It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sharia is back in Pakistan

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:29 PM

Pakistan is to impose Islamic law in a vast region of the north-west called Malakand in an attempt to placate extremists, even as President Asif Zardari warns that they are "trying to take over the state".

Critics warned that the new sharia regulations represented a capitulation to the extremists' demands, and that it would be difficult to stop hardliners elsewhere in the country from demanding that their areas also come under Islamic law. "This is definitely a surrender," said Khadim Hussain of the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy, a thinktank in Islamabad. "If you keep treating a community as something different from the rest of the country, it will isolate them."

Is the price of stability worth the cost of Islamic law? Is Pakistan loosing its secular stability? What could this mean for the rest of us living in the West? What does this mean for the future generation of that area?

I want to get all ranges of opinions about this current situation

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:32 PM
Doesn't Canada let Muslims live under Sharia law? I can see France and England following suit. Possibly Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Never in the US... well, maybe in Michigan.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Founding

Originally posted by Founding
Is Pakistan loosing its secular stability? What could this mean for the rest of us living in the West? What does this mean for the future generation of that area?

Pakistan hasn't been secular since 1979, and they already have 1 generation grow up in that atmosphere. The major trouble I've always had with 'sharia' is that it isn't really islamic (as defined by the Quran and Hadith)- it came many centuries later. So every community has its own version of it, some of which don't really line up.

There has been a fairly absurd form of it in Pakistan for decades now, famously known as the Hudood ordinance. One example: where rape is treated as adultery (where there is no such ruling in Islamic law), so if a woman cannot provide 4 male (another addition that is not present in Islamic law) witnesses, she is convicted of adultery, while the accused goes scott-free.

The Taliban in Afghanistan had a rather extreme version of it (which is probably what the militants want implemented in Northwest Pakistan), which so far exceeded anything Islam ever needed, that in some cases it went against Islam- where you could be jailed if your beard wasn't a certain length, where the 'religious police' had the right to invade the privacy of your home and look around if you had anything (they deemed to be) wrong lying around, etc.

People want to be married in accordance to their beliefs, it isn't really a problem. People wanting to divorce in accordance to their beliefs isn't a problem. People willing their property in accordance to their beliefs isn't a problem. Heck, even if a people (in a proper legal and democratic manner) support the passing of a certain law, it isn't a problem.
Catering to the extremist views of a small group of people who want to bully the majority into their ways, is certainly a problem.

While I dislike the advocating of blanket violence, what is the purpose of agreeing to their demands in exchange for peace? If peace was all that was required, the whole country might as well have accepted the militant's version of sharia. But then the whole country would have taken on the characteristics of their enemy, which was probably the very reason they were being fought in the first place.

Anyhow, I realise I'm offering a very simplistic view of things. At the moment Pakistan probably has a whole myriad of problems that are several layers deep. These extremists are only one facet of it.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by babloyi]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Founding

Although my English is not good enough for you, let me say,
Do no Worry.
Pakistan is not secular in the sense you imagine. Many "terrorist" trained and are training there.
Osama is probably there.
Most Talibans flew to Pakistan after US invaded Afghanistan.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by babloyi

Thank you for your input. I think the general consensus is that appeasement does not lead to a long lasting peace for all.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:33 PM

I wonder how that cease-fire is holding up ?

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:40 PM
I wanted to quote from the article....this is proof of stupidity of fundamental Islam and its adherents.

A Pakistani television journalist covering a peace mission by a pro-Taliban cleric has been killed in the restive north-western Swat valley.

"Musa Khan Khel was shot dead by unknown gunmen near Matta town," local police official Khaista Khan said.

He said the journalist - working for Pakistan's private Geo TV - was shot in the head and was declared dead on arrival at hospital.

Mr Khan said he had no further details, but added that investigators were going to the scene.

new topics

top topics


log in