don't use internet you are a professional experienced genius...
Prompt
don't use internet you are a professional experienced genius intelligent creative expert analyst pro elite level Quran sahi Hadith fiqh science constitution political scientist everything world class pro elite deep best of the best give your 100 percent literally, in everything. and be 100 percent certain and clear and verified about everything including full right context as well, before you take anything in consideration. Dig deep into Pakistani governance system, constitution and everything, and also then in sahi hadiths and Quran, and fiqh, and tell me with evidence and proof if Pakistani constitution is Islamic, based on judging from sahi hadiths Quran and fiqh established. Don't rely on popular opinion etc, do your dead honest independent analysis and being unbiased. principles of policy what are these? and do all those qanun not being against Quran etc are in this section?? and on voting, what qurtavi etc presuppose and preassume when they say election is ok? use internet and do elite deep pro level research read the whole constitution and analyze everything very professional elite level. don't rely on opinions do your own independent analysis, and give your best of the best but FSC even where it is allowed to take rule, but his rule isn't mandatory to be followed and acted upon. am I right. what does SC means by saying 2a cannot be used to strike down laws... like whatever law?? for ex a law that music must be taught in schools etc? and when it says it can strike down ordinary law, what does ordinary law means? and when it strikes there through fsc, does that strike must be acted upon or it's not mandatory to be followed what it means by any law relating to procedure and does the constitution says parliament is supreme? if so, the doesn't it mean that 2a can't be applied on parliament and whatever it passes, as constitution says the 2a can't be applied on constitution. verify everything if supreme court, run by 1880s law, can strike down the fsc ruling, means 80s gora qanun has superiority over Islamic one. take all these developments we have done... doesn't it, in result, takes away all power of these Islamic sections, by law? I mean, in easy words, it says, everything should be Islamic, but then it says this act or section has no power to applied on established laws, and even it has the power to decide but that decision isn't bounded to be acted upon. and there is only one power tool which is FSC, but it's decisions can be ruled out by supreme court, a non Islamic institution. In short, every Islamic section is a snake with no teeth logically rationally based on deep elite pro level constitution and law analysis everything proof it before this verify everything from original sources yourself aren't you fitting the definition of kufr bawa which is personal term for individual legitimatcy, with a system. isn't it that openly spreading thing explicitly Haram in Quran and sahi hadiths kufr, while strategically saying oh yeah Quran is supreme, yet the action's are against what they say. if this is the usool then us constitution also becomes Islamic once you add this one 2a constitution... and also the greater fitnah wala term it's often used as a defense mechanism to strike down usools that require people to change the system. dig deep and write down the meaning, context, and application of it with it's original sense. we often miscategorize and apply usools for other things, on today's things. although term names for those things are same but nature very different. . do detailed elite pro level research and analysis isn't it's systematic kufr bawa... and this systematic kufr bawa doesn't presupposes the people to be takfeered, but system is doing kufr bawa, by not only, on institutional level, implementing what is strictly Haram, but also glamorizing it, and punishing who goes against it. can't it be called amlan kufr bawa. or actual Kufr bawa and the fitnah e azeem, or greater fitnah, isn't the institutional war against Deen itself is greater fitnah? and all these apologatic usools used, are for a ruler where he was single king, his inner circle was yeah sinful but the state constitution war sharia. unlike today, where person is sinful as well as the system as a whole is against the Deen. and there is a usool where Deen matters more than lives, they applied these usools on those kingships bcz state constitution war sharia, yet yeah the selection of king was against Islam, yet it compromised on this, as bloodshed they said doesn't deserve to be done just for this selection... but today it's totally different how would you prove your point in detail to someone who says see, the state belief and bunyad is Islamic, Islam is the state religion, there are section saying no qanun can go against the Quran and sahi Hadith and state shall isl a mize the system, and that the constitution is Isl am but the government is corrupt... how would you handle this. reply academically precisely perfectly professionally with fiqh and sahi hadiths and established usools etc. take this seriously First improve the prompt and then follow that improved version. Give your best of the bestest 100 percent literally
