Sharia or Secular State?

[graveyardofempires]

dilet bachis ekhtiyaar daree. Ta pohegey aw kaar d. Maa na sa la ijaaza akhley??

waley stha hinduwana ne khwakhegey?

[IamDZJ]

boro gumsho k asaabim kharaab ast.

[Lemagak]

boro gumsho k asaabim kharaab ast.

Who cares about shariah communism or secularism so long as the system recognizes that you are a parasite wannabe Pashtun and treats you as such khorasani

[Lemagak]

i don't like law and religion combined.

Because you are dostum lite

[ScimitarXEdge]

secularism is easy, almost all states follow this ideology or lack or ideology or whatever u want to call it. its the lowest of the low, and non muslims certainly know how to reach into that part of themselves and be comfortable with it.

shariah is hard. not hard for a muslim but hard to implement by a ruling body. since we are so divided today there will be differences among us as to what real shariah is, not to mention international pressure and all the **** that goes along with that.

most of the islamic world is neck deep into secularism so transforming the societies into shariah instantly would be detrimental. we must follow allah and the prophets example by introducing/reintroducing islam slowly back into political/public life.

but as they say, the best things in this life are not easy.

Not to stray into another topic; but isn't it ironic though? These low life rodents in Europe and AMerica have right ring movements to prevent Shari'ah from becoming prominent so they can protect their degenerate " way of life" and then the same rodents feel they're entitled to "pressure" us about how to govern ourselves.


and Imperialism doesn't still exist???

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is a red herring question. The implication is that if Shariah law is chosen the Taliban will execute it. The answer is simple: its not about Shariah, its not about secularism, its about SOVEREIGNTY in which ever form it comes.

In regard to which one is better, there are no head to head trials or studies to determine whether Shariah or Secular Democracy is better and no analysis of the confounders that plague both systems. There is no control and experimental variable. For instance, Secular capitalism can produce inflated currency and the moral limit is monopoly... and Bernie Madoffs can be created under it. At the same time Secular Capitalism can produce Bill Gates. However, there is no head to head proof that Shariah Capitalism cannot produce a Bill Gates. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

To examine just outcomes, American secular law applied in the southern US resulted in lynchings, hangings, African Americans/etc unjustly treated. On the other hand, its execution in other areas produced equitable justice. This more than adequately proves the point of folks on here that it is the who and the how of implementation that does matter.

So I do think it is absolutely fair to say that the environment in which any ideology or economic system is executed is extremely important. The Roman empire was not a secular democracy, nor was the British Empire, etc. Yet they were supremely successfull. China is not a pure open market system yet and their laws are not based purely on secular tendencies (e.g. freedom of speech issues) Circumstances dictated success.

At the end of the day, if the indigenous Afghan deserves SOVEREIGNTY from all physical occupiers. Then the decision will be made regarding Secularism, Shariaism, Capitalism, Democracy, Communism, Khanism, etc.

[graveyardofempires]

boro gumsho k asaabim kharaab ast.

asabey to kho bestochar saath kharab astak,ba khyalem ke maghzeth kharab ast,Doktar boro.

[بصير]

You cannot impose a system that is incompatible with the way of life of its inhabitants, the values associated with the west did not appear out of thin air, they took generations to evolve in its social structure as norms.

I believe that in a future prosperous Pashtunistan, secularism will inevitably evolve but until then we cannot deny the religious nature of the Pashtun population.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I don't think secularism is an inevitability; I Think we assume that because the materially centered societies, typically called the "WesT" are more technologically and scientifically advanced; that this means their way of life is more enlightened, and their secularism is prosperous. Not so; their way of life is very environmentally destructive, and their technology is used to serve only baser human indulges and greed. This is indication their secularism is also merely a system of waste and frivolity.

Scientific Knowledge and Progress needs wisdom, we lost that wisdom because we squabbled amongst ourselves while the Europeans were plotting and planning on how to steal our rugs from under us.

If we want to progress the solution is not a turn to secularism whether today or eventually, but to becoming scientifically literate.

I realize this is tough to do when you have Alchemists and Mujibs running around; but it can and will be done.

[بصير]

I suppose it also depends on what you mean by an Islamic regime or shariah, if we take Saudi Arabia as a model for Sharia, do you honestly believe such a state in that form can prosper as a world power?
It also depends on how you define prosperous and on the factors you deem as functions for success, if these factors are mainly scientific and technological development then what you call materialism, the institutionalizing of non religious pursuits in life, is a necessary condition for a prosperous state if not a sufficient one, sure religion may play a more pronounced role with respect to individuals than it does in the west say, however you cannot have a prosperous state in which the main social institution is religion and in which the paradigm for running the state is religious unless your definition of prosperous is wholly something else.
Obviously states which invest more into scientific and technological pursuits and in which those are more influential social institutions are going to do better than ones in which religion is the main force and in which people are more concerned about an afterlife than the material world.
Scientific or intellectual literacy in general seem to correlate with irreligion otherwise how does one explain the irreligion in the academic world of the west. Science and Philosophy provide alternative general paradigms to the dogmas of religion.

[Admin Khan]

I suppose it also depends on what you mean by an Islamic regime or shariah, if we take Saudi Arabia as a model for Sharia, do you honestly believe such a state in that form can prosper as a world power?

I agree with you wholeheartedly in a sense that Saudi Arabia is a terrible example of a Shariah state. Saudi Arabia is no different than Pakistan, or Afghanistan. It's a puppet state serving western interests, with just a few families who are living a lavish lifestyle. After all, we know that Saudi Arabia is far from a sovereign country. To be fair Scythian, Shariah law promises minorities their rights, and we can't use a country as an example of a Shariah law state. To understand Shariah law, we have to study and analyze it, and sort of research it's implications if it's applied in it's entirety. We can't use mickey mouse governments like the Taliban govt, or Saudi Arabia's government as examples of Shariah states. We need a moderate approach when it comes to deciding a government, and from what I've noticed most individuals have a rather dichotomous opinion when the discussion of Shariah law vs Secularism arises. Secularism also has it's cons, I think it's just as wrong when a secular country like Turkey forces a woman not to wear a scarf, and I think it's just as wrong when you begin marginalizing a society because they choose to be religious. If we both study Shariah law, we will realize that some inhabitants of the west are blatantly attempting to associate radical Islam with Shariah law, when it's far from that. Just because a few rich countries adhere to secularism does not mean secularism correlates with success. Remember my dear friend, Muslim majority countries, who followed and adhered Islamic principles, were too, once a power house!


Nice to meet you, Salam!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I agree with you wholeheartedly in a sense that Saudi Arabia is a terrible example of a Shariah state. Saudi Arabia is no different than Pakistan, or Afghanistan. It's a puppet state serving western interests, with just a few families who are living a lavish lifestyle. After all, we know that Saudi Arabia is from a sovereign country. To be fair Scythian, Shariah law promises minorities their rights, and we can't use a country as an example of a Shariah law state. To understand Shariah law, we have to study and analyze it, and sort of research it's implications if it's applied in it's entirety. We can't use mickey mouse governments like the Taliban govt, or Saudi Arabia's government as examples of Shariah states. We need a moderate approach when it comes to deciding a government, and from what I've noticed most individuals have a rather dichotomous opinion when the discussion of Shariah law vs Secularism arises. Secularism also has it's cons, I think it's just as wrong when a secular country like Turkey forces a woman not to wear a scarf, and I think it's just as wrong when you begin marginalizing a society because they choose to be religious. If we both study Shariah law, we will realize that some inhabitants of the west are blatantly attempting to associate radical Islam with Shariah law, when it's far from that. Just because a few rich countries adhere to secularism does not mean secularism correlates with success. Remember my dear friend, Muslim majority countries, who followed and adhered Islamic principles, were too, once a power house!


Nice to meet you, Salam!

A very sensical answer. The lines are not so thick and these divisions of one must either 100% anti group decision making or 100% anti capitalism or 100% anti any Islamic principles are idiotic. It does a disservice to both shariah law and certain secular aspects to shariah law. For instance a Sahih hadith indicates that the companions were once sitting with the Prophet and they asked him about why he was not preaching to them... he answered that if he did so they would become bored or burdened by the religion. It was really no different than Christ's answer regarding render unto Caeser those things that belong to Caesar and render unto God that which belongs to him.

However, these divisions are exacerbated via interventionalism. Radicalization to the left and right occur during times of conflict. These will only grow worse. As I have stated before, the banner of religion is one mode that the Pashtuns have historically utilized to repel invaders. The Tribal Analysis Center detailed this very well ina report I cited here.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There are situations however where one must weight what their belief system is. Take for example the cutting of the hand. The Rajm (stoning in adultery), in contrast is a punishment described in the hadith. The seperation of the hand of the thief is in the Quranic text itself. Its a punishment that the Prophet Muhammad noted would be applicable even to his own daughter were she to steal. However the complexity of the issue comes is in when jurisprudence discusses it. For instance, the Caliph Omar, a sacred figure in Islam decided that in a time of famine this punishment would be suspended and then reinstated.

However, when Benazir Bhutto referred to it is a barbaric punishment.. this is problematic because she has to reconcile a verbatim revealed decree from God himself with her derived man made beliefs. Her leadership automatically becomes suspect in the Islamic world because of her direct and diametric opposition to the God book.

Now, on the other hand, if someone where to say that the Saudi Princes are stealing the resources of the people and who is the saudi government to enforce the hand cutting while the greater thiefs are walking away... that is a reasonable argument but it does not address the actual justice of shariah law itself.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Here is an example of how Khalifah Umar executed the hand cutting law:

When a Sentence is Executed
The maximum sentence of any violation of law is not applied in every case. In the robbery and theft cases for example, the maximum penalty of hand-cutting applies after the consideration of many factors such as track record and whether the theft was made for profit. In some cases, such as stealing food because of severe hunger or to prevent death, there may not be a penalty. An actual example that took place during the Rule of Caliph Umar can be helpful to illustrate this fact. A master brought his servant to Caliph Umar to cut his hand for stealing. Umar asked the defendant whether he stole from his master’s property. When the servant did not deny the accusation, Umar asked him why he did it. The servant explained that he did it because his family had nothing to eat. Upon this, The plaintiff concurred that the defendant’s claim was true. Further questioning of the plaintiff led Umar to determine that the plaintiff was at fault for not providing his servant adequate food, labor and shelter. Then, Umar ordered the plaintiff to adequately provide his servant’s needs and the case that was against the servant turned out to be a case against his master. This example asserts that Shari’ah is a community law based on fairness and justice.

http://www.islamic-study.org/islamic_penal_law.htm

The point is that simply making shariah law and secular law a coin flip does a disservice to the beautiful complexity of the law God revealed.

[بصير]

I agree with you wholeheartedly in a sense that Saudi Arabia is a terrible example of a Shariah state. Saudi Arabia is no different than Pakistan, or Afghanistan. It's a puppet state serving western interests, with just a few families who are living a lavish lifestyle. After all, we know that Saudi Arabia is far from a sovereign country. To be fair Scythian, Shariah law promises minorities their rights, and we can't use a country as an example of a Shariah law state. To understand Shariah law, we have to study and analyze it, and sort of research it's implications if it's applied in it's entirety. We can't use mickey mouse governments like the Taliban govt, or Saudi Arabia's government as examples of Shariah states. We need a moderate approach when it comes to deciding a government, and from what I've noticed most individuals have a rather dichotomous opinion when the discussion of Shariah law vs Secularism arises. Secularism also has it's cons, I think it's just as wrong when a secular country like Turkey forces a woman not to wear a scarf, and I think it's just as wrong when you begin marginalizing a society because they choose to be religious. If we both study Shariah law, we will realize that some inhabitants of the west are blatantly attempting to associate radical Islam with Shariah law, when it's far from that. Just because a few rich countries adhere to secularism does not mean secularism correlates with success. Remember my dear friend, Muslim majority countries, who followed and adhered Islamic principles, were too, once a power house!


Nice to meet you, Salam!

Wassalam and manana for the kind welcome Admin

I concede on the problem with Saudi, and furthermore, my readings and experiences on this issue have mainly been with the Salafi type interpretation of Islam and religious people who seemed to embody Saudi Arabia; I agree too that the dichotomization of pure sharia vs western secularism is oversimplification but that is how the puritans see it. In all honesty, I am generally not very acquainted with more moderate approaches…
To be fair, I will rephrase and say Sharia as it seems to be putatively practiced by states in our time, however I don’t think the general environment of the Islamic Golden era can be simulated again either, that environment was in the medieval epoch which I don’t think corresponds very well with the environment of the modern world. Perhaps a successful Islamically orientated nation is possible but this, in my opinion, would require a somewhat different approach to many orthodoxies in Islam…

And actually insofar as I know, I don’t think Islam even recognizes the idea of a nation state as it exists today which is a modern conception, although that is another issue