I am with you Sharique, that Shariat should not be applied by force on anybody. But my reason for the same differs from yours and therefore let me lay it out. I think that imposing it is wrong inherently, not just because ‘Muslims have moved away from religion’. Even if they had not moved away from religion, I believe that imposition is wrong and is in fact counterproductive. Furthermore, I think it would be unreligious as well.
Religion is between a person and his God. No other person should have a right to judge what is in somebody else’s heart. And no other person should have a right to impose religious beliefs on somebody. Therefore, I think your solution of imposing it gradually is almost as bad as what these veiled women in the video are trying to do. If people want it, they can live their lives according to the Shariat (to the extent that it does not impact others who don’t want to live by it). Beyond that, no society, whether Muslim majority or not, has a right to demand religious beliefs from its citizens. Beyond being plain wrong, it is a gross violation of the Universal Covenant on Human Rights that most nations have signed.
In this particular instance, the questions go deeper than the imposition of Shariat. The question is whether the state can allow a vigilante group to take the law in its own hands and kidnap somebody, even if the person kidnapped is a wrongdoer. And whether it can allow a group of people to be the accuser as well as the judge as well as the enforcer of the judgement.
This particular case is for Pakistan and its citizens to resolve, but we have our own similar issues. Whether it is the activists of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat in J&K throwing acid on young couples in restaurants or attempting to close down movie theatres and internet cafes, or the Shiv Sena or Bajrang Dal folks harassing young couples on Valentine’s Day, the basic issues are similar. Can we allow vigilante groups to subvert the law? And if we do, can modern society as we know it survive? Since the basis for such a society is the rule of law.
Well Girish you have every right to disagree
But I wonder how can you assume that if Shairah is applied to a country then ‘vigilant groups’ will take over the law & order machinery. I never supported these so called champions of religion or their ways, did I?
I don’t want to argue regarding the merits of Shariah because
1. I am not an expert on this issue.
2. The so called shariah complaint countries have earned enough laurels that has demonized shariah
Pingback: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » India: On the shariah
Sharique:
I did not assume that you supported vigilante groups. I did not think that you would support them. The point about vigilante groups was a generic one – one that applies to our country as well. Hence my reference to it.
My first point is that imposition of religious beliefs and laws on anybody is wrong and in fact in contravention to basic conventions that most countries are signatory to. It is unislamic as well – there is an oft-quoted verse from the Quran Sharif that says “there is no compulsion in religion”.
No country, not even Saudi Arabia, is homogenous in terms of religious beliefs and it is just as bad to impose Shariah as it would be to impose Hindu laws on everybody in India or Christian laws in the Christian majority countries of the world. There are some countries that do this anyway, but they are wrong. Furthermore, as a report by the (in)famous Justice Munir in Pakistan showed, no two alims agreed on what Shariah is – there was disagreement even within sects, let alone across sects. Hence, it is not practical, even if it were otherwise ok to impose Shairah.
Sharique, I believe Girish summed it up well. I can’t add more on that front. For my own further education, I am going to hark back to something I’ve posted on another IM entry already, based upon this line: ‘It became a must for Islam to exist in the modern day world.’
If I read your context correctly, you are indeed saying that Islam can exist only as a product of ‘extreme laws’? Meaning life under extreme laws is truly Islamic, otherwise not. You obviously know more about the religion, but my gut tells me you are wrong. How can any religion need extreme laws for its life? Just does not make sense to me. Maybe somebody can elaborate. This brings me to what I asked before, elsewhere, to an outsider, what should be the ‘essence’ of Islam? Maybe then we will be in a better position to say if tough laws are indeed justified for ensuring its full expression.
mahi,
I never used the word ‘extreme’ for shariah. I used ‘strict’. Well everything is relative when it comes to these adjectives. I called it strict relative to today’s world. Many practices which have become a part of the society would invite punishment under shariah.
[quote post="209"]Islam can exist only as a product of ‘extreme laws’? [/quote]
No, Islam doesn’t require for Shariah to exist. It’s not imperative for the country as a whole.
[quote post="209"]How can any religion need extreme laws for its life?[/quote]
Again this is relative and based on society. The concepts which have slowly crept into our culture can and are already rotting it from within.
sharique, the people at all times and ages have worried about the ‘rot’ of the society. what is this rot? a moral judgement? its a subjective thing and no business of the state, not even a state that treats all citizens equally, let alone some religious law.
its pure naive to believe that societies prosper on any front under a ‘strict’ regime. there is no proof in history. the so called glory of the past (which was a disaster for some others) was not achieved through strict laws. it was through adventures and capable scholars and generals. Islam represented change then.
I’ll repeat, “Islam represented change then”. The rest need not be said.
This comment is from Shahran Asim and for some reason it could not be posted.
—–
All,
I think I would request everyone in this thread to do listen to a very thought provoking interview which was done in the library premises done by Dr.Shahid Masood for Geo TV. It is divided in four parts and he asked really tough questions to teacher and the students who did that.
Dr. Shahid Masood’s show Meray Mutabiq on Jamia Hafsa issue on youtube.com (in four parts):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=76draLi59PA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UonCPhvPGsc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uK-Zu9DBAwQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AeHK8dXktd4
Sharique, I agree with the relative nature of such adjectives. However, what I’m trying to get at is that the spirit of Shariah is what you should be worried about. That I am sure can be implemented in laws perfectly in tune with the modern world. Neither will they need to be strict. Its when we interpret Shariah as the external form, which is of another age, that the trouble really begins and things like ‘strict’ start to creep in.
Thats my take anyway – spirit before form, cos form will never last without the right animating spirit.