From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islamic Law and Constitution
Date: 9 Apr 1992 13:44:56 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <Udt6kiq00iQCQTCbpx@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>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.)

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.

>
>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.

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


>
>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.

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. 

>
>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.

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

>
>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.
>

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.


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

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.

>
>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.

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.

>
>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.

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.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan