A Secular State And 5 Punishments Of Quran
Walaikum Assalam, Secularism is a broad term, which literally means, the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion. In constitution or law, it mainly refers to ‘ laicism ‘, which strongly prohibits any involvement of religion in state, and separate religious matters from state, though the secularism adopted by India is a bit different, it involves religious matters to be discussed. But, still it does not involve any religious source to the constitution. The Shariah penalties are prescribed by God, in our religion. So, it is not possible for a state to call itself secular if it is adopting the laws prescribed by God. For example, if a state is calling itself secular, then it will not prescribe any penalty for practicing black magic, which is the deadliest harm for society. There is no need to adopt secularism, Islamic values completely have the modern freedom. including, democracy (Suratul Shura, verse 38). Please watch this video in which Ustad-e-Mohtaram Janab Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Sahab (hafiza allah) is telling that he supports certain points of secularism. Because of them being in line with Islamic values. https://youtu.be/-bfbrdGBuhU?si=d_fxqWLuahGj9TeA
Jazak Allah for your reply. I listened to this video as well as a portion from the complete longer version. I can see that Ghamidi Saheb’s approach is in many ways in line with secularism but when it comes to application of 4 domains of shairah related to state (leading Jummah, Zakat collection, 5 criminal laws of Quran, and Jihad), he differs from it. That is exactly my concern. I am very much inclined to the ideology of socialism. I believe, and as per what I could get from the complete version of the lecture, the Muslim majority state can be non religious (not anti religious), but the Muslim leader and party has to adopt policies that make sure the above following 4 stately domain. In the early Soviet union, such a religious system under a non religious socialist Soviet state was starting to evolve. Please read the following excerpt: “Sharia law had been a central demand of Muslims during the February Revolution of 1917 and, as the civil war drew to a close in 1920-1921, a parallel court system was created in Central Asia and the Caucasus, with Islamic courts administering justice in accordance with sharia law side by side with Soviet legal institutions. The aim was for people to have a choice between religious and revolutionary justice. A Sharia Commission was established in the Soviet Commissariat of Justice to oversee the system. In 1921 a series of commissions were attached to regional units of the Soviet administration with the purpose of adapting the Russian legal code to the conditions of Central Asia, allowing for compromise between the two systems on questions such as under-age marriage and polygamy. Some sharia sentences, such as stoning or cutting hands off, were outlawed. Decisions of the sharia courts that concerned these matters had to be confirmed by higher organs of justice. Some sharia courts flouted the Soviet law, refusing to award divorces upon the petition of a wife, or equating the testimony of two women to that of one man. So in December 1922 a decree introduced retrials in Soviet courts if requested by one of the parties. All the same, 30 to 50 percent of court cases were resolved by sharia courts, and in Chechnya the figure was as high as 80 percent. Moreover, the influence was not all one way: there were instances in which Soviet officials were swayed by sharia law, convicting men for drinking alcohol or entering a house with an unveiled woman.” For a broader context, here is the complete article: https://isj.org.uk/the-bolsheviks-and-islam/ Now I know that the above mentioned legal setting isn’t ideal to what we would want as a Muslim, but it does point out towards the possibility of a setting that I started my discussion with.