The Pakistani Spectator

Shariah is the way as ‘code that guide as rituals’.

 

It is; the fundamental mean to ‘endure life and living’.

 

Shariah is the ‘code of law derived from the Qoran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed (SAWAW).’

 

It refers to the laws contained in or derived from the Qoran and the Sunnah (the practice and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) (SAWAW).

 

 

 It is the ‘legal framework of Islam that embodies all aspects of Islamic faith, including beliefs and practices.’

 

It is the ‘Islamic law as revealed in the Qoran and through the example of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and from other sources depending upon one’s Muslim sect.’

 

Though Shariah governs social behaviors, but does not set punishments for violation of social behaviors or for criminal behaviors.

 

When debate about a certain ‘code in Shariah’ occurs, this is called fiqah.

 

 

 Other books besides the Qur’an may be considered when determining law as jurisprudence.

 

After the death of Holy prophet (SAWAW) formal legislative laid down ‘indictment as laws’ became the necessity as requirement.

 

It was this requirement that procured as ‘reason to flail a reasonable plateau’ where successors may carry the task further towards the final destiny in near to come days till and as roz-e-hashr.

 

During the life of the Prophet (SAWAW) such requirement of shariah had ‘a unique presence of prophesy’ hence was relieved to the extent of originating thoughts as solution.

 

However! Immediately after the death of prophet (SAWAW); requirements as solution ‘rerouted surround that were around the prophet’.

 

It was here where unanimous solution could not make out ‘a resorted effective means as manners’ hence ultimate presentation of ‘versions as interpretation with pliable explanation under the intent of solution.’

 

This interpreted debate ‘roasted and procured’ different versions of interpretation therefore; to ‘appease the thirst for solution as ultimate practice’.

 

This initials desire to solidify the raising thoughts of populace molded the real theme in to ‘version of interpretation on the basis of variant phases as span that was spend as span with the prophet hence to endorse the real outcome as practice’.

 

It was here where different school of thoughts arose as vindication therefore to ‘verdict as fatwa or ijtihad in the name of means of interpretation’ thereof as ‘legal frame work of the people and for the people who were within the belief of particular sect as thought’.

 

Although ‘multiple palatable laws as essentiality remained the cordoned belief’ but ‘resilience over interpretation could not uphold the unanimous declaration under the principle of interpretation’ hence giving birth to ‘the pride as fiqah where modes and manners were delineated as per sect of sets of observation as law.’

 

This ‘mode as interpretation took the belief in different way of perceptions as interpretation’ hence; indulging discussion; within the slogan of variant practices, or in an easy vocabularies concept; variant from original as perspective visionary practices.

 

It was this ‘visionary belief of right practice’ that scolded and revolted fundamental basis of unity hence disembarking and litigating religion in to multiple units within the umbrella.

 

Although logically ‘such practices never and in any way dismantle religion as belief’ yet ‘the followers of variant tentacles indulged desire as righteous in to the controversy thereby putting conflict as claimer.’

 

Here comes the situation that now; ‘though claims have one base as Islam and sunnah’ yet faces of practices have ‘unique variant theme as fiqah’ or again in a controversial tone; different sects to the extent of ‘self righteous belief as claim’.

 

 It is an established fact that Pakistan was founded on the ideological assumption of state where Muslim may further ‘aspartame their practice as faith according to their desire as belief therefore; practice as per Shariah’.

 

The very same fact was further affiliated as understanding that; ‘variants sects as communities would continue to head their institutions’ in the very similar manner under unanimous rule of law as Islamic  peninsula of faith; hence would and shall not become the part as parcel in the contest of controversy as practice and with reference to their interpretation as Shariah.

 

 

This concept of belief was further elaborated thus enhancing the formula over existing facts of populace, (that do not belong to Muslim communities), thus awarding ‘equal rights as practices’ though ‘holding the concept of preach as compulsion’.

 

Although this hold of ‘right to preach religion’ is very illogical and rational too yet; ‘rules have prerogative that always resides within the management as orders, hence right to promulgate and reinforce’.

 

 

After almost multiple decades as years; if I put a glance scrutinizing this assumption of birth as notion, I have a reservation as revelation that direct towards a thought that ‘this idea of unanimous platform as ideology has been macerated to the extent of wrong prediction’.

 

This is because ‘dominance as majority always reacted hence, to topple and grip command over the recessive as minority’.

 

 Therefore; dispensing all available modes that may be put as pain thereby deliberately cordoning them; some times ‘in the name of ideology as religion and at other, in the name of Shariah.’

 

Present new controversy as promulgation of Shariah in swat and vicinity around, is again the same theme of deliberation as it has been and was; the all time habitual playfield of this nation and its so called clerics.

 

Once again ‘reservations among the recessive is at the verge of inquisition’ since seemingly ‘tradition explains that retaliations as impending outfit is ready to be worn again’.

 

Recent controversy as Shariah and Islamic ideology thereof to fulfill in the name of the desire of populace in swat; has again swept away the basic agreed fundamental principle of birth of this nation; therefore impressing this concept that ‘rule of law can only be gripped if at all weapons are put as means’.

 

Once again all time ‘handy issue of Shariah’ as law has been floated as idea to further bifurcate and disintegrate unanimous unity in the name of prestigious Islamic ideology.

 

What is Shariah?

 

How does it affect general rules of life and living?

 

What is the concept behind this foregoing discussion of law as Shariah?

 

Do this Shariah differ among different sects hence variant fiqah’s that exists; among Muslim as rule of law.

 

Can there be one unanimous slogan as Shariah among this all time litigated community as Muslim?

 

Although these questions are all time controversy among variant Muslims sect in Pakistan; yet this controversy as interpretation; was up to the limit scrutinized hence rectified therefore to reach a desirable unanimous law as Shariah-e- Muhammad in the light and visionary perspective of ideology of Pakistan.

 

This was! To acknowledge what may be the right and duly respected law within this nation as Islamic republic based on Islamic ideology.

 

However ‘same old theme of dominancy perverted the desire to rule the reign’ of this nation by exploiting the very same slogan that may put population in to embezzlement as anxiety of whether this slogan be retaliated or be owned since; ‘this is a one unanimous perception as reality among Muslim that; any thing that roots as questionnaire in the name of Islamic principle is always seconded as faith’.

 

It is because of this fact of ‘ill knowledge of religious practices, belief and similar pattern of Islamic law as injunctions’; people as populace revert and refer to religious cleric therefore to aware the ‘real interpreted concept of Islamic law as relief’ hence to console mind with peace which we are put as sometimes in variant opinion as fatwa.

 

It is this ‘fatwa that is based on the religious school of thought, from which this cleric as scholar belong,’ that therefore and in contravenes to the opinion ‘always opens debate as controversy or at least to its extent’.

 

It is because of this fact that a unanimous constitutional break as law was formulated keeping rules and laws as per ‘acceptable version of principles of Islam which different masses as communities can adhere as own’.

 

 

Muslims tend to use both the Qur’an and the Sunnah to determine laws.

 

 Some Muslims use only the Qoran for legal guidance.

 

Interpretation of Shariah and its importance comes down to numerical based basic groups of Islamic thought.

 

 Legal scholar L. Ali Khan explains that “the concept of shariah has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature.

 

For some Muslims, shariah consists of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

 

 For others, it also includes classical fiqah.

 

 Most encyclopedias define shariah as law based upon the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and classical fiqah derived from consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas).

 

This definition of shariah inappropriately lumps together the revealed with the unrevealed.

 

This blending of sources has created a muddled assumption that scholarly interpretations are as sacred and beyond revision as are the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

 

The Qur’an and the Sunnah constitute the immutable Basic Code, which should be kept separate from ever-evolving interpretive law (fiqah).

 

 This analytical separation between the Basic Code and fiqah is necessary to” dissipate confusion around the term Shariah.

 

The term means “way” or “path to the water source”;

 

There are basic presumptive or ordain roots of law

 

This division is based on assumption that whiles specifying the primary Islamic texts the Qur’an and the hadith; be understood according to objective rules of interpretation.

 

Prior and in the early era, a general agreement was reached, in the course of the formalization of Islam, as to the authority of these roots though different sects within the umbrella have tangential difference on these modes as means of interpretation.

 

 The Qur’an in its legislative segments;

 

 The example of the Prophet as related in the hadith;

 

 The consensus of the Muslims ijma

 

 Reasoning by analogy qiyas

 

A rational and analytical approach, based on the Qoran and on the teachings of the Sunnah, for interpreting religious matters. Ijtihad

 

These roots provide the means for the establishment of prescriptive codes of action and for the evaluation of individual and social behavior.

 

The basic scheme for all actions is a fivefold division into

 

Obligatory

 

Meritorious

 

Permissible

 

Reprehensible

 

Forbidden

Shariah is the system of civil law that is based upon the Qur’an and the Hadith and the work of Muslim scholars as clerics. 

Interpreting Shariah can cause dissension between Muslim sects and here comes the entry of variant sects of Islam on the basis and based interpretation as school of thought or Fiqah.

Fiqah is an expansion of the Shariah Islamic law—based directly on the Qoran and Sunnah.

This complements Shariah; with evolving rulings and interpretations of Islamic jurists.

Yet certain laws are always applicable.

Blasphemy, for example, is never permitted.

 Codes on dress, divorce, circumcision and dietary laws are all highly interpretive however.

Fiqah deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation.

 

Numerous schools of jurisprudence emerged in the course of Islamic history.

 

Few glittered schools coexist today within Islam are

 

Maliki

 

Hanafi

 

Shafii

 

Hanbali

 

 Jafari

 

While these schools of jurisprudence vary on certain rituals and practices, they are often perceived as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Shariah has been defined as

“Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral.

 This is the custom-based body of law based on the Koran and the religion of Islam.

Shariah is the body of Islamic religious law.

It is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on fiqh (Islamic principles of jurisprudence) and for Muslims living outside the domain.

In some religions, law can be thought of as the ordering principle of reality; knowledge as revealed by God defining and governing all human affairs.

Mainstream Islam distinguishes between fiqh (deep understanding, discernment), which refers to the inferences drawn by scholars, and shariah, which refers to the principles that lie behind the fiqh. Scholars hope that fiqh (jurisprudence) and shariah (law) are in harmony in any given case, but they cannot be sure

Shariah has certain laws which are regarded as divinely ordained, concrete and timeless for all relevant situations (for example, the ban against drinking liquor as an intoxicant). It also has certain laws which derived from principles established by Islamic lawyers

The primary sources of Islamic law are the Qur’an and Sunnah.

To this traditional Sunni Muslims add the consensus (ijma) of Muhammad’s companions (sahaba) and Islamic jurists (ulema) on certain issues, and drawing analogy from the essence of divine principles and preceding rulings (qiyas). In situations where no concrete rules exist under the sources, law scholars use qiyas — various forms of reasoning, including by analogy. The consensus of the community or people, public interest, and others are also accepted as secondary sources where the first four primary sources allow.

Shi’a Muslims reject this approach.

They strongly reject analogy (qiyas) as an easy way to innovations (bid’ah), and also reject consensus (ijma) as having any particular value in its own.

During the period that the Sunni scholars developed those two tools, the Shi’a Imams were alive, and Shi’a view them as an extension of the Sunnah, so they view themselves as only deriving their laws (fiqh) from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

A recurring theme in Shi’a jurisprudence is logic (mantiq), something Shi’a believe they mention, employ and value to a higher degree than Sunnis do.

 Sunnis do not view logic as a third source for laws, rather a way to see if the derived work is compatible with the Qur’an and Sunnah.

In Shi’a law, the sources of law are the Qur’an, anecdotes of Muhammad’s practices and those of the 12 Imams, and the intellect (aql).

Muslims believe that Shariah is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong; it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of Allah.

 Muslims see their religion and government being ordained by Allah.

 It is their conviction that Islam is intended to be the religion of all mankind.

 

Now coming to the theme of the article as far as system of justice in Islam is concerned there is a conditional requirement as necessity, in ideological concept as belief within Islam.

 

This is; a person as judge or one who is dispensing judgment must be congruent with; and believer of basics rule as religion.

 

This is not like that he must be a believer of God as one, only but he must have a belief that his god is “ADIL and prescribe “ADAL” only.( “one who dispense judgment ethically, and under authority of equality as rational hence under no compulsion or obligation in terms of nepotism, favor or liability”)

 

This is also the basic concept within judicature as ethics.

 

A controversial judge can not dispense judgment; since any reservation as to his morality, behavior, practices and ethical belief all squeeze discussion within the contest of unacceptability hence reservations.

 

Same rule of ethics applies to law of the land and religion and thereafter to variant communities as sects residing among the populace as religion and belief.

 

My point is ‘a Muslim in India can not be prescribed or awarded, divorce and similar Shariah issues on Indian penal code only as law of the land but as per Mohammedan law which is within the book of law of the land, and is definitely an approval by unanimous belief of scholars among as resident; though the same may the part of the IPC; while dealing Muslim personal law as per Shariah.

 

It means this difference of practices as community is always an ethical acceptance as belief for grant or dispensing “ADAL”.

 

Let me recall & recite you a real life observation.

 

“Once during a tribunal between two litigating sects of Muslims in Karachi was under session.

 

It was heading by full bench of high court with chief justice and two as members.

 

While representing and addressing as counsel of one community a logical conflict arose.

 

This was when witnessing inspector general of police; sindh on the dice for his statement, the I.G was objected by opponent tagging his statement as untrustworthy for being under the same belief of practice as community.

 

Defendant counsel objected the very same plea hence objecting the bench that; we are (Client) afraid that this bench shall not exhibit or dispense judgment since all three judges belongs to other practice of Islam hence in a potential controversy of “ADAL”.

 

The judges were annoyed with a little conflicting remark as rift, between the 4 people as conversation headed.

 

However this same question of validity as rose by opponent lawyer was over ruled by the judge as rejected and defendant statement was accorded as acceptance of witness as valid.

 

 

Under the rule as limelight no consensus has general agreement over the unanimous acceptance as interpretation hence litigating affairs of business and belief therefore practices as validity.

 

This inability to mix and match not only creates and embezzles unity but short circuit mind with the logic of electrocution explaining that difference in practices among variant existing sects disembark each other over every concept in controversy thereof explaining hazards as potential conflict.

 

At other perspective Taliban’s and similar siblings are known culprits as deviant who have macerated the real picture of Islam and, under no means prerogative as awarded by functionaries in lieu of this grant as Nizam-e-Adal is acceptable, ethically ,morally and legally.

 

My point is this Nizam-e-Adal as requested and floated as idea is under no means a legalized, unanimous approved law of the land and does not come under the act of “ADAL” hence a controversy which according to different perspective as real existence; consider as controversial.

Trackback URL