June 7, 2002	Friday	Rabi-ul-Awwal 25,1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, June 6: The Supreme Court started on Thursday hearing of UBL’s review petition seeking reversal of the Riba judgment amid unruly scenes in the court room by the religious extremists, prompting the court to issue warning it might order for closed-door proceedings.

The present government is seeking complete reversal of the judgment which was delivered by the Federal Shariat Court in 1992, declaring all forms of interest-based banking un-Islamic.

The Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court on Dec 23, 1999, upheld the judgment of the FST, and directed the government to eliminate all forms of interest-based banking by June 30, 2002.

The government has engaged prominent scholar Syed Riazul Hasan Gillani and Raza Kazim to argue the case. Raja Akram would represent the UBL which has filed the review petition.

At the very outset of the proceedings on Thursday, objections to the constitution of the bench were raised and a demand was made that all the members of the bench should take fresh oath declaring that Holy prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was the last prophet.

The court room was packed to capacity, with most of the seats occupied by the prayer leaders of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Qazi Husain Ahmad, the JI chief, was also present in the court for some time.

Raja Akram, counsel for the UBL, started arguing after half an hour’s obstruction by the religious elements led by Engineer Saleemullah of JUP (N), and Advocate Ismail Qureshi of Jamat-i-Islami.

The Shariat Appellate Bench will consist of Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmad, Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, Justice Dr Allama Khalid Mahmood and Dr Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari.

During the course of proceedings when he quoted from Holy Quran, objections were raised that he was not able to recite the Holy Quran in proper accent, which was crime and they would not permit it. Later, however, a method was evolved that the recitation of Holy Quran would be made by a Maulana and he would only read the translation.

The court was also informed by the UBL counsel that he was threatened by those present in the court, telling him that he would be in hell the next day.

At the end of the day’s proceedings one lawyer exchanged hot words with Advocate Raza Kazim, counsel for the federation, who left the court room fuming.

Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmad observed that it was a court and not a political arena and nobody would be allowed to interrupt the counsels arguing the case. He observed that the court would provide time to every party. If the proceedings were interrupted, the court would consider the option of holding proceedings in camera.

Advocate Raja Akram, the counsel for UBL, started the argument by saying that Pakistan was not created to be a theocratic state.

Attempting to make a case for review of the judgment, the counsel argued that definition of the Riba was defective and it was “an error floating on the face of the record”, the condition for review of the judgment.

The counsel argued that all the Riba-related verses of the Holy Quran related to the deprived persons (fuqara-masakeen) and were not for general application.

The counsel informed the court that he would refer to commentaries of Holy Quran by prominent scholars like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Maulana Shafi to support his argument that any profit on the money lent was not Riba. He said that while delivering the judgment, whose review he was seeking, the bench did not consider the views of such prominent religious scholars whom he had mentioned.

The counsel argued that the Holy Quran prohibited compound interest and not reasonable profit on the loaned money which was the right of the lender.

The counsel held that Islam eliminated the element of extortion, exploitation and oppression through lending but it did not prohibit receiving of just and reasonable profit.

The counsel stated that Almighty Allah, in Sura Al-Imran, commanded that believers should not eat double or triple of the money lent. In Surah Yousaf, the counsel argued, the Almighty Allah again commanded that such people were not perfect believers who behaved like a deaf and dumb when the Holy Quran was presented to them.

When the counsel recited a verse from the Holy Quran, a prayer leader shouted that the counsel’s Arabic accent was not correct. There was a furore in the court. Advocate Ismail Qureshi rose to pacify the audience, telling that he had aired their views at the outset of proceedings.

The UBL counsel stated that Islam prohibited “Riba” but permitted “bae”, which to him, was “business, trade and investment.”

The UBL counsel further stated that the Supreme Court gave a narrow interpretation to “bae” and brushed aside by terming it only a sale. The counsel stated that if “bae” was properly interpreted, the interest would not be declared un-Islamic and total banking activity would be covered by “bae”.

The court asked the counsel to differentiate between usury, Riba and interest. The counsel said the bench which had declared all forms of interest Riba, had itself pointed out that the Holy Quran did not provide any definition of Riba. The court itself, the counsel stated, constructed a definition of Riba, spanning over 60 pages, concluding that every paisa charged on the money lent was Riba.

This opinion, he stated, was totally wrong. Usury, he said, was a kind of Riba, which in our part of the world was recognised as “Pathani Loan” (loan offered by Pathans).

Interest (Sood) was derived from Persian language meaning profit, and added that attempts were made to change the meaning of “Sood”. The counsel said that the whole endeavour was to show the court that interest is not Riba and thus not un-Islamic.

The Holy Quran, which was revealed 1423 years ago, ordained that when some business deal was struck it should be put down in writing in the presence of witnesses.

He said that some commentators of Holy Quran put their own words in tafseers.

The counsel said that in such kinds of commentaries, interest was declared Riba and the interest-based banking un-Islamic. He said that our religion did not permit sectionalism but every section had its own interpretation of Islam.

At this, Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad observed that sectionalism was first allowed in the subcontinent by the British rulers who allowed the Muslims to be governed according to personal law approved by their sect.

When the court reassembled after the break, Advocate Raja Akram and Raza Kazim, counsel for the federation, complained that threats were hurled at them during the break as the religious elements present in the court wanted to control the proceedings. The court repeated its warning that if the audience did not control themselves, the court would order the holding of proceedings in camera.

The counsel started his argument by stating that the concept of Riba did not apply to industrial loans amounting to hundreds of millions. Our religion, he said, laid great emphasis on the welfare of the deprived persons and clearly defined a class of people who were entitled to “sadqa”.

Earlier, Engineer Saleemullah of JUI asked the bench to take fresh oath to show that all the members of the Shariat Appellate Bench were Muslim. He said that one member of the bench had already aired his views about Riba and thus stood unqualified to sit on the bench.

Advocate Ismail Qureshi, representing Jamat-i-Islami, raised objections about the competence of the ulema judges of the Shariat Appellate bench.

He said that the removal of Maulana Taqi Usmani, who had been sitting on the Shariat Appellate Bench for the last two decades, was unjustified.

Advocate Qureshi argued that under the Supreme Court rules, the review petition could be placed before the same judge if he was available. He said in the presence of Maulana Taqi Usmani, there was no justification for the appointment of two new Shariat Appellate Bench’s members.

The counsel was still on his legs when the court rose to assemble again on Friday.