Views on Restoration of Judges – Lies, deception and double standards

On 16th of March, early in the morning Prime Minister apparently in a hastily taken decision announced the restoration of deposed judges while addressing the Pakistani nation. The decision comes in the wake of the ongoing long march by lawyers and various political parties (PMLN, PTI, JI etc.). All players involved in this crisis, government and protesting political parties are trying to take credit for the restoration of judges. Newspapers and blogs are cherishing this decision and Pakistani email forums are exploding with emails congratulating each other on this 'Independent Judiciary day'. As I understand this whole episode is full of hypocrisy and double standards from its very onset till its conclusion yesterday, I will try to analyze and point them out in this article.

There is little doubt that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was ousted as the result of a power struggle between him and President Musharraf. After being unsuccessful in his first attempt to remove him by sending a reference against him, Musharraf finally resorted to brute force, ousting the whole judiciary by implementing 'emergency rule' and asking judges to take fresh oaths under a new PCO (Provisional Constitutional Order). 60 Judges refused to do so and were dismissed until they comply. From this point, the 'lawyers movement’ gained momentum as political parties realized this as a golden opportunity for weakening Musharraf by joining hands with the legal fraternity. The people of Pakistan, filled with anti-Musharraf sentiment due to his subservience to his US masters followed lawyers and politicians in big numbers. There is no doubt that from the very beginning of this political struggle till its climax, people responded to the call of 'justice', 'independent judiciary' and the hope to lead a better life under a judge who stood against a tyrant by refusing to resign and take oath under the PCO. In this context, it is important to analyze the background and stance of all the major players of this movement.

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry started to be hailed as the guardian of independent judiciary since President Musharraf sent a judicial reference against him and deposed him from his position. Though he was cleared by fellow judges of any wrongdoing and was reinstated, Musharraf dismissed him again, this time by implementing ‘emergency rule’ in the country and forcing all judges to take new PCO oaths, which roughly 60 judges including Iftikhar Chaudhry denied. This removal and denial made him an instant hero not only among the legal fraternity, but all anti-Musharraf political parties (pretty much all at that time except for the ruling PMLQ) not only supported him but highly politicized this issue to mobilize their workers against Musharraf. All of them gathered around a one-point agenda, which also became the basis of all their election campaigns, which was the restoration of judiciary. It seems political parties conveniently overlooked that Iftikhar Chaudhry in January 2000 (then a serving judge on the Balochistan High Court) was one of the first judges to take an oath on the PCO. This, it is believed by many analysts, allowed him to be elevated to the Supreme Court to fill one of the vacancies left by the 11 judges who had resigned refusing to take this oath. Iftikhar Chaudhry was also one of the 12 Supreme Court judges who on May 13th 2000 validated the military coup of General Musharraf. They justified removal of the elected government of Nawaz Sharif legal on the basis of the 'doctrine of necessity'. In June 2001, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of two judges who visited the Presidency House to successfully convince the then President Rafiq Tarrar to resign, and make way for General Pervez Musharraf to assume that office. On April 13 2005, in the "Judgment on 17th Amendment and President's Uniform Case", Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of 5 Supreme Court judges who dismissed all petitions challenging President Musharraf's consistitutional amendments. In a wide ranging judgement they declared that the Legal Framework Order (LFO) instituted by General Musharraf after his suspension of the constitution, the 17th amendment which gave this constitutional backing, and the two offices bill which allowed Musharraf to retain his military uniform whilst being President were all legal. Isn't it ironic that the whole lawyers’ movement was based on not recognizing judges who took oath under the (second) PCO? Isn't it hypocritical that those responsible for validating and strengthening Musharraf's dictatorial rule are portrayed as the only ones who can bring him to justice? What kind of double standard is it that those who made the 'doctrine of necessity' an excuse for their unjust acts are now expected to 'bury the doctrine of necessity once for all' in words of NWFP Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain. The people of Pakistan are expecting the restored Chief Justice to invalidate the infamous yet euphemistic NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance) which allowed people like Zardari to become the President of Pakistan.

Lawyers’ leader Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan has already stated that Justice Iftikhar will avoid taking up the NRO. It is also quite unlikely to happen now as the restoration orders have come from the very signature of Zardari, which leaves one to ask what was this entire struggle for?

For those who say that standing up against the tyrant Musharraf have washed away previous sins of Iftikhar Chaudhry and this act is also symbolic of repentance, I would like to ask what options did he have at that time other than either accepting a shameful dismissal in the face of corruption charges, or relying on his fellow judges and lawyers for support? History has shown that the choice he made was indeed the right one, at least for him. That this has any semblance of repentance in it is wishful thinking especially given the fact that he has never himself regretted his previous actions or asked the nation for forgiveness for strengthening Musharraf’s rule.

Moreover, it is shameful in the least that in the numerous public speeches and interviews which Iftikhar Chaudhry gave while he was deposed, he never spoke about any of the core issues which lie very close to the heart of the Pakistani people, be it the drone attacks from Pakistani territories, or the ‘war on terror’ that is sinking Pakistan into oblivion.

Asif Ali Zardari (PPP)
Whether Zardari hijacked PPP has become history now for the simple fact that except for a handful of insignificant party members, all of the party is rallying behind him. Ever since assuming leadership of the party and later the country as well, he has become known for his broken promises, autocratic rule and improper behavior. Despite the words of Prime Minister Gilani, everyone knows that the PPP leadership has done its level best to avoid restoration of judiciary. He showed the true face of democracy in Pakistan when he ordered brute force to be used to stop the long march, blocking every road with illegally held containers, closing down the motorway and even suspending mobile services in major cities. How can people rest their confidence in Democracy for Pakistan after the information minister, Sherry Rehman resigned in the wake of the growing clampdown by government on protests by lawyers and opposition groups which speaks volumes on how even some die hard PPP loyalists see no difference in the previous regime and the new one?

The double standards of PPP also became evident when Zardari uttered that political problems should be solved on the table and in the assemblies, rather than on the street, whereas the term ‘long march’ is actually associated with PPP and BB by most Pakistanis. Benazir Bhutto in 1993 embarked on long marches twice to ouster former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and president Ghulam Ishaq Khan. The third long march that Benazir Bhutto scheduled for November 13, 2007 against Pervez Musharraf, demanding reinstatement of the deposed judges and lifting of emergency rule, turned out to be a mere threat and pressure tactics. Similarly the striking similarity between the recent long march and the one threatened by Benazir Bhutto in 2007 is the demand for the reinstatement of the deposed judges. It is shameful that now being in power, her PPP (till bowing down to popular and perhaps foreign pressure) held a totally different view on the judges’ return, conflicting with their previous, unambiguous stand.

Nawaz Sharif (PMLN)
Nawaz Sharif has tried to profit the most, particularly after the elections when Zardari (PPPP) turned his back on the restoration issue. But when one looks beyond recent slogans, it is not only ironic but deeply hypocritical that Nawaz Sharif who is today portraying himself as the champion of justice and the Chief Justice is the same man who when in power, led a self-imposed war against the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who opposed his restoration to power in 1993.

Moreover, Sharif brothers are also trying to have the cake and eat the cake too, by being part of the ruling coalition on one hand and campaigning against the government whilst in public.

While Zardari-Gilani have been cheerleaders for America’s undeclared war on Pakistan, PML-N and the Sharif brothers, who until recently were part of the government, have been silent about the Pakistani government’s policy of supplying the US with bases on Pakistani soil for drone attacks, supply of fuel for the American army used in attacks against Pakistan and the supply of US and NATO weapons through the port of Karachi.

Foreign Intervention
If there is one lesson to be drawn from this whole episode, it is about the level of foreign intervention. Only the number of times Hoolbrooke, Miliband, Patterson and Mullen contacted various Pakistani political leaders and the Army Chief speaks volumes about the level of foreign intervention and here again the true face of democracy was exposed.

Conclusion
The power of public opinion has become evident and also that the spirit of those who created Pakistan in the name of Islam is still present – defying brutality, dictatorship and bans. However, it is important that their efforts, like in the past, are not hijacked by insincere and sellout politicians. Though justice is one of the most important pillars for successfully looking after the affairs of the people, it needs to be understood that in the given framework of Pakistani politics of horse-trading, double standards, foreign intervention, tensions between army and government and agent rulers it is indifferent if the judges who are sitting in the courts have taken oath on the PCO once or twice. Moreover, it also needs to be understood that the proper functioning of judiciary will only be guaranteed if its basis is the Islamic judicial system within the framework of a ruling system which is also based on Islam and follows the seerah of Rasoolallah (saw). Therefore, the people of Pakistan must use this newly won spirit to understand the method of Islam for establishing a new leadership and a new system – the Islamic system of governance. That is the only path for independence and true progress.

Why nobody should miss Musharraf or the likes of him

On 6th of January 2009, an article appeared in the daily ‘The News’ titled, “Why I miss Musharraf”. It was written by a Lahore based lawyer, Salman Chima and its first part can be accessed at http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=155762. Samad Khurram wrote in reply “Why I don’t miss Musharraf” accessible at http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=156815 and set the record pretty much straight by pointing out the misdeeds of Musharraf which were either conveniently ignored by Mr. Chima or were portrayed in a different light altogether. I too strongly differ with the views of Mr. Chima articulated in his article but will try in this article to look at weakness of his conceptual framework rather than a point-by-point rebuttal of his claims.

First of all I would like to point out that the title chosen by Mr. Chima (‘Why I miss Musharraf’) would have been befitting if the policies of Mr. Musharraf had been reversed by his successors in power. As that is not the case, rather the issues kindled by Musharraf have under the guardianship of the current regime even flared up to devastating fires, there is no point in missing Musharraf in a figurative sense. The sacked judges are still out with no reinstatement in sight, American drones still attack and kill people in the NWFP and FATA regions, long hours of gas and electricity load-shedding – as it is euphemistically called – continue throughout the chilling days and dark nights of winter, none of the missing people are recovered, we are still extending unstinted support to our staunchest allies, the Americans, our armies are still fighting our own people and last but not least we still have a dummy Prime Minister while our President has all the powers and the infamous 17th amendment hovers like the sword of Damocles over the elected assemblies. So given all these facts, I wonder why would someone miss Musharraf? Actually the adherents of Musharraf’s policies should be very pleased by the fact that despite his absence from the political scene, all the policies which characterized his regime are still implemented with the same or even more commitment!

Now coming to the conceptual fallacy, let me begin with asking what kind of comparison is this? For argument’s sake, say if the current regime was worse than its predecessor, would that be a reason to miss and cherish the former? This twisted thinking reminds me of an anecdote in which a coffin-thief, while on his deathbed, requests his son to do something after his death due to which he (the father) would be remembered in high esteem by the community in which he lived (and stole). The son, at first perplexed by this last wish of his father had a sick but effective idea. He adopted his father’s profession, but with the difference that he would also mutilate the bodies which he would rob off their coffins. This way, people used to say, “His father was a good person, at least he won’t mutilate the bodies”. I hope this story clarifies the rational flaw of judging things based on a floating criterion. What would be ‘bad’ yesterday could be seen as ‘good’ today and what is ‘bad’ today might be judged as ‘good’ the next day.

The mention of criterion brings me to the second point, which is about the correct criterion to judge a regime or anything for that matter. I strongly feel that Muslims today, when it comes to choosing their rulers, employ the ‘lesser of two evils’ principle. It would be debatable whether or not this makes sense rationally, but there is no doubt that Islam does not allow us to choose any evil, especially not if it concerns ruling the affairs of Muslims. Similarly, while evaluating any previous performance of a government, the criterion is not who did the lesser damage to the country or which one was lesser evil, rather there must be a set standard by which we judge them. That standard or criterion is given to us by Islam and it manifested itself during the rule of Rasoolallah (saw) , the righteous caliphs and those who followed them.

Time and again we have fallen prey to this fallacy of choosing the lesser evil thereby deteriorating our condition more and more to a stage today which some consider as a point of no return. This has lead to many today adopt a defeatist mentality cherishing hollow words of our leaders by saying, ‘what else can they do?’ or saying ‘at least so and so had the courage to say such and such’. This is important to be mentioned for it is this mindset of the Ummah and their emotional response to events on which our rulers play and succeed in winning their support. Just have a look at the recent stunt by the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan, who stormed out of a panel discussion after being upset by the fact that he had apparently been given less time to speak in rebuttal of Israeli President’s case for the strikes on Gaza. As expected, not only did Erdogan receive a hero’s welcome on the streets of Istanbul, but emails and video clips of Erdogan’s walkout went around all over the Muslim world glorifying him. Don’t these cherishers of Erdogan realize that actions speak louder than words? It is a time when the people of Gaza need such stunts the least and are waiting for military support the most. Not to mention that Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize the illegal state of Israel and remains one of the few to not only have diplomatic but also trade relationships with her, despite her hands being constantly stained with Muslim blood.

Another such example of fooling the masses by staging an impressive diplomatic stunt was done by the late Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, when on 15th of December 1971 he tore a UN Security Council Resolution saying he has been asked by his 11 year old son not to come back home with a document of surrender. What those who cherish him conveniently forget is that just a day after this PR stunt the Pakistani army surrendered to India. Of course Bhutto till date is missed for his ‘courageous’ behavior and the surrender a day after found little place in his supporters’ view of history.

I mention these examples so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past, i.e. having the wrong criterion to measure good and bad, being satisfied with the lesser evil and judging our rulers based on an emotional response to their ‘heroic’ behavior, altogether neglecting how they in fact are the real culprits because it is due to their support to the enemies of Islam that we are in this humiliated state. What makes their crime even more severe is that they are spreading the view that we are weak to which many today subscribe despite all the facts which very loudly speak against this treacherous lie. Yes we are weak, because of these rulers, because of their treachery, because they don’t leave any stone unturned to keep us disunited, because they help their colonial masters in plundering our resources, because they implement man-made systems on us and because they hate Islam and the Ummah loves it. Whereas if we were united under sincere Islamic leadership and systems, we would have been strong because of our belief, our numbers, our resources, our strategic geographical presence on the globe, the practice of forbidding the evil and enjoining the good and last but not least because we all want to enter Jannah by pleasing Allah (swt) by whatever it takes.

Views on recent Israeli aggression and the responses by the Muslim Ummah

In the wake of the recent Israeli aggression we saw a new wave of outrage at leaders of Muslim countries by Muslims all over the world. There is no doubt the Arab rulers in particular are the real protectors of Israel and their treachery, cowardice and inaction has been blatant and a clear evidence of their role as guardians of Israel.

However, these leaders are not the only ones to be blamed; there are quite a few within our Ummah who will have to share this burden on the Day of Judgment. I would like to shed some light on who I believe these people are and what they can do to exonerate themselves so that they meet their Lord without this heinous crime as a burden on their necks.
In the face of any (new) situation which demands a response, the first step for every Muslim should be to understand the reality of the problem, learn the Islamic solution for it and then finally work wholeheartedly for the implementation of that solution. This approach is similar to any Islamic hukm, be it fasting, hajj, zakat etc., we first learn how to perform it and then accordingly translate our knowledge into actions.

Similarly, therefore, we should know and implement the Islamic solution to the Palestinian problem (and any other problem for that matter), since we are responsible and accountable for it and our action/inaction. This matter is not disputed and is no different from our responsibility to respond to the problems in Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Pakistan…and the list goes on. Indeed our beloved Prophet (saw) referred to the Muslims as one body, the whole of which would be restless and sleepless if only a part of it was affected with pain.

So who are those that can be considered as complicit in perpetuating the misery and humiliation that we witness?

The first, most serious complicity is of those who are in the position of ruling and leadership and are aiding the aggressors, even if it is by their mere silence and inaction. This is the worst kind of treason and betrayal because it is these very people who should be guardians of this Ummah. They are like the shepherd who opens the gate for the wolf to attack the sheep or pretends to sleep when the wolf attacks. Indeed, the Gaza crisis has further removed any doubt that the loyalties of the rulers in the Muslim world lie with the Whitehouse and Whitehall and not the Black-house (Kabah).

The second mode of complicity is when the Ummah, i.e. the general public does not raise to its duty to account the rulers and work to resume the Islamic way of life which it was entrusted with by the Prophet of Allah and was continued by the righteous caliphs and those who followed them. Even their actions which are to help and support the Muslims that are suffering, they themselves accept are not the solution to the problem that Palestine and indeed the Muslim world has faced since 1924 i.e. liberation from occupation through the Islamic obligation (fard, wajib, farz) of establishing Allah’s deen.

Just stop for a minute and think, would boycotting Israeli products (if that is achieved in first place by sending chain emails) help lessening the plight of the Palestinian people? Would knocking the doors of the UN be helpful in this regard? Can OIC deliver for the first time in its history by taking some action other than hollow meetings and shallow promises? Shall we focus all our efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to the suffering Palestinian Muslims? Or shall we be content with just doing dua to Allah (swt) to grant our brothers and sisters in the occupied lands victory against the aggressors? Would all those protests and demonstrations which were held against the Israeli aggression but did not call for the solution of Islam, rather ended by mere condemnation achieve the objective of durable peace through the implementation of Islam’s solution? I raise these questions because these are among the most talked about activities when it comes to the occupation of Muslim land in Palestine. All of these and other actions can be broadly divided into two categories, those which are Islamic actions but not Islamic solutions to the problem at hand (e.g. doing dua and giving donations) and those which are not even legitimate Islamic actions (e.g. calling upon the OIC and the UN). Whether you fall in one or the other category, the sin of not fulfilling your obligation towards the Muslims in Palestine (and elsewhere in occupied lands) rests on your shoulders, with the only difference that in the former category you would be rewarded for your actions and in the later case you would be additionally punished for them because they are haram acts (a separate blog will talk about OIC and UN from the Islamic perspective but it should be clear to most readers that any institute which legitimizes, reinforces and ensures the disunity among Muslims and guarantees that they remain in their own cages of so called Nation-states is not allowed to become part of).

For those who say words to the effect, ‘this is the least that I can do’ – this has become such a prominent and dangerous expression amongst Muslims; distancing Muslims from the actions that they should ‘at least’ be doing.

This is because, whatever is the ‘least one can do’, must be directly connected to the solution itself. As an example, if my car breaks down, the solution is connected to getting it fixed. Therefore the minimum action e.g. calling a friend to get help to move the car to a garage, would be considered the ‘least I can do’ since it is connected to the solution. However, if I purchase an in-car perfume, this would not be considered the least that I could do, since this action has no relationship with the solution. Likewise, whilst we give charity, which we should; whilst we boycott Israeli products, which morally we do; to say that these are the least that we can do is disingenuous, since neither are connected to the solution i.e. liberation and establishing Allah’s Deen, upon the Prophetic method – and neither do such people advocate nor call for this solution publicly.

For over 60 years, we have thrown money, medical supplies, boycotts, supported UN resolutions, lobbied western governments in order to temporarily alleviate the misery of the people of Palestine, whilst maintaining their lives as people living in open prison camps. Such temporary alleviation has not stopped the occupation, the humiliation, the persecution, the attacks, the breaking of cease-fire agreements etc….it has not given any direction for the solution to Palestine i.e. its complete liberation and protection under the Islamic system.
Often people of this inclination (charity work etc…) speak of immediate solutions, whilst accepting the Islamic System is the long term solution. How can they think in such a manner?! It is this very attitude that has diverted the energy, focus and actions of Muslims in making the Islamic system the immediate solution. Such attitude which can be termed as a self-fulfilling prophecy, will always maintain the Islamic system as the long term solution (therefore, not on the radar) since they do not (will not) work for it. And 60 years down the line (may Allah forbid), such people will be saying exactly the same thing i.e. the Islamic system is a long term solution. This is the vicious cycle that such mentality breeds and gives a strong degree of comfort for the treacherous rulers in the Muslim world and the western colonial governments – to see the Muslims chasing their own tails.

I truly hope that this discussion throws a challenging light upon us all and asking ourselves, ‘what we are doing’ to support the Islamic obligation and solution in establishing Allah’s Deen, in knowledge that the crimes in Gaza, Kashmir, Iraq etc… continue in its absence.

It should dawn on us that we carry a huge responsibility towards Allah (swt) and our brothers and sisters in Islam who are suffering at the hands of occupying forces which can’t be fulfilled by just blaming those directly responsible for this misery or by doing those actions which suit us or which are ‘in’ right now. We can only fulfill our responsibility by first understanding the solution towards the problem of occupation, be it in Israel, Kashmir, Iraq or Afghanistan and then by working to establish Islam’s rule which will not only solve these problems but all the other as well, be it poverty, illiteracy or the technological backwardness of Muslims today. The bloodshed in Gaza is yet another reminder towards the responsibility we carry on our shoulders and we will surely be accounted for our actions. Do we need to witness another massacre? Haven’t we witnessed enough already over the past decade and beyond? Isn’t it time for us to think more deeply and ideologically upon Islam as to the measures that are required to bring change, measures and change which Allah has ordained and commanded upon us?

Views on Council of Islamic Ideology’s recommendations on ‘Talaq’

On the 15th of November 2008, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has proposed fundamental changes in family laws, including a recommendation that a divorce demanded by a woman will take legal affect in case the husband fails to oblige after 90 days. The recommendations can be accessed athttp://www.cii.gov.pk/pressrel/p151108.pdf in Urdu language. The chairman of CII, Dr. Khalid Masood and one of its active members, Javed Ahmad Ghamdi have been defending the recommendation pertaining to divorce on various media outlets like the ‘Pachas minute’ talk show hosted by Abdur Rauf (accessible athttp://www.friendskorner.com/forum/f175/50-minutes-30th-november-2008-a-80974/) and by writing articles in magazines like in ‘Ishraq’ titled "Talaq ka Haqq” (Ghamdi, December 2008). This was followed by various ‘englightened’ thinkers defending those recommendations and welcoming them. In this article, I would like to discuss the recommendation which advocates an automatic divorce after 90 days of submitting a request by the wife to the husband, in case he is not willing to divorce, discuss the danger contained within it; and importantly present the causes behind such recommendations.

First of all it should be clear that those who have formulated and are advocating these new recommendations on divorce are not stating that women should have the right of divorce, rather these advocates accept the divine judgment on this matter, which gives this right only to the men. Mr. Ghamdi for instance wrote in his article in Ishraq, “One suggestion to resolve this problem is that the man be asked to delegate his authority in divorce to the woman. However, such demand is again not easy to make in our society, especially on the occasion of marriage. Furthermore, such stipulation also negates the spirit and the wisdom in not giving a woman the right to divorce her husband.” Since the sole right of men to enact divorce has not been put into question by the CII and advocates of its recommendations, I will not look into that matter.

The flaws of the reasoning behind this recommendation:
We first need to understand the fallacy behind the reasoning that a new ruling regarding divorce is required in the first place. There is always one – very emotionally appealing – reason given by Ghamdi and Co. for the need of an ‘ijtihad’ on this matter. They point to the dismal state of affairs in our family courts in specific and our judicial system in general. It is argued that it is impossible for an honorable woman to seek and get her right in a reasonable time frame and without being harassed. Now there can nothing be closer to the truth than this depiction of our courts and judiciary, but still I would argue that it is the wrong conclusion that hence we need to change the way divorce is asked for by women. What is new in this case which would require an ijtihad? Are we referring to any technological advancement here or are we bringing up some conflicting evidences, both of which could justify the need of ijtihad on this matter? Is corruption a new phenomenon or is it this very corruption which Islam came to uproot whereas by passing such laws we are not only foregoing it but in a way encouraging it? Islam has come to change the society and systems and not the other way round, i.e. be influenced by the ills and shortcomings of the society and systems. This is to say, if there is corruption in the court system, shouldn’t we cure that, rather than finding ways to work around it, considering the fact that this would mean changing the hukm of Allah and thereby rendering it impractical and inapplicable! This is not the first time that people suggest adapting Islam to the reality. When people are robbed of their wealth due to the inflation caused in a fiat based monetary system, some ‘enlightened scholars’ suggest legalizing interest in order to balance out the losses incurred by inflation, instead of calling for the Islamic monetary model which is free from inflation because it is not fiat but a bi-metallic standard. This is a very dangerous phenomenon as apparently the ‘enlightened’ scholar is solving a problem and at the same time adapting to the reality but when one looks into the matter in a bit of detail, what is happening is that instead of fixing a problem, they are justifying another unacceptable action by it. This is nothing else but changing the laws of Allah because of the unwillingness to change the reality and fix the real problem. If this thinking was to prevail, there would be nothing left of Islam, as everything and anything can be changed in the name of adapting to a new reality.

The flaws of the recommendation itself:
Let’s now have a look at the recommendation. It is suggested that due to the above mentioned problems in our legal system, where the women cannot easily seek divorce through a court even when they are deserving of it, the wife should have the right to ask the husband for divorce in writing and in case the husband does not grant her divorce, the contract of marriage would be terminated after 90 days of submission of such an application. I really wonder if this is not giving the woman the right to divorce, with a delay of 90 days, what else is it? It is ironic that on one hand it is claimed that the spirit and wisdom of not giving a woman the right to divorce her husband should not be negated and on the other hand these people are hiding behind 90 days! The fact of the matter is that this recommendation gives a woman the right to divorce her husband and the only difference is that the divorce will not take place immediately, rather after 90 days. I don’t know whom the CII thinks they are making a fool of?

The other way of looking at this – is that it is actually prolonging the misery of the woman by 90 days, since in Islam the judge is able to grant an immediate separation between the couple on the request of the wife, based on certain criteria, irrespective of the objection of the husband.Therefore, in both directions, the recommendation is flawed.

The Islamic perspective on women seeking divorce:
This matter is very clearly regulated by shariah, which recognizes the fact that there would be situations where the woman would be in a condition where she needs to be separated from her husband and he might not be willing to do so, out of enmity or pride. The wife should present her case to a Qadhi (judge) and it is in his discretion to rule on the matter. It is worth mentioning here that Mr. Ghamdi has been referring to the discretion of the Qadhi and calling it discretion of the state who has entrusted the Qadhi with it. And by this logic, he claims that the state of Pakistan can therefore also judge, ex ante, on all such future cases, granting them all divorce after 90 days of asking for it. There are several problems with this deduction of Mr. Ghamdi. The first and foremost being that Islam has referred the matter to a judge, who would inquire about the matter case by case and then judge accordingly. How can a Qadhi, or for that matter the State exercise this right of judging in such matters, case by case and after inquiry, to decide on all such cases in which a wife for any unknown reason is asking for divorce, and grant it to all of them? Wherever there is a requirement of inquiry before passing a judgment, how can there be a single judgment passed for all such cases, where the cases have not even yet occurred! The second problem with this logic is that even if the previous logic was correct, since when does the (un)Islamic government of Pakistan represent the Islamic state? If some power is granted to a Qadhi by Islam, it can only be changed by the Islamic state and not by any puppet regime installed in Muslim lands by our colonial masters.

The broader context of the issue:
The saddest part though when such recommendations are made is that they simply ignore the fact that Islam, more than any other ideology, is a set of mutually dependent and reinforcing systems, where one set of rules system) could not function properly without having the presence of other rules (systems). This concept was understood very well by earlier Muslims as never have scholars before suggested any ‘patchwork’ solutions from Islam to be implemented where the basis or other rules are not from Islam. As an example, consider the implementing the punishment system of Islam, say the lashing of the fornicator and cutting the hand of the thief (as per definition of a thief in shariah). Now if the prevalent social system is one which encourages all kinds of immoral behavior, by allowing media to show programs which encourage boy-friend girl-friend culture, by allowing men and women to socialize with each other in public and by discouraging early marriage, the implementation of the Islamic punishment system would be nothing more than a farce. Similarly, if the economic system is one based on interest, which encourages the hoarding of money, levies heavy taxes even from widows and orphans in the guise of GST and allows privatization of public assets like oil-wells and gas-fields, the discussion about implementing the Islamic punishment for stealing would arguably be unjust. This is so because Islam is not a set of do’s and don’ts, rather it is a comprehensive set of systems which only when implemented in their totality will lead to a just society and solve mankind’s problems. Having said this, it should be clear why it is criminally ignorant on the part of our so called scholars today to try and reform Islam and adjust it to the reality where actually they should have been calling for the comprehensive implementation of Islam. Haven’t they heard or understood the ayah in Quran where Allah (swt) warns us all in Surah al-Baqrah by asking, in translation, “Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what you do.” (TMQ 2:85)

So as the issue of divorce/khula’ cannot be separated from the social system, the punishment system, the education system, the economic system and the ruling system – the questions becomes why do the scholars not address these issues simultaneously? Is it perhaps that they have been affected by the secular framework of thinking which the colonial powers successfully established in the minds of the Muslims, thereby losing the ideological framework of Islam – which is required when addressing any problem in society? The consequences of this ‘patchwork’ approach are twofold: Firstly, instead of solving the problem, they in fact aggravate it; secondly, because such adaptations are carried out in the name of Islam, the ummah loses it confidence in Islam as a solution provider. This is analogous to the story where people in a small village are face with the unpleasant situation of a rat dropping dead into a well. The villagers ask the local Imam for the hukm and he tells them that you have to remove 20 buckets full of water after which it would be pure again and drinking from it would be halal. The villagers, ignorant about the hukm themselves, do as directed but the water is still smelling and of bad taste, until they realized that the source of impurity, the rat needs to be removed first, otherwise any number of buckets drained out won’t purify the water. Though the situation of Muslims today is far more complex, the solution is as simple today as it was in case of this example, i.e. we need to uproot the secular system and exchange it with the Islamic ideology instead of attempting to implement some ahkam here and there just to silence sincere Muslims who want to see Islam implemented on them.

From the above discussion, every Muslim should realize that we are living in a condition and environment which is as unacceptable for a Muslim as a fish taken out of water. Therefore, all the pain and suffering which we are having in living on (or in case of the fish in not being able to breathe out of water) should actually be a big source of motivation for us to change our society and the systems which are implemented on top of it, rather than accepting any suggestions to change the divine laws of Islam.

Islam, not secularism is the cure!

On the 18th of December 2008 an article titled, “In defense of a secular state” appeared in the daily The News written by Dr. Rubina Saigol. The article can be accessed at http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=152438. The article gives a few examples of nation states which have adopted secularism and then strongly argues in favor of it, claiming that a secular state can solve the following five problems:

1) It may diminish the possibility of sectarian strife;
2) It is likely to engender equality among all citizens irrespective of religion;
3) It has the potential to reduce discrimination against women;
4) It may generate greater tolerance of difference and reduce religious extremism;
5) It has the potential to counter state and non-state terror.

As the author begins her article by explaining the meaning and context of secularism, I will do the same, before analyzing her arguments, refuting her claims and showing how Islam can actually solve those problems if implemented comprehensively.

Though Dr. Saigol gives five different definitions for secularism, they are all cosmetic differences, referring to differences in political structures that one may find in secular states. However, there is no ambiguity in the concept and definition of secularism, from political scholars of all spectrums i.e. as per the American Heritage Dictionary, ‘the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education’. In simple terms, a secular state is when religion and God’s role is limited to the individual’s private domain whilst public life and affairs (social, economic and polticial) is legislated and organized by man. The famous phrase ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s’ is apt in summing this meaning.

It should be clear that this separation between religion and state i.e. abandoning the role of God from public life does not mean that secularism is atheism, which is rejecting the existence of God altogether; rather it is even more dangerous due to its potential to deceive people into believing that they can be perfectly Muslim while being completely secular.

Concerning Islam, would any sane Muslim, appreciating what secularism is, suggest that Allah (swt) be put under house and/or mosque arrest so that He (swt) does not interfere in public life and law-making (nauzubillah)? Apparently this seems to be the case and it is important to first highlight the possible explanations why some of our educated elite are so adamant on curtailing the role of Islam in public and political life, whilst advocating secularism.

a. The first and foremost reason is that the educated elite have been smitten by western political thought and secular values – as they have become the standard and teacher for the educated elite, indeed the whole world. The brutal colonial history ensured this. As a result, they are only able to offer solutions within this framework, even though it contradicts their belief and that of their people. In reality, as they are distant from the Islamic political philosophy, they are unable to understand it, defend it and present it as the only viable solution for the problems that are manifest in the Muslim world – this is even though this is their prime responsibility in their quality as the educated elite.

b. In absence of the Islamic political thought being present in the thinking and life of the Muslims, there is no working Islamic model of government anywhere in the world, least of all in places that are often labeled as such e.g. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc. This reinforces in the mind of the educated elite, particularly those who have experienced the oppressive, discriminatory and corrupt nature of these states, the entirely erroneous notion that Islam is unworkable – thus reinforcing the secular framework in their minds.

c. The colonial endeavor and prevalence of the secular thought has established the common myth that Islam, like all religions, is established upon irrationality, emotion and devoid of an intellectual foundation. This has moved the educated elite away from Islam, even though Islam is firmly established upon a profound intellectual basis and demands that rationality is the foundation of belief.

d. Another reason might be the false notion that Islam is against science. Again, one can see the connection this has to the absence of the Islamic thoughts and the Islamic government, which is obliged to advance the state in all scientific fields. We are all witness of the ‘brain drain’, where our educated elite and professionals leave the Muslim world for the ‘secular west’, since there is neither infrastructure nor support for them to advance in their respective fields at home. This is in sharp contrast to Islamic history, where it is clearly recorded that Islam pushed the Muslims towards scientific progress, such that the Muslims became the pioneers in many fields. Even non-Muslims testify to this fact. Robert Briffault in his book, ‘Making of Humanity’ wrote, “The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence.”

e. When combining all the elements above, there seems the simple lack of confidence which many Muslims today have in presenting Islam as a solution provider or complete system. When one is distant from the Islamic thought, dominated and educated by secular values, witness to the backwardness and corruption of governments in the Muslim world (that are propped-up by western governments) – combined with a well-oiled western propaganda machine – one could understand why Muslims, from all backgrounds, may have lost confidence in Islam as a solution to problems – or just as dangerous, believe the need to reform it, in order to make it ‘applicable and relevant’. This is even though Islam is the only competing system which has the ability to overshadow and expose the flaws of capitalism and offer mankind a just alternative.

As to the problems which Dr. Saigol thinks secularism can cure, let us analyse them, one by one:

1. Sectarianism: Since secularism is established upon the sovereignty of man to legislate, secular societies are the most prone to sectarian division and friction – whether based on colour, religion, race and ethnicity. This has been the 300 year history of the western world with the treatment of blacks, jews, women, the colonized lands, native Indians, aborigines, Latin Americans etc. This has not changed, even with the appointment of a black US President, as racism is rife in the US and in Europe as Muslims are beginning to feel all too well. Likewise, it is important to note that under the recent regime of Musharraf, which was the most secular of all that the Muslims of Pakistan have seen so far, sectarian violence increased manifold. Since there is no existing Islamic governance by which to compare, one can only currently re-affirm that as the Law-Maker is Allah (swt), there is no scope for sectarian divisions – though differences (i.e. legitimate Islamic discourse) will naturally exist, but managed by the Islamic authority under the Islamic concept of ‘one ummah’ (nation).

2. Equality among citizens: This claim is ridiculous given the reality of Muslims in various Western countries today. The institutional discrimination has now surpassed personal discrimination in countries like US and UK which not so far ago used to boast themselves as champions of equality and human rights. Muslims are treated as guilty unless proven innocent after 9/11 and their civil rights have been curtailed to the level of Nazi Germany under the pretext of ‘war on terror’. Guantanamo Bay, Extra-ordinary flights of rendition, legality to torture suspects are sufficient examples of this. This should be enough to show the inherent inability of manmade laws to provide justice and equality. It was only under Islam that Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus lived side by side and even if living as minorities there was never any kind of discrimination or inequality based on religion, race or ethnicity. Islam is very clear on the status of non-Muslims living under the protection of Islam. These people, called as the ahle-Dhimma (people of the contract) are mentioned in one hadith by Muhammad (saw) saying, “Whoever hurts a dhimmi has hurt me and whoever hurts me annoys Allah (swt). [at-Tabbari]

3. Women rights: Again this assertion is also ridiculous given the status of women in secular societies, where they are misused, abused and discriminated against in every walk of life. Even Western societies have come to realize the fraud of emancipation which in reality has brought no freedom, but added misery to women’s life. Does Dr. Saigol want that our women also become bodies for sale which are used as an object of attraction for selling products ranging from candies to cars? If one would not mistake all the atrocities and ills which befall women in Muslim countries - due to backward tradition and non-functional police and legal system - for being the result of Islam, one would clearly see how Islam has honored women in all their roles – i.e. primarily as a mother, wife and daughter, in addition to being a businesswoman, lawyer, doctor, accountant, Islamic political activist etc…

4. Religious extremism: Religious extremism is a result of secularism. It manifested itself the most in times of more secular regimes and that is quite understandable because these are mostly reactionary elements which when they see the country going in the wrong direction, often don’t know how to stop this tide and resort to unacceptable methods. Thinking that by secularizing more and more is nothing but wishful because the people of Pakistan love Islam more than anything, thought they might not have deep knowledge in it. They have never come out on the streets in the last 60 years for democracy and secular values, which has been the song of all our leaders and media throughout. Similarly, the masses were also not moved on issues like poverty, rather whenever they came on the streets, it was for the sake of defending Islam, be it Nizam-e-Mustafa, Namoos-e-Risalat or other such mass movements. So how can someone expect that by shunning Islam altogether we would achieve harmony in society?

5. State and non-state terror: The most secularized countries on the face of this earth, the US, the UK and India, all three are involved in the worst form of state terrorism. The former two have waged two wars for achieving economic and geo-political hegemony whereas the latter is suppressing the basic rights of its own citizens and of the people whose land it occupies for over half a century now. It should be clear that the secularist creed is based on personal benefit and greed, which knows no bounds. Only the correct and comprehensive implementation of Islam can root out the menace of all kinds of terrorism.

In summary, we don’t need our educated elite to advance secularism to perpetuate colonial endeavors and maintain the misery that Pakistan faces. Secularism should be discarded in the bin of history and our educated elite should seek to present the Islamic ideology.

Shoe-thrower: Should we be cherishing freedom of expression in Iraq?

On the 14th of December 2008 an Iraqi journalist, Muntazar al-Zaidi threw his shoes, one after the other, at outgoing US president Bush during a press conference in Baghdad, in full glare of the media. This incident immediately made global headlines and the video footage has been replayed repeatedly, becoming a firm favorite to watch on the Internet. Also, the neo-con fantasy to be greeted with garlands in Iraq after waging a war based on lies finally faced and badly failed the reality check.

Opinion over the action of 29 year old al-Zaidi, has been sharply divided. The majority of Arabs considered this an act of heroism and bravery, reflecting their own bitter sentiments about the US aggression in Iraq and the established impotence of their own governments. Al-Zaidi’s brother said, "Millions of Iraqis or rather millions of the people of the world wish to do what Muntadhar did…Thank God he had the guts to do it and avenge the Iraqi people and the country from those who plunder it and have killed its people.” It is noteworthy that Muslims across the world while supporting al-Zaidi’s actions didn’t show concern about whether he was a Shia or a Sunni. If one was to believe British and American propaganda, this shouldn’t have been the case, as they have tried hard to build this sectarian divide.

But likewise there was vocal condemnation from some quarters and understandably from the US-backed Iraqi government. As one local Iraqi stated, "I deem it unnecessary. This thing is unjustifiable. It is an incorrect style. We are not violent. One can voice his opinion in other ways,"
Navigating through this sharp divide, one particular theme emerged that caught my attention and which I want to focus on. This theme was echoed by Bush himself in the immediate aftermath of the shoe-attack, when asked by a reporter, he mentioned that this was freedom of expression.

This statement has been packaged by quite a few to demonstrate the ‘moral dominance’ of capitalism over other ways of life, by posing questions such as: “just imagine what would have happened to the shoe-thrower under the Saddam regime?” or, “would it have been possible in first place that someone would dare throw his shoes on dictators like Saddam, Abdullah or Musharraf in their respective countries?”

These sorts of questions need serious scrutiny as otherwise people will jump to the fallacious conclusion that western capitalism and the US-led invasion has brought some good, which is freedom of expression.

I would like to argue from three different angles, challenging this lie of the superiority of western capitalism and secular democracies.

1. The first point is that whenever Muslims want to evaluate a system it needs to be done on the basis of Islam and therefore the comparison should be between capitalism and Islam, not capitalism and dictatorship, monarchy or oligarchy. If you just try to look for something worse than what you are evaluating, you will always find it and therefore it is a futile exercise giving us no reasonable evaluation or judgment. If we were to compare the state of affairs about freedom of expression to account the ruler in Islam, we would learn that Islam in this case, as in all other domains of life, is the bench mark for justice and fairness. Just to quote one example from many to show how the prophet of Allah (saw) would react to accountability and criticism by his companions, the Sahaba (ra). In the battle of Badr, when the Prophet (saw) was straightening the ranks of the Muslim army, he was walking in front of them with a wooden stick in his hand. Sawwad bin Ghuzzaiya, one of the Sahaba was a step ahead of the others and so the Prophet (saw) pushed him in his stomach with the wooden stick. Upon this Sawwad (ra) said, “Oh Messenger of Allah, you have hurt me and I want to get even with you”. Just imagine the other Sahaba hearing that someone wants to get even with the Prophet of Allah! But the Prophet very calmly said, “Go ahead and he uncovered his stomach”. Sawwad (ra) jumped on the Prophet, hugged him and kissed his stomach. The Prophet asked Sawwad (ra) “Oh Sawwad, why did you do that?” He replied, “You see what we are going to face, and this might be the last day in my life and so I wanted the last moments in my life to be my skin touching yours”.

2. The second point is that when we compare the situation today with the one which prevailed under dictators like Saddam or still prevails under the Arab Monarchies, how can we forget the very fact that these monarchies were/are in reality the puppet regimes of the Western colonialists, be it the British or the Americans? This means that all the cruelties carried out by the dictators were at least sanctioned by their Western masters and therefore they share the blame equally.

3. The third and foremost point that needs to be understood is the deceitful cleverness which this Western capitalist system employs. It robs its subjects from their land, resources, lives, honor and deen, but still manages that they cherish the ‘freedom of expression’ which they are left with! What is the point in having the right to express all your anger, even if it is with throwing shoes at the spearhead of who brought all this evil, when you are not left with any other choice and are not able to resist their occupation and domination? All the widows and orphans of Iraq, the inmates of Abu Gharib, the young and old bereaved of their family members have the right to cry, lament and wail, so should we be cherishing that as well?

Such incidents show the deceptive but influential nature of western propaganda. It is imperative that Muslims do not allow anyone to pull the wool over their eyes such that they become easy prey. Rather deeper scrutiny of these events, linked to the wider political landscape need to be benchmarked and evaluated within the framework of Islam.

Likewise, Muslims should feel a sense of shame – that given the all the armies, weapons, and resources that we have at our disposal, all we can muster is admiration for a shoe-thrower. This speaks volumes about the impotence and treachery of the rulers that blot the Muslim lands.
Muhammad (saw) said, ‘Every traitor will have a flag on the Last Day. And his flag will be raised according to his level of treachery. The traitor of traitors is the ruler who betrays his people.’

Are we all advocates of terrorists?

One 2nd December 2008, Nazeer Naji wrote a column in Urdu, published in Jang which can be accessed at http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/dec2008-daily/02-12-2008/col3.htm. Though the article omits the mention of the very recent Mumbai attacks, it can’t go unnoticed that it has been written in the very backdrop of it. Not only is the context in which it is written around ‘terrorism’, but its title, body and the final conclusive remarks are all unambiguously about terrorism and that’s why I wonder whether this omission was deliberate or unintentional. The article first takes us back in history and while depicting what role institutional influences played in alienating the Bangladeshi people before 1971, the author equates the actions taken by the then Pakistani regime and Army to terrorism like we see it in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq today by the so-called Islamists. He goes even further and claims that the partition of East Pakistan was justified and done in the name of Islam and patriotism “uss waqt bhi hum ne Islam aur hubul-watni ke naam par un dehshatgardon ki waqalat hote dekhi”. This, I must say is not only a gross misrepresentation of facts, but also is a very contradictory duo of words, packed together in one sentence. Patriotism is a very base emotion which, like nationalism, is divisive in essence, uniting only those belonging to a specific part of land to the exclusion of all others and that too only as long as there is a foreign threat. In case of nationalism, the common denominator is a specific race, tribe or ethnicity. By far, Islam is not reconcilable with these parochial ideas and actually fought and obliterated them from the hearts and minds of its followers. This is not to say that there is no history of people using Islam to justify all kinds of heinous crimes, but the fact of the matter is that the escalation of East Pakistan was not seen as an Islamic issue and in no way as one comparable to the issue of fighting occupiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, which the author is artfully suggesting.

The second anomaly which is worth pointing out is the claim that all Pakistanis are in one way or the other advocates of the terrorists (“dehshatgardon ki waqalat karne waale”) which he divides into two distinct categories, and further claims both are originating from FATA “aj fata ki kamingahon mein bethe chand dehshatgard saari dunya mein issi tarha begunahon ko marne ke mansoobe banate hein”. The first category, according to the article, is of those terrorists who carry out attacks against Westerners in their own countries and the second category is of those who carry out attacks in Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the victims are innocent Muslims. I wonder whether the author left out the third and most happening category of ‘terrorists’ who carry out attacks against Western soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because he doesn’t consider them to be terrorists or because their mention would have weakened his case against the other two categories of terrorists. Whatever the reason, I won’t focus on what was not mentioned, even though it is that which is actually supported by the masses in all Muslim countries and most Islamic political parties. Coming to his two claims, let me pose the questions here, are the people, media, government and political parties of Pakistan, or for that matter any other Muslim country supportive of or sympathetic to the terrorists of the above mentioned two categories? Leave aside the mainstream political parties and media, even the more ‘radical’ groups and people (to the exclusion of the few mysterious ones like al-Qaeda, about which we are not even sure if they exist beyond the records and think tanks of pentagon) are never heard of rejoicing in attacks like 9/11, 7/7 or the Marriott blast! Similarly unfound is the claim that all the planning, logistics and finances are taking place in and from FATA, a region which is the least developed in any sense of the word and is being combed by Pakistani security officials, together with their American counterparts with the help of most high-tech technologies like GPS, gunship helicopters, drones and guided missiles for the last 7 long years!

Based on these baseless claims, the author is convinced that American rocket strikes in FATA are justified. He brings the escalating security situation in and around FATA as an evidence for his claim, simply ignoring the direction of causality, to his theory’s benefit. Is it not true that all this fighting erupted and worsened only after the Musharraf regime bowed down to the Americans in 2001 and agreed to fight its own people in the tribal areas under the pretext of ‘war on terror’ before which ‘suicide attack’ was an unheard of phenomenon in civilian Pakistan?

I feel deeply saddened by the fact that instead of asking where the British and Americans draw their moral, ethical and legal legitimacy to bomb and invade Iraq and Afghanistan from, he ends his article by asking about the legitimacy of fighting the occupiers and their supporters. Again, almost nobody including myself is suggesting that attacks of the above mentioned two categories are justified, but shouldn’t we expect our intellectuals to be talking about the causes of this evil rather than its symptoms?