Martial Law in Islam
 

"In determining with clarity whether Martial Law has a place in Islam or not, we need to understand the concept of Martial Law and the concept of Islam," I responded to the third question. "Islam is the submission before the will of Allah, whereas Martial Law is submission before the army commander. A Muslim submits only before the will of Allah. "The term Martial Law, if I remember clearly, is a term derived from the days of Bismarck and the Prussian Empire. To integrate the territories he conquered, Bismarck superseded the law prevailing in those territories with his own law, based on his whim and enforced at the point of a gun. Martial Law, before the Second World War, also referred to the rule of an occupying army.The word of the commander of the occupying army superseded the existing law.
"Under colonialism, the indigenous people were treated as second-class citizens, denied a government of their choice, denied the right to shape their own destiny according to their hopes and desires and according to what would be economically beneficial for them. In the wake of World War Two and the withdrawal of colonial powers from most of the colonies, the people of the newly independent countries enjoyed freedom and liberty for a little while. This was the period when nationalist leaders such as Nasser, Nkrumah, Nehru, and Su-karno insisted on bringing social equality and justice to their people. But the former colonial powers, now restructured in shape, intended to keep their own people happy and, whether they consciously decided this or not, they ended up supporting a military-mullah complex. This mullah-military complex denied the people charge of their own destiny and the fruits that would avail from guiding this destiny. The situation was further complicated by the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. "Many of the newly independent states are now ruled by some form of military administration. However, an administration which is based on force and not consensus cannot be congruent with the central principles of Islam, which lays emphasis on consensus. Second, military regimes always come into power at the point of a gun or the threat of the use of force, whereas in Islam there is no concept of the usurpation of power. Therefore, we can see that there is no question of Martial Law in Islam."

[B]This excerpt is taken from the Autobiography of Benazir Bhutto. What's your stance on her view regarding Martial Law and Political Stability in Pakistan?[/B]

first of all let me thanks you for sharing such a nice piece of excerpts, i like to talk on the issues which are suppose to be problem and solution oriented and is not based on medieval mentality.
[QUOTE=Man Jaanbazam;934761]"In determining with clarity whether Martial Law has a place in Islam or not, we need to understand the concept of Martial Law and the concept of Islam," I responded to the third question. "Islam is the submission before the will of Allah, whereas Martial Law is submission before the army commander.[/QUOTE]
I add further, submission of will infront of Allah almighty means absolute peace and tranquility in ones life, whereas submission of power and authority in front of mullah cum dictator means chaos and destruction in a society.
Because it is against the dignity of mankind to be treated like mules and cattle herd,while in latter case it intends to do so.

[QUOTE]A Muslim submits only before the will of Allah.[/QUOTE]
Really man, i am not sure whether a muslim of contemporary world submits his will to Allah, want proof than dear have a look in your surroundings not go far away, this forum is a perfect example.I hope you have understood what i mean.:)

[QUOTE]"The term Martial Law, if I remember clearly, is a term derived from the days of Bismarck and the Prussian Empire. To integrate the territories he conquered, Bismarck superseded the law prevailing in those territories with his own law, based on his whim and enforced at the point of a gun. Martial Law, before the Second World War, also referred to the rule of an occupying army.The word of the commander of the occupying army superseded the existing law. [/QUOTE]
Let me tell you Bismark is not as bad guy as we perceived about.
I mean i did't understand why not CZAR NICHOLAS?
Yeah, he definitely dreamed for making Germany the great empire not like what we perceive about THE NAZIS and their Brutes.
Anyhow in an open letter that he had written to Brit ambassador was an eye opening that world war-l is not only inevitable but it is a pretext to make the slavery universal.Yeah, we are getting his augury moving in a good direction.
But let me remind you who remembers trans--siberian rail networks initiated by Lincoln dynasty and also Berlin to Baghdad vast transportation network by this despitist.It was an indeed a great sin of Bismark.(for readers info he was a majestic leader and also a competent guy)

[QUOTE]"[B][SIZE="4"]Under colonialism, the indigenous people were treated as second-class citizens,[/SIZE][/B] denied a government of their choice, denied the right to shape their own destiny according to their hopes and desires and according to what would be economically beneficial for them.[/QUOTE]
That's the point which is the mother of all problem.Is ther any who denies this fact that we are not slaves even today?Is there anyone who says that our freedom of expression nd freedom of ideas is not molested and we are free to do any sort of innovation and creation?
Now do tell me what is the difference between a so called a free man and a herding cattle?
I believe nothing.:cow

[QUOTE]In the wake of World War Two and the withdrawal of colonial powers from most of the colonies, the people of the newly independent countries enjoyed freedom and liberty for a little while. This was the period when nationalist leaders such as [B]Nasser, Nkrumah, Nehru, and Su-karno[/B] insisted on bringing social equality and justice to their people.[/QUOTE]
Did you people understand why i like Nkrumah and Nasser, also add in it the Massadq, Jacabo arbenz and William Mickenly.........My list is infinite.:unsure:
Reality is that socialism is not as much bad as we perceived about the red army.Red army itself is an emblem of stalinism, not socialism.

[QUOTE]But the former colonial powers, now restructured in shape, intended to keep their own people happy and, whether they consciously decided this or not, they ended up supporting a military-mullah complex.[/QUOTE]
Slowly yet surely we are moving towards the topic.
Colonialism and capitalism are parallel terms and socialism is entirely opposite in nature.
Colonies are made to serve the interest of monarchs and dictators.

[QUOTE]This mullah-military complex denied the people charge of their own destiny and the fruits that would avail from guiding this destiny. The situation was further complicated by the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. "Many of the newly independent states are now ruled by some form of military administration.[/QUOTE]
What a nice term this [B]mullah-military complex[/B] is!!!

CIA-Taliban-ISI nexus,
did we bother about the Reagon and dwight romances with nixon and bush leds business, no need to mention SUllvian, and here who got how much?
Its a satire!
--Heroin implantation
---Klashankoff culture
---self radicalization
---obssessive islamism
---Vestigial organ-Council of islamic ideology
--- fundaemtal wreckage of freedom of expression and thought( it is being hijaked by mullahs and their self designed islamic principles)
---and most importantly interjection of slavery in individual mind and that counter questioning is a taboo( hence we have intellectually crippled minds that are produced from mudrassah as well as university)

[QUOTE] However, an administration which is based on force and not consensus cannot be congruent with the central principles of Islam, which lays emphasis on consensus. Second, military regimes always come into power at the point of a gun or the threat of the use of force, whereas in Islam there is no concept of the usurpation of power. Therefore, we can see that there is no question of Martial Law in Islam."[/QUOTE]
Colonial cum mullah led islam adopts the path of injustice, supremecy of some jahil ulemas who even dont know that islam says that it is the legitimate right of every human beings to accept the islam or reject it according to ones understanding and that questioning is fundametal right.

There is no place of Martial Laws in any civilised and democratic country.

[QUOTE=kingfalcon;934803]There is no place of Martial Laws in any civilised and democratic country.[/QUOTE]

bit controversial,hannnnnn!!!:cry
obviously abettors in many non developing countries for example Guatamala and Ghana in 60s are not dictatorship or matial law.Let me call CIAs involvement in vietnam war.How od perceopt!!!
Story gets long, respected sir czar nicholas and hitler are the by products of civilized and democratic country.

Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.

Difference between law and jurisprudence???

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk

What if the Muslims of a certain country are getting astray from the path defined by Shariah and a group of few "Practicing Muslims" choose a leader who will overthrow the Government of Non-practicing Muslims and impose their type of Shariah Law on the country?
Would this type of Martial Law will be pleasing to Allah?