-
Why Muslims Didn'T Protest When Their Legal Systems Got Replaced
Ghamidi sb has many times cited that if at any given point in history someone would have attempted to change/alter any established aspect of Islam (Quran, Sunnah etc.), he would have received severe resistance from the Muslims as they hold their religion very dear to them. I wanted to clarify why didn’t the Muslim nations resisted when their rulers imposed non-Islamic legal systems upon them? Like when Attaturk imposed an entirely secular legal system over Turkey, taking away the core Islamic elements. Same with countries like Pakistan that have adopted a colonial legal system devoid of Islamic punishments. It looks like the populations are contend with the decision of their rulers, only a few demand Sharia to be reinforced. Why is it so? Theoretically speaking, a religious group will never allow a core element of their religion (legal system) to be replaced. @UmerQureshi @Irfan76 @faisalharoon @codename.AJK @Seeker
-
2 Replies
-
Why Muslims Didn'T Protest When Their Legal Systems Got Replaced
updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago
3 Members
·
2
Replies
-
In Turkey, there was resistance against his actions that why Turkish azan, namaz and Quran got back in Arabic If you read history, you will find people resisting these changes.
In Pakistan, Colonial laws has been implemented under guise of Islamic principles and moreover, these laws are not as such in contradiction with Islam too. -
This resistance has been for the content of religion: Quran and Sunnah. Not being able to perform a duty of Shariah is not about distortion of Shariah. However, Muslims have been staying sensitive to their political identity too and demonstrated it whenever they find or devise a way to achieve it.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
