Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:45:41 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Islamic Law and Constitution


>Subject: Re: Islamic Law and Constitution
>From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
>Date: 9 Apr 92 18:44:56 GMT
>
>>In article <Udt6kiq00iQCQTCbpx@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
AKG:
>>>Just completed a read of Maulana Maudoodi's `Islamic Law
>>>and Constitution'.
>>>
>>>Only male adult Muslims would be allowed to vote or hold
>>>key policy making positions. Women and non-Muslims would be
>>>each in separate electorates. At best, they would sit in the
>>>same legislature, but the male Muslim legislators would have
>>>a veto power (i.e. - a majority of male Muslims could veto
>>>proposals made by the other two groups.)

SIH:
>I am not sure about the above. This may be Maudoodi's personal
>conception or interpretation. We reserved the right to
>argue and arrive at a consensus as to the interpretation of
>the bases on which he deduces the above. The above is what
>you have called the "dynamic nature" of Islam as given
>in the last paras.

AKG:

Of course, I'm not talking about anything other than what
Maudoodi has written.

Maudoodi quotes a hadith from Bukhari to the effect that
the Prophet said that any state that entrusts its affairs to
women will be in trouble.
I did not give the argument by which Maudoodi justifies each
feature of the Islamic Constitution that he builds. I refer
people to the book for that.

>>>
>>>The power of executive and legislature would be restricted --
>>>no laws contrary to the explicit provisions of the Qu'ran
>>>and the Sunnah would be allowed. Moreover in all other areas
>>>the spirit of the Shariah must be followed.

SIH:
>This is the fundamental meaning and interpretation
>of "belief in Allah" and "belief in Mohaammad as Messanger"
>La illaha ill allah mohammad-ur-rasullullah

AKG:
>>>The fundamental rights as we understand them in America would
>>>be present, with certain restrictions. The Shariah being an
>>>all encompassing code - covering the legal, political, social
>>>and family etc. aspects of life - there would be no area of
>>>`private' rights. The state would be directed to get rid of
>>>vice, pornography, lewd books etc., as well as co-education
>>>etc.

SIH:

>This is actually the meaning of "there is no god but Allah"
>(tauhid) in today's world. No one else can adjudicate in matters
>already decided for us by Allah.

AKG:
>>>
>>>The state would be a welfare state -- it must guarantee the
>>>basic necessities of life to all its citizens.
>>>
>>>The state is an ideological one -- in the sense that full
>>>rights belong to males who believe in the state ideology -
>>>Islam, but it is a territorial one, in which the state's
>>>vbligation to obey international treaties and agreements
>>>with other (even non-Muslim) countries outweighs any
>>>responsibility or obligation to Muslims living outside
>>>its borders. The state must however accept these, should
>>>they choose to immigrate.

SIH:

>The word "male" is uncalled for. Was it placed intentionally
>or unintentionally?

AKG:

The word "male" is very much called for, and was placed intentionally.
Muslim women, in Maudoodi's state do not enjoy comparable political
rights as Muslim men. They may not be given the vote, or if they are
given the vote, its for an all-women legislature that has advisory
function only. (I made a slight mistake in the previous post --
minorities may sit in the main legislature with Muslim legislaturers--
but do not enjoy the same legislative power. Alternatively they sit
in another legislature, like the women.)

>
>>>The non-Muslims have mostly the same civil rights as
>>>Muslims. They would be ruled by their own personal law,
>>>though in matters relating to Muslims and non-Muslims,
>>>the Muslim law will hold. They have freedom of religion
>>>except that they may build no more places of worship in
>>>Muslim majority localities, though they may maintain the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>ancient ones; and non-Muslims can freely change their
>>>religions to other non-Muslim religions or Islam, but
>>>no conversions away from Islam are allowed.
>

SIH:

>You got some thing wrong here. It only refers to "new" cities
>which Muslims specifically "build" for themselves. Not
>refers to cities where Muslim and Non-Muslims have been
>"already" living togather. I am sure the injunction is
>they cannot build (public) places of worships. It is
>not applicable to their personal residences.

AKG:

I'll check. Of course, I'm only talking of public places of
worship. There are no laws regulating worship at home.


>>>Non-Muslims may not join the army, may not occupy policy
>>>making positions, must pay a jaziyah tax.

SIH:
>They can not join the army, because defending the country
>is defending the "ideology" (state being ideological not
>territorial). Does any one think that it is logical to
>ask any one to defend an "ideology" on which he doesnot
>believe? Because, defense of the country is only the obligation
>of Muslims, it is perfectly judicial to ask the Muslims
>to pay for the "protection" which is a natural outcome
>of such defense.

AKG:

It may not be relevant anymore to wars today -- but defense
of one's country (used to mean) = defence of one's home and family --
which is more basic than ANY ideology. It is a restriction on
people not to let them contribute their blood and life to the
defence of the country. It makes them less than full citizens.

>>>
>>>So, the system of govt. espoused by the Maulana is a mixture
>>>of some very liberal and some very illiberal (by most standards -
>>>e.g. the political status of women) ideas.

SIH:

>The negative and the positve connotations of "liberal"
>and "illiberal" are stereotypical, without foundation,
>and out of context and are the personal opinion
>of the person posting this.

AKG:

When I review a book, I present MY opinion. I thought that that
was clear. It certainly is not out of context; it certainly is
my personal opinion --  why would I bother to write otherwise ?

Secondly, even today's Pakistan gives women the vote and the right
to aspire to Head of State etc. There are very few countries that
do not give women that right. That is why I said
"illiberal (by most standards) ".

Also implicit in that statement is `most' which is not equal to
`all'.
>

>>>I should mention that the Maulana says that for
>>>150-200 years the natural evolution of Muslim
>>>thought has been stunted. However, everything is
>>>well documented,and today's Muslims can restart
>>>from where the interruption took place. The Maulana
>>>envisions an intense period of activity to catch up
>>>with the modern world and make up for the two lost
>>>centuries. In this sense, his is not a static ideology:
>>>if I understand correctly, the Sharia would be recodified.

SIH:

>Would you please read my posting
>on "burqa and women: Analysis of discussion" in response
>to Mr. Gopal Agrawal's thought experiment. You will
>find an interesting insight to this "static" vs.
>"dynamic" aspect of Islam.
>This will also neatly tie in with the "bad arguments:
>Inadequacy of pure-reason" debate with Mr. Nadeem.

Yes, the Maulana also gives a very similar analysis. I think
the main difference is in what the different scholars consider
to be immutable and above debate. I think I have been fairly
accurate in presenting what that one book says of Maudoodi's
thoughts on that matter.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu