- Mar 21, 2008
- Reaction score
the islamic empires, that you mentioned, all had shariah implemented. not talking about the selection of ruler, as that is not defined, but the rules and laws were all shariah compliant, the judges were appointed based on their knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, and the top most ulema actually held an office of shaykh al Islam. Its only the post-colonial modern states, who are intellectually slaves to the west and their masters and who havent tried to break free from a century of slavery, who have avoided adopting that model.You certainly have the right to hold your opinions, but in this discussion, we are focusing on the vision of the founding fathers of our nation, who had a distinct understanding of Islam that significantly differs from yours. For instance, Allama Iqbal categorically stated about the separation of state and church (i.e. secularism) that "Islam, no doubt, does permit such a view"
Unfortunately, in overly religious societies like ours, secularism is viewed as an attack on the dominant religion i.e. Islam, leading to misunderstandings and resistance to the idea of secularism.
Interestingly, the notion of the separation of State and Church, commonly referred to as secularism, was brought to Western Europe from Islamic philosophy. However, contemporary orthodox Muslims often reject the concept of secularism as a Western ideology incompatible with Islam. One of the most influential Islamic philosophers who played a significant role in shaping the evolution of secularism in Western Europe was Ibn Rushd, an Arab-Spanish polymath and philosopher. Dante's Divine Comedy, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and Rafael's fresco of the School of Athens all immortalize his contributions to Western thought. In the West, Ibn Rushd is celebrated as the founding father of secularism.
It is my belief that the fundamental problem stems from a lack of understanding of the all-encompassing nature of Islam.
it is your understanding that is lacking. the all-encompassing nature of Islam precisely means that the matters of state will be influenced by Islam. the separation of church and state does not apply to Islam, it applies to Christianity which doesnt exemplify or teach about statecraft. Our Prophet SAW did establish a state and his successors did expand it and manage it. its a western idea because Christianity's teachings are incomplete. Islam's are not.
As for ibne rushd, and secularism, his thought spread in europe because of christianity's limitations. simple.
Finally, Iqbal shb, and the Quaid, werent scholars. Islam does not permit such a view. Islam demands its rules and laws to be implemented. The Quran explicitly states the following: "[And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters.", Surah Hajj, verse 41.
clear cut proof from the Quran, word of Allah Himself. Iqbal and Jinnah, both do not hold any weight whatsoever. and those arguing against that are simply denying the Quran. A muslim ruler is only good and worthy of reward if he established the word of Quran as law of land. otherwise not. The Quran could have simply stated about the reward of praying and fasting and zakah, if it allowed for a secular view, and not linked their establishment to authority. The Quran could have simply stated the virtues of amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar, instead of linking it to authority, if it permitted a secular view.
Now, the study of what amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar is a long chapter. suffice to say that the worse crime for which Allah says there is no forgiveness is shirk. the worse munkar. this does not allow for a secular view.
Do come out of the concept that Islam is about only love, singing qawwalis, dancing and sufism. it calls for war, it calls for punishment, it calls for establishing Allah's Deen and law as well.
what an idiotic, limited view that shows your ignorance. if they had gotten scared, they would not have established a religious seminary in face of british opposition. their ancestors took part in 1857 uprising against the british, and even after that, leading to frequent arrests and exiles to malta or rangoon. what have you done to rid pakistan of western influences? or are you inspired by them, and brainwashed by that very thought?Who were/are these ulema? Mainly from deoband and brelvi, both live in stone age evwn today,so howcome they were modernist? Each one have written books about how the other is a kafir. In subcontinent, the british used religion to divide and rule, especially after 1857 uprising. They got scared and thus helped create dwoband and then barelvi and aince that day, there have never been unity in muslims of subcontinent. Deoband still works for the international establishment through their proxy of Pakistan army. See the havoc they caused in Afghanistan.
and of course, please do provide proof that they have written more books about each other than other topics. proof is also needed for your last claim. the havoc caused in afghanistan is due to invasions and secular rebellions against established authority leading back to zahir shah. dont be an idiot.
Besides, it was these mullahs (mufti shafi usmani, allama shabbir usmani, molana zafar usmani) who broke away from JUH, formed JUI and lobbied for establishment of Pakistan. the referendum in KPK went in favor of pakistan due to JUI's campaigning. ML had virtually no foothold there.