Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatima47
why do people have to look at TTP and Taliban always when someone talks about implementation of Shariah? I mean they are ones who are following certain ideologues and their writings. If they call it Islam or Shariah and we think that really is Shariah then its nothing but our willful ignorance.
|
The example I gave was of Sufi Muhammad who did not belong to TTP but was a founder of his own militant organization Tehreek e Nafaz e Shariat e Muhammadi (TNSM). Talibaan to abhi 90's ki paidawaar hain. Maulana Madudi was sentenced death penalty in 1953 because of his proven involvement in the massacre of Ahmadis in Lahore. So you see they are all alike. Be that TTP, Jamaat e Islami, TNSM, PNA, Lashkar Jhangwi, Tahreek Nifaaz e Fikah Jafria, or Lal Masjid Walay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi
Jazib... please let the Islamist speak of their system rather than you make judgements about it.
|
I have to make a judgment because it is your history that you say something and then turn back on your words. Hope this time you wont do this because in what you told me about Islam and democracy this time, I found a point of agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi
The right to vote is enshrined in the shariah by the means of bayah, I have already made that clear in our previous correspondence on the forum.
|
I know, and anyone who have some knowledge of Islamic history knows, that the concept of Bayat in Caliphate era and afterwards in not equivalent to present day voting, because:
1- Voting is for choosing ruler. Bayat was for submitting allegiance to an already selected ruler.
2- Voting is a matter of choice. You can vote for and vote against. Bayat was a compulsion: you can Bayat for but not Bayat against.
3- Those who vote against a ruler are not considered rebels. Those who did not take Bayat on the hand a chosen ruler were considered rebels. Ali waged battel of Nahrvaan because Muawiyaah did not take Bayat on Ali's hand, and Imam Hussain and family were killed because they did not take Bayat on Yazeed's hand.
4-Regarding Bayat, one had only two options: submit allegiance or fight. Regarding voting one has three choices: vote for, vote against, or abstain.
5-Bayat can be implicit or explicit (you said this). Voting is always explicit.
But, as I mentioned earlier, here is also a point of agreement. You say Bayat and voting are equivalent. If this is the sole issue that you want to use the term Bayat instead of voting, while you recognize the voting right of every citizen of the state above 18 for choosing their ruler and the members of their legislative assemblies, then what is the issue? I have no objection calling it either vote or bayat. You also said that right to vote is enshrined in the Shariat. This means that Shariat endorse democracy and authority of majority. And this also means that imposition of any law and any constitution will be made through a democratic struggle and adoption of any other means is condemned by Shariat. Since opposition is and integral part of democracy, Shariat also gives space to opposing ideas and ideologies (make sure I am not making room for going against any law, but yes I am making room for speaking against a law as a citizen of a democratic state).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi
The Ulema and Interpreters are similar to the advisers that the President of U.S has, they help him reach a decision by presenting "different" points of view. Such a Shura would be comprised of all the different schools of thought within the Muslim world (including the shia).
|
If they are mere advisors, and not law-maker, and if there is no such compulsion as the law maker must be a qualified Aalam, then I have no reasons for disagreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahzaib Abbasi
Jinnah talked about…..
|
We ll discuss what-Jinnah-says at some other time because right now I am busy reading Strain2’s “THE 100”.