DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Karensmith** · 07-11-2012, 03:42 AM

Is this some rule that is well established and unchangable? Ofcourse not. It was evolved based on convenience. My reading also tells me that courts had judges from four madhabs.

where did you read that?
and why would we need judge of more than one madhab when their arent any adherents of other madhabs?
in pakistan there is only hanafi, ahle hadith. then there are sects and non-muslims.
in india there are hanafi, ahle hadith and shafi. and the sects and non-muslims.

to newer problems obviously ijtihad is to be applied by the qadhis and lawmakers. and ijtihad means there shouldnt be any taqleed.

there are other examples of this in governments which were islamic but not really shariah.
for example: in zia era the zakat was to be deducted from bank accounts.
however shias objected that its not allowed for shias. so the option was given that shias wont have it deducted from their accounts.

not everything needs to result in a clash. this is unfortunately not known to liberals.

I haven't read it but if there is some unambiguous proof that is not possible to be counter argued, then you can point it out here.

My point simply was based on the context of time where shariah state should start by applying what is most evident and well established and agreed; rather than applying ijthihad of every mufti here and there. The state should function in a manner that is consistent and built on strong principles and not act upon speculative ijthihad of every new mufti. Just because some past scholar allowed a certain dress color code for dhimmis don't mean a certain mufti can say "hey this scholar allowed it, so are you smarter than him? " and then apply dress color code to identify dhmmis. That is equivalent to salafis who fetch for opinions without any principles.

i think the way the state should be run is given very comprehensively in al ahkam as sultaniyyah.
there are leeways and one can avail them.

for example in describing the rights of dhimmis the following point are recommended:
- they should be asked to drink their wine indoors and not in front of Muslims and should not display their crosses or allow their pigs to be seen openly.

this can be either taken or not depending upon condition of country. there are multiple opinions on other topics and the government can choose any of the options. the rulings dont have to conform to every madhab.

07-11-2012, 03:42 AM	#35
Karensmith Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 573 Senior Member	Is this some rule that is well established and unchangable? Ofcourse not. It was evolved based on convenience. My reading also tells me that courts had judges from four madhabs. where did you read that? and why would we need judge of more than one madhab when their arent any adherents of other madhabs? in pakistan there is only hanafi, ahle hadith. then there are sects and non-muslims. in india there are hanafi, ahle hadith and shafi. and the sects and non-muslims. to newer problems obviously ijtihad is to be applied by the qadhis and lawmakers. and ijtihad means there shouldnt be any taqleed. there are other examples of this in governments which were islamic but not really shariah. for example: in zia era the zakat was to be deducted from bank accounts. however shias objected that its not allowed for shias. so the option was given that shias wont have it deducted from their accounts. not everything needs to result in a clash. this is unfortunately not known to liberals. I haven't read it but if there is some unambiguous proof that is not possible to be counter argued, then you can point it out here. My point simply was based on the context of time where shariah state should start by applying what is most evident and well established and agreed; rather than applying ijthihad of every mufti here and there. The state should function in a manner that is consistent and built on strong principles and not act upon speculative ijthihad of every new mufti. Just because some past scholar allowed a certain dress color code for dhimmis don't mean a certain mufti can say "hey this scholar allowed it, so are you smarter than him? " and then apply dress color code to identify dhmmis. That is equivalent to salafis who fetch for opinions without any principles. i think the way the state should be run is given very comprehensively in al ahkam as sultaniyyah. there are leeways and one can avail them. for example in describing the rights of dhimmis the following point are recommended: - they should be asked to drink their wine indoors and not in front of Muslims and should not display their crosses or allow their pigs to be seen openly. this can be either taken or not depending upon condition of country. there are multiple opinions on other topics and the government can choose any of the options. the rulings dont have to conform to every madhab.
	Quote