Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Haha I get your drift! But I think it would be an injustice to assume that all Mullahs are unscrupulous! Secondly, don't interpret these words of Mr. Jinnah in a unidimensional view. A Sharia-oriented constitution may not have to entail a theocracy! Though this debate can be stretched to great lengths, but I think Sharia shouldn't necessarily imply a rule by Mullahs for the Mullahs!
As far as the matter of usage of this particular word—or other similar words—being scanty in his speeches is concerned; I think if you compile all of his important speeches, you won't be able to comment with any certainty whether it's a liberal or a conservative who is uttering the words. Lastly, the whole confusion about Quaid ka Pakistan is because his words have never pointed towards any definite position—they have always been open to interpretations. Ultimately, both of us are going to end up interpreting Mr. Jinnah as our minds like to  |
Lol, Interesting! Shariah for me is dangerous word because we don't find this in Quran and Sunnah .it's the product of islamic jurisprudence. Now, inventors of this word outlined very rigid political system which i am afraid Quaid would've implemented or even thought of implementing that
As a matter of fact i did compile the speeches of Jinnah in which he wanted to incorporate islamic injunctions in constitution which is totally fine. Quaid being admirer of Iqbal wanted to implement Iqbal's version of islam which iqbal put together in his famous work "reconstruction of religious thought in Islam". I am sure that you know that Iqbal's philosophy runs contrary to Shariah.