Iran Politics Club        
Website For Thinking Iranians
Back to index   Islamic Law and India  

Islamic Law and India
Anwar Shaikh
Republished: February 23, 2008

Banner of the Islamic Tolerance!

One of man’s greatest desires is to avoid molestation by others. From this fact arose the maxim "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself."

It is usually true that if you do not wrong others, they will not injure you, but there is no guarantee for its happening because some people will be hurtful to you, no matter, how helpful you may have been to them. Therefore, protection of life, property and happiness cannot be left to morality as the sole regulator of our conduct. We need the discipline of law to check our behavior.

What is law?

In view of what I have lust said, I may add that the law is a set of rules designed to promote right conduct through a system of reward and punishment operated by the central authority usually called the State,' which is fully responsible to protect its citizens by maintaining order within its jurisdiction.

Here the word: bordered describes the true meaning of law because the rules which fail to assure order become the source of anarchy, highly injurious to public interest. Thus law is order, and order is law.

That law is order, and order is law, is the truth that was first revealed by the Vedic seers. Through observations of the moon and stars, changing seasons, phenomena of day and night, and above all, realization of the fact that the universe is in motion all the time, they came to the conclusion that the jagat is controlled

by the law which is eternal. They were convinced of this truth so strongly that the Rigveda mentions it over one hundred and fifty times without contradicting it anywhere. For example, the Rigveda states in book one, hymn one, verse 8:

"Mitra and Varuna, through Law, lovers and cherishers of Law Have ye obtained your mighty power."

God Mitra is believed to preside over day and God Varuna over night. As life is usually measured in terms of day and night, a close connection is believed to exist between these two gods, and therefore, they are invoked together.

This Vedic verse clearly states:

a. The Law is binding on Gods,
b. Like Mitra and Varuna, they all not only obey the Law but do so very willingly because they love and Cherish it, and
c. They obtain their mighty powers by obeying the cosmic law.

Again in Book IV, hymn XLII, verse: IV, it is stated that this universe is the Seat of Order through operation of law and everything is obeying it in its allotted sphere of function.
The 5th book, hymn one, verse seven, makes it clear that the Law which creates the Cosmic Order is eternal: it has always existed and it will always be there.

As it is the Rigveda, which pointed to the Cosmic Law first, I feel aggrieved to note that all the ancient wisdom that the Vedic seers discovered has been attributed to other nations. The discovery of the Natural Law is credited to the Stoics of Greece who existed circa 300 BC whereas the Rigveda was composed at least 3500 years BC if not earlier. This is the price of political weakness, and the Hindus have still not stopped paying for it. Until they learn to be strong, the erosion of their cultural greatness will not only continue but is likely to accelerate its pace.

Why is the Hindu culture great? Because it is originally based on freedom of thought and scientific observations. Let me explain it with reference to the modern discoveries which back the Vedic view of the law:

To understand what I am about to say, it ought to be understood that natural law is a determined quantity which produces definite result. For example, two plus two equal four, and not three and three quarters. Similarly, two minus two comes to zero. These are the exact results, making exactitude the essence of the Natural Law, without which the Cosmic Order cannot be maintained.

The state law known as the positive law (which is in contrast with the law that ought to be) does not always work efficiently because there are too many middlemen such as interpreters and enforcers. These people lack the natural harmony to apply it with equal zeal. Thus the model for positive law remains the *Natural Law, which is exact and strictly neutral in accordance with the Vedic legal approach.

(* Cosmic Law is the supreme example of Natural Law, which is believed to be the system or justice common to all mankind.)

I may describe a couple of scientific discoveries to explain the point:

a. The universe is claimed to have been expanding for the last fifteen billion years. The precision in the rate of expansion is absolutely stunning. Scientists claim that one second after the Big Bang, if the rate of expansion had varied by one part in a hundred thousand million, the universe could not have evolved! This may be termed as the Law of evolution, which means development.

b. Electric charges, which are opposite to each other, have got to be exactly equal in numbers. To realize the vastness of the opposite charges in the universe, just take one gram of hydrogen, which contains about 600 billion trillion protons and exactly the same number of electrons. A proton has a positive charge and an electron has a negative charge. If an ounce of ordinary matter suffered as little as one percent difference in the numbers of its positive and negative charges, the said ounce of matter would explode with a force equal to the entire weight of the earth.

From the above discussion, the following emerge as the salient features of law:

1. Socially, the law is the supreme force in every land. Owing to the ever-changing needs of the country, it is made and enforced by the state.

2. It applies to both low and high with equal intensity. It must be neutral in make-up and application. The law must not suffer from any kind of bias.

3. The purpose of the law is to regulate social relationships between individuals and society through a system of reward and punishment. Thus law is a binding force which seeks to create social order.

4. The social order is best preserved if the law is uniform and the same rules apply to all citizens without any reference to color, creed and religion. Thus, built-in differentiation in the making and application of law defeats its purpose, that is, promotion of social order

5. Barring emergency, which is rare, law is a social affair, that's, law concerns the entire society and cannot revolve around one person.

When we apply these rules to what is called "Islamic Law"; it appears so primitive that it does not qualify as the law at all. Let us take the issue of legal supremacy. While the Veda and all advanced countries hold the law as the source of power and order, the Koran contradicts it. For example, it states: "Allah is able to do anything He likes." (The Cow: 106)

Again, it says: "Sovereignty belongs to Allah." (The Family of Imran: 26)

This theme recurs throughout the Koran. As it contradicts the Veda, which holds that the Law is eternal and even the gods obey it, we are entitled to examine the Koranic claim to see if Allah can really make or change the Natural Law which holds this cosmos together. Honesty demands that I must not make up statements about Allah but quote from the Koran to establish what Allah really is. Just ponder over the following verses to see what the Koran says about Allah who claims to be the Creator and Master of the universe.

In verse 18 of Jonah, the Koran says that all praise is due to Allah the Most High, and then in verse 21 adds:

1. "Allah is more swift in pretending than humans."

2. In Repentance: 29, Allah resorts to swearing: The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell.

3. The hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is Allah who beguiles them. (Women: 142)

4. The unbelievers schemed against Allah, and Allah schemed against them; and Allah is the best schemer. (The Family of Imran: 54)

5. Allah seeks loan from the believers and promises to return it ten-fold, or twice the amount borrowed. (The Cow: 245 - The Iron 11)

6. On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. (The Cow: 161)

7. Allah complains that most people do not thank Him. (The Cow: 243 - The Heights: 165 - Jonah: 60)

8. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (The Cow: 98)

9. Allah mocks the unbelievers (The Cow: 15)

10. Allah is afraid of being reviled at. (The Cattle: 109)

11. The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe. (Spoils of War: 55)

12. Allah swears by His name. (The Bee: 63)

13. Allah plots against unbelievers. (The Morning Star: 15)

14. Allah takes revenge. (The Romans: 47)

15. Unbelievers are the enemies of Allah, and they will roast in hell (Fusilat: 19)

16. In "Saba: 1", Allah claims that everything in the universe belongs to Him, but in "Mohammed: 7," He says:

"O ye who believe! If ye help Allah, He will help you and make your foothold firm."

Making a Claim is one thing but proving it is quite another. From the above Koranic quotations it IS quite clear that Allah lacks consistency in Himself; neither He is All-powerful, nor are His laws impartial to all human-beings. He is the champion of the Muslims and dreadful enemy of those who do not believe in Him. In fact, He is a man pretending to be the Almighty Creator and claiming to be the law-giver who is above law.

It is obvious who this man is. Therefore I need not go into details here, and explain the Islamic Lawn with reference to the previously mentioned rule: 5, which states that law concerns the entire society and cannot revolve around one person.

When we apply this test to judge the validity of the Islamic Law", it fails to qualify as law because it is founded on the personal needs of Mohammed. Though stunning this claim may sound, false it is not.

Why is Islamic Law personal to Mohammed? It is because the Koran lays it down for all times that Mohammed is the Behavioral Model for the believers under all circumstances:

"You have a good example in God's Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day." (The Confederates: 20)

It means, those who hope for salvation and want to enter paradise, must treat Mohammed as the Model of Action. This is the reason that Muslims all over the world think it a duty to walk, talk, eat, drink and even think like Mohammed. In fact, whatever Mohammed said and did, has become the Islamic way of life, and ranks as the Islamic Law for his followers, and those who do not accept it as such, are sure to rot in hell. Those who obey it, not only get a preferential treatment in an Islamic state during their life-time, but will have plenty of beautiful women and pretty boys in the next world, which is a major defect and cannot be approved by the jurisprudential rules.

Now, I may quote some examples to show why the so-called Islamic Law revolves around the personal convenience of Mohammed, and thus disqualifies itself as law:

1. ".....marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one..." (Women: 1)

It means that the Koran allows a believer to have up to four wives at the same time.

It is universally accepted that the laws of a law-giver are binding on himself and this is especially true about Mohammed, who claimed to have been made the Model of Behavior by Allah. The hadith-books testify to the fact that he had at least nine wives at the same time is it not a Violation of the laws of God? What is even mere surprising is that Allah does not show His disapproval of Mohammed's transgression of the Divine Law!

There is one further point which ought to he remembered those Arabs who had more than four wives were ordered by the Prophet to divorce their extra wives for limiting the number to four. For example, Ghilan Bin Salam had ten wives before embracing Islam. He had to divorce six wives and keep four. (Ibn-e-Majah, vol. 1, Ch. 628 p. 545)

a. In the said verse, it is made abundantly clear that a Muslim can have up to four wives at the same time provided he treats them all equally; if he cannot, then he must have only one wife.

As it happened, the Prophet himself could not treat all his wives equitably; it led to a terrible friction in his household. Allah himself frightened them with double punishment if they did net stop aggravating him; He even tried the remedy of increasing their reward if they surrendered to him yet they kept demanding their right of equity. For subduing them, the Prophet even threatened to divorce them. Eventually, Allah gave the Prophet dispensation from this law:

"You can suspend any of your wives as you will and receive any one of them as you will and whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you ......" (The Confederates: 50)

To observe the Law of Equity, the Prophet had fixed a certain night for each of his wives to be with her on a rota system. This verse gave hint dispensation from the Law of Equity stating that he could treat his wives the way he thought fit!

Fancy God giving dispensation from His own laws to a man who is the Behavioral Model! It is unthinkable, and it is especially so when there is no good reason involved in it except the personal Convenience of Mohammed.

2. Here is the decisive proof to show that the so-called family laws were designed for the convenience of Mohammed. Allah, who is supposed to be God of entire mankind, could not have ignored the needs of them just to please Mohammed. Just look at the following: "And any woman believer, if she gave herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet desires to take her in marriage, for thee exclusively, apart from the believers." (The Confederates: 45)

For understanding this verse, the reader ought to know that it is addressed by Allah to the Prophet Mohammed. Allah makes it abundantly clear that this particular law exclusively applies to Mohammed, and other Muslims are not allowed its benefits. And the law as stated in this verse is, that any believing woman can offer herself to Mohammed in marriage, and if he desires, he can have her as a wife irrespective of the number of wives he already has!

This type of law-making, which is exclusive to one person, is not known in the civilized world. Of course, despots have been above the laws but despotism is an antithesis of legality. Law is not law unless it applies to all and sundry with equal force.

3. Here is another instance which shows the personal nature of the Islamic Law:

According to the rota system that the Prophet had fixed as a rule fog spending certain nights with his spouses, he should have been with his wife called Hafza (the daughter of Umar), who to her utter amazement found him in bed with Marya his beautiful Coptic concubine, who became the mother of his son Ibrahim. Hafza was a hot-tempered woman. Seeing what was happening, she shouted: "In my room, on my day and in my bed!"

This Incident seemed less than honorable to Hafza. The Prophet realizing the delicacy of tile matter wanted her to keep quiet about the matter. In an attempt to appease her he promised her never to visit Marya again. This amounted to an oath, which should have been kept by the Prophet. But what happened is stunning. Allah sent down the following verse to absolve the Prophet from his oath:

"O Prophet why forbiddest thou what God has made lawful to thee seeking the good pleasure of thy wives...... God has Ordained for you the absolution of your oath, God is your protector..." (The Forbidding: 1)

4. Here is another case which is personal to Mohammed but ranks as the family law to the entire Muslim world.

After defeating Banu Mustalique, as Mohammed resumed the return journey, Aisha, his youngest wife lost the way while searching for her necklace. A young soldier, Safwan b. Mu'Attal Sulami Zakwani recognized her and gave her a lift back home. Though it was an innocent journey, the Prophet's enemies created a nasty scandal out of it, subjecting him and Aisha to a great deal of distress.

Though Aisha was faultless, Allah found it necessary to devise an impossible law of evidence to protect the Prophet and punish the accusers. See for yourself: "And these who cast it up on women in wedlock and then bring not four witnesses, scourge them with eighty stripes and do not accept any testimony of theirs ever.." (Light: 1-4)

This law pertains to fornication and rape. To prove that such an act has taken place. the calumniator must produce four eye- witnesses to this effect. If he does not, he is liable to receive eighty lashes. In the case of Aisha, both Mistah (a relative of Abu Bakr) and Hamma (Zainab's sister) suffered this punishment.

As a result of this law, a raped woman has to produce tour eye- witnesses to the act, which is more or less an impossibility. Its devastating effect can be clearly seen in Pakistan where several thousand good, honest women are imprisoned for suffering rape. When they report their cases to the police, they are required to produce four eye-witnesses. As they cannot do so, they are held as false accusers, and put behind the bars.

5. I may also quote the case of Zainab and Zaid to show that whatever is considered the "Islamic Law" is personal to Muhammad's life and has been stretched around his followers as the family law of Islam.

Zaid was the slave of Mohammed who adopted him as a son publicly and declared that he should be called Zaid bin Mohammed i.e. Zaid son of Mohammed. As he grew up the Prophet arranged his marriage with his own cousin, Zainab.

The Koran says: "O believers, do not enter houses other than your houses until you first ask leave and salute the people thereof." (Light: 25)

One day the prophet entered their house uninvited. It created a desire in his heart to have her. There is no room for details in this article. Zaid, the adopted son of the Prophet divorced Zainab so that she could marry him. To establish that there is no such thing as adopted children. Islam does not admit the concept of adoption though it has been a legal doctrine of the Civilized world since time immemorial.

This discussion of the "Islamic Law" though short, is penetrating enough to fathom its reality and establish that what is called Islamic Law cannot qualify as a legal code because it revolves around the personality and Convenience of one person, namely, the Prophet Mohammed whereas concept of law applies to a whole community and its basic tenets hold good internationally.

There are yet another two reasons which disqualify the "Islamic Law" as an acceptable code of practice:

1. Divine dominance at the expense of human dignity and need.
2. Islamic contempt of human rights and gross hatred of non- Muslims culminating in their total destruction.

Let us Consider point one first i.e. Divine dominance:

a. "Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and in the earth. He is the Mighty, the Wise." (The Romans: 26)
b. In the "Family of Imran" 26, the Koran says: "Say: O Allah! Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt, in Thy hand is the good. Lo! Thou art able to do all things."

The above two verses establish beyond a shadow of doubt that:

1. Whatever is in the universe (including man) is the property of Allah who is the Real sovereign.
2. Giving or taking away authority and honor are the functions of Allah.

As Allah is the true Ruler, He does not allow man to make his own laws to become self-governing. We know that every Country has a Legislative Assembly, which makes and unmakes the law. It is because life is subject to change and varying conditions require adjustments to make living easier and profitable. But Allah does not allow man to make his own law because it erodes His Sovereignty!

Is it really the Will of Allah? I doubt it because man is equipped with the power of free will, which enables him to think and act as he desires. After creating man as a lover of freedom. Allah cannot deprive him of the freedom to make law, which is the foundation of humanity. This is especially true because Allah) hosts man responsible for his actions. The Islamic concept of hell-and-heaven proves this fact.

It reminds me of the Jewish history. The Jews were very badly treated in Egypt by the pharaohs. As they were brought out of Egypt by Moses, he propounded a legal system founded on allegiance to Yahwe (God) who was the real Sovereign. Since Jewish Law was proclaimed as of divine origin, and hence most righteous man was required to obey it absolutely. This is exactly the legal tradition, which the Prophet Mohammed copied from the Israelite. This is how he laid foundation of the Islamic theocracy which is fundamentally opposed to democracy, requiring man to make his laws to govern himself instead of hankering after the outdated laws which were cleverly declared as of Divine origin centuries earlier. Thus the "Islamic Law" being theocratic in nature does not suit the purpose of a democratic and progressive government.

Now, I may discuss the second reason i.e. Islamic contempt for human rights and hatred for non-Muslims:

Man is born free trout Islam does not acknowledge the human right to freedom. The Muslim jurists have laid it down that if a person who was born as a Muslim gives up Islam, he must be executed. They hold this opinion on the ground that the renegade (the person who gave up the faith) had a covenant with Allah to follow His religion.

What a crazy argument it is! Nobody has any control over his parentage. As a general rule, he adopts his parents' faith without ever asking for it. He IS a Hindu, Muslim or Christian by the sheer accident of birth and not as a covenant with God. If we accept this pretext then it follows that only the Muslim babies had made such an agreement with Allah, and the non-Muslims did not. The Allah who is so fussy about followers, must make similar stipulations with other babies as well. why doesn't He? Again, how can Allah make such contracts with the people who are not even born as yet?

It is just a ruse of the theocrats to fool people to rule them by usurping their liberties. It amounts to gross contempt of human rights. The God who does not allow man to choose his faith, is the worst type of dictator and dreadful enemy of mankind.

Even worse is the Islamic attitude towards the non-Muslims. It is outrightly based on their hatred and destruction. This is what makes the Islamic Law an anathema for a multi-cultural or multi- religious society. I may quote some points to elucidate this point.

1. The Prophet Mohammed declared that, as Islam is the religion for entire mankind, all other faiths including Judaism and Christianity have been rescinded by God. This declaration has been made in chapter LXXI of Sahih Muslim, and the hadith no. 285 asserts that any Jew or Christian who hears of Mohammed but does not believe in him, shall become "one of the denizens of hell- fire."

2. Though there are one or two verses in the Koran, which forbid violence in religious matters, they are an exception, and contradict the general principle of Islam which liberally sanctions bloodshed and brutality for securing prevalence of the Islamic dogma. See for yourself:

a. Muslims are the best of all nations (House of Imran: 110). Thus they are superior people, entitled to dominate the rest of mankind.
b. This point is further explained by "Private Apartments: 28", which states that the prophet Mohammed has been sent by God with "The religion of truth that he may cause it to prevail over all religions."

This is why Islam calls itself "Din-E-Ghalib", the religion of dominance.
With this Islamic theory and purpose in mind, one should read the following Koranic verses which perpetually set the Muslims against the non-Muslims to make this world a living arena of hatred and war.

1. "O ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you." (Repentance: 123)

2. "Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute" (Repentance: 29)

3. "O believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief (i.e. non-Islam to Islam); whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil- doers." (Repentance: 20)

4. "Certainly, Allah is an enemy to the unbelievers." The Cow: 90)

5. "God has cursed tile unbelievers and prepared for them a blazing hell." (The Confederates: 60)

6. "O believers, do not make friends with the Jews and Christians who so of you makes them his friend is one of them." (The Table: 55)

7. "Muslims are hard against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." (Victory: 25)

8. "The believers (Muslims) indeed are brothers." (Apartments: 10)

Since it is one of the major duties of the state to create harmony among its people, it cannot enforce laws, which seek to create detestation, disharmony and destruction.
One wonders if the people who believe in Islamic Law, can ever form a part of the Indian society, or even wish it well. Among the major functions of the state are:

a. Protection of the weak against the strong, and b. Maximization of individual liberties.

aa. This is especially true with reference to a democratic state like India where an individual's will decides the form of government, its policies and actions.

Even if one assumes that Islam is a code of practice, being medieval in spirit, it has no relevance to the modern age where women have attained social parity with men. Islam does not acknowledge this fact, and treats woman as a slave who is required to follow man's will, and if she does not, he is empowered to give her a jolly good hiding but must not break her bones:

"And those (women) you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they obey you, look not for any way against them " (Women: 35)

The Muslim men were pleased with this privilege and they Certainly made a generous use of it. The hadith Ibn-E-Majah (vol. 2 p 553) states that "as a result, seventy women during one evening gathered at the residence of the Prophet to complain ruefully against their husbands, who they thought, were not good people."

The Indian state by allowing Islamic Law will fail in its duty to protect Muslim women from the tyrannical powers which Islam bestows on their men as a religious right.

b. From feminine point of view, the Koranic command to observe purdah (mask) is even more ruinous. It gives her the status of a "bird-in-a-cage," depriving her of human status. This fact becomes evident by looking upon any Muslim household in the Indian community. The draped windows and door of a house tell the story of women incarcerated behind the curtained walls.

The Koran treats woman as a born-prisoner. See for yourself: "And say to the believing woman, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husband" (Light: 30)

Again: "O Prophet. say to the wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them." (The Confederates: 434)

The Koran goes even further and stops women from participating in public life altogether: "And stay in your houses." (The Clan: 33)

This is the reason that the world of Islam has produced no great woman over the last 1400 years. The rise of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Khalida Zia in Bangladesh and Tansu Cillar in Turkey is therefore, a revolt against Islam because it defies its fundamental principles. How can a secular democracy allow the introduction of so-called Muslim family law?

Never mind India, which to Muslims is the land of Kafirs, the Islamic Law has failed to flourish even in countries traditionally associated with Islam since its inception. Let me quote two countries - Syria and Tunisia.

Regarding polygamy, the classical jurists believed that if a Muslim husband had financial ability to provide for four wives simultaneously, he could do so without requiring anybody's consent, they stressed that it was a matter for the husband's conscience. And they were certainly right. But the modern Syrian reformers realizing the evils of polygamy concluded that it was not a matter for the husband's conscience but a positive legal condition before one could register second marriage. The man must seek permission of the court before he can indulge in such an action. It is certainly violation of the law as stated in the Koran.

The Tunisian Law went even further. It held that in addition to husbands financial ability to support a polygamous household, he must also demonstrate that he was capable of fulfilling the Koranic command of impartiality, which requires of him to be equitable to all his wives. It held that such a state of affair could not be maintained under modern social and economic conditions, polygamy was abolished legally. Yet the Muslims believe that the Koranic laws are eternal!

Again, a Muslim husband is authorized by the Koran to divorce his wife at will. The reason for repudiation can be very flimsy indeed. For example, a hadith says that if a man does not like his daughter-in-law, and tells his son to divorce her without giving a reason for it he must do so (Tirmzi vol. 1, p 440).

Man's absolute discretion to divorce his wife is a fundamental principle of the Islamic family law, yet we find that the Tunisian law forbids man to exercise this right and declares: "divorce outside a court of law is without legal effect."

I think that I have given sufficiently detailed description of the Islamic Law to show that it lacks substantives and is like fluid, which assumes the shape of its container.

In India, the so-called Islamic Law is of much greater concern to the Hindus than it is to the Muslims. It is because the Muslims have demanded it owing to their belief in its righteousness but the Hindus are being Victimized.

The two-nation theory, which proved lethal to the unity of India, is the product of the Muslim belief in the virtues of the Islamic Law. As it can be seen from the above discussion, they are totally misguided in this field yet their faith is kept alive in it by the most beguiling Muhammadan promises of paradise, which abounds in free women, wine and boys. It is high time that these people came down to earth Instead of alluring themselves with the imaginary delights of heaven. They have only to look at Pakistan to realize the truth. Members of every Civilized society have always treated the country of their birth as the Motherland and proved their love and loyalty for her with their sweat and blood. However, the Indian Muslims are the only people who suffer from the religious mania that goads them to treat India as Dar-ul-Harb i.e. the battlefield, which is not a home but the place of mischief, mutiny and mutilation.

To practice the so-called Islamic Law, the Muslims of India brought this country to the brink of a civil war. The Hindus who had got used to ahimsa, failed to defend the honor of their Motherland and agreed to its partition. To an impartial assessor of history, their failure to resist the Muslims, makes them every bit as guilty as it condemns those who broke up their own Motherland to satisfy their religious dogmas. They wanted to create Pakistan to live under the Islamic Law, which has no validity.

This statement is true because half a century has passed but the Islamic Law has still not been enforced in Pakistan. If there was such a thing as Islamic Law, it would have been introduced long ago. What has been introduced as the Islamic Law is nothing more than a legal mirage because it does not conform to the spirit of law for revolving around the person of Mohammed. Take, for example, the Law of Blasphemy devised by Pakistan in 1986, and amended in 1991. It says:

"Whosoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

No law is ever valid unless it is applied through the recognized procedures. In disputed cases, Islamic Law requires evidence of four eye-witnesses, whose integrity cannot be impeached. But when it comes to applying this law, commonly known as Qanoon-E-Namoos- E-Risalat, the Islamic procedures are not followed because they concern the person of Mohammed, whose honor is considered higher than that of Allah. The result is a chaos in the judicial system of Pakistan, giving it the lowest prestige in the community of nations.

This article clearly demonstrates that the Islamic Law does not qualify as law. Therefore, it cannot solve social problems.

The verdict of the Indian Supreme Court is correct and must be enforced at all costs. This is an auspicious step towards building a harmonious nation.

Again, the judicial system of India has another very good reason not to implement Islamic Law" because of its nature: a hadith says, "Time will come when Islam will exist in name only and the Koran will be just a collection of words. The mosques will be full but completely unguided. During that period, the mullah shall be the worst of creatures under the sky; they will be the source of mischief." (Mishkat, Vol. 1; Kitab-ul-llm, ch. 3, p.76)

It clearly states the following:

1. Islam has come to exist in name only. Therefore what is being held as Islam is not Islam at all.

2. The Koran having become just a collection of words, is not capable of giving guidance. It is no longer a code of law, even if it held such a position in the distant past.

3. Though the mosques are thronged with people, they are not guided. Therefore, they are fake Muslims.

4. These mullahs are a source of mischief and the worst people under the sky.

In view of the contents of this hadith, the government of India will fail in its duty if it does not enforce the directive of the Supreme Court of the land.

Support IPC















































































































































































IPC operating since March 30, 2000
eXTReMe Tracker
Duplication of contents are allowed, only by naming the source & link to IPC
All rights are protected & reserved by Iran Politics Club © 2000 IPC