A short thread on decolonisation and why some of you should read more about your history before jumping to conclusions. Our colonial history is responsible for the stagnant understanding of Islamic law, the British tried to put Islamic law, a very unique kind of law in books....

and statutes suppressing ijtihad and the art of interpretation, the other sources of Islamic law so it could resemble common law. Hudood ordinances and blasphemy law were not created in vacuum and they were old relics of colonialism. The laws resemble their colonial...

Counterpart, which was known as ango-Mohammadan law, a law often criticised for not being authentic and a hybrid of British politics and common law. Zia’s islamisation project was nothing but Islamic, it was a political ploy used to suppress thinking and dialogue.

Someone said hey you are a lawyer in western law and you think western law is superior to Islamic law. So, no what you are defending is colonial law. Colonial law and western law is not a standard of behaviour. It is not my ideal.

This is what happens when you are conditioned to follow a mob culture and you do not use your own logic. Islamic law is a logical law, it has a very unique system of evidential burdens and enforcement. So before you attack others calling them atheists etc please educate yourself.

Blasphemy laws historically began in Christian Europe as a means to prevent dissent and enforce the church’s authority. They were exported to Muslim majority nations via British imperialism. Today, just about every Muslim majority nation that has blasphemy laws can trace them...

to British statute from centuries prior.