The question that immediately sprang to my mind when I read the news that Zardari had agreed to let 'Shariah' law be implemented in Swat was, "Who is he to decide that?".
Unfortunately, on reflecting for a couple of minutes, the conclusion was that we gave him the mandate. Personally I wouldn't vote for Zardari if somebody put a gun to my head, but for better or worse (mostly for worse) he is the elected representative of this pathetic little unfortunate banana republic of ours.
I think Zardari, along with George W. Bush, is probably the best example in the world of why democracy is not all it's cracked up to be. If a loser with the IQ of a Gnat, and a looter without any compunction or shame can so easily come (repeatedly) into power through democracy, the system cannot be very good. It might be Ok for a first world country, where (theoretically) a system of checks and balances insures that the damage is not irreversible, but in a third world country like Pakistan, where no systems exist and the basic machinery of Govt. grinds to a standstill at the whim of every Tom, Dick and Harry, democracy just doesn't work. (For Dick read Mullah, the biggest Dicks in the world).
So let's see what is "Shariah Law"? Shariah, funnily enough means the 'path to the water' (gives you a good idea of how provincial Islam (and all religions for that matter) really are when stripped of their false grandeur) or more generally it means, 'the way'. Muslims agree that Shariah comes from the Quran and Sunnah, but it gets really murky, really fast after that. Some Muslims (Sunnis) believe that Ijmah (consensus) and Qiyas (analogy) have a very important place in Shariah Law, others (Shias and a major Sunni sect) don't.
Let me start at the "fountain" of all knowledge first, the Quran and Sunnah. In many many matters of law, there is no help from these sources, most contemporary subjects are obviously not touched upon. When there is something said about a particular subject, it is often vague and amenable to interpretation. Things can mean this or that, depending on the translator and his stance. A classical example is Muttah. Read a Sunni translation of the Quran and the valid surah 4:24 seems obviously against any such practice, read a Shia translation and it sounds murky but possible. (Anybody who comes up with the stupid argument that you need to become a scholar in Arabic to know the right answer is of course full of it for several reasons; 1. God’s word should be clearer, 2. After becoming a scholar it’ll still be amenable to my particular interpretation)
For more serious stuff there is either absolutely nothing in the fountains of knowledge or vague platitudes. Abortion, for example. The Quran says on separate occasions, 'Do not kill your children', but it always adds 'for fear of want'. (6:151 and 17:31) So is it allowed for other reasons? How about euthanasia to end a child's suffering, or abortion of a child of rape? And how to interpret the word 'children'? How does Islam deal with the question of when life begins, is a foetus a child? The Quran obviously is befittingly silent. And even when it says do not kill your children for fear of want, the reason given is that it is God's job to provide it sustenance, but as we all know that is patently not the case, in say Ethopia or other third World countries. So if God has failed to live up to his promise, does abortion become OK? Clearly then not all answers are available in the Quran and Sunnah, and that's when we enter the slippery slope.
In the face of this obvious vagueness, Islamic scholars had to come up with a better system and thus different schools of Law came into existence, the thing is which one is Shariah Law?
Amongst Sunnis, there's Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii schools of thought, which pray should one follow, and more importantly which one will be used in Swat? And if you think for a second that the differences amongst them are trivial, think again. And this is just the Sunni's, the Shia's which make up a substantial 20+% of this country are on a completely different tangent altogether.
Abu Hanifa, the originator of the Hanafi school, believed that wine was prohibited but it was allowed to drink small amounts of other alcoholic drinks. (Later Hanafi's disagreed with this and decided all alcohol was prohibited). So under "Shariah Law" would a Muslim following the beliefs of the premier jurist in Islam be allowed to drink in moderation? Abu Hanifa believed you could do the namaz in any language, would the Swat Shariah allow the recitation out loud of namaz in Urdu or Punjabi? The Shaafi's (Ahl-Hadith) form 28% of the Muslim World and believe there is no room for new interpretations in Islam and reject Qiyas and Abu-Hanifa's method, and narrow down the possibility of interpretations. The Maliki's pray with hands held to the side. The Hanbali's prefer a very strict, very narrow interpretation. They're representatives used to patrol the streets and smash musical instruments, chessboards and utensils that could be used for drinking alcohol. Each school in short views Shariah differently. So which version are we going to come up with? How will the consensus be reached? What happens when a large proportion of the population doesn't agree with a particular interpretation?
Muhammad is quoted in the Tirmazi as stating, “My community will never agree in error", ... err.... they elected Zardari, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, need I say more?
