PROFESSOR Annemarie Schimmel had it right when she wrote that: “Even the average European orientalist is often unaware of the veneration in which the Prophet is held in Islamic countries.” This brief statement beautifully explains her contention that the most common offence or insult inflicted on a Muslim, by non-Muslims, arises from their inability to understand the high regard that Muslims have for the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

And, as Constance Cadwick has pointed out, no one who does not take into account the love Muslims have in their heart for their Prophet can understand the power of Islam. This love has translated itself in many ways. Preservation, compilation and explanation of Prophet’s sayings and deeds or recording his life is but one expression of that love. Many Muslim scholars devoted their whole life for the purpose and the result was a precious collection of authentic Hadith literature.

This treasure, an invaluable record of sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), having been rendered into a great many languages, has been a reliable and enormous source of knowledge about life and teachings of the Prophet of Islam. For about one and a half millennium it has proved to be a source of inspiration for the world and remains so even today.

The Arabic word ‘Hadith’ literally means: to tell; to give some news. A connotation of the word ‘Hadith’ is ‘new’, i.e., as opposed to ‘old’. This serves as an indication that the traditions of the Prophet are to be separate and distinguished from the scripture of Islam. But as a terminology of Islamic literature “Hadith” implies three things:

1. The sayings of Prophet Muhammad: A narration of what he said, i.e., someone narrates that he or she heard the Prophet say a certain thing. This, in the terms of Hadith literature, is known as “Hadith-e-Qauli’.

2. His deeds: An account of what he did, i.e., someone states that he or she saw the Prophet do a certain thing.

3. His tacit approval (of his companions’ conduct in his presence): Any of the Prophet’s companions did in his presence a certain thing and the Prophet did not prohibit it, which amounted to his approval because it is one of the duties of a Prophet to forbid evil. This is known as ‘taqreer’.

The importance of Hadith is to be realised in the light of the Quran wherein. In Allah commands Muslims, on a number of occasions, to follow the Prophet (peace be upon him). For instance: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger.” (IV, 59) “Whose obeyeth the messenger obeyeth Allah.” (IV, 80) “Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.” (XXXIII-21) “Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived; Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire. It is nought save an inspiration that is inspired” (LIII, 2-4). “And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). (LIX, 7).

The practices of the Prophet as Dr Hamidullah has written, were not private conduct merely, but a detailed interpretation and application of his teachings. Allah Almighty’s last messenger (peace be upon him) practised what he preached and the manner or method of his practices is known as ‘Sunnah.’ Preserved in Hadith literature, Sunnah provides us with the necessary details of the application of the Quran injunctions.

Hadith and Sunnah are the second source of Islamic beliefs, laws and practices. Since the Quran does not give the full details of each and every injunction, Hadith is the source from which Muslims draw these details and the precise manner in which these are to be practised. Without Hadith, even the simple act of offering two rak’ahs of Salah (prayers) is impossible as in the Quran nowhere has it been mentioned exactly how to offer the Salah though it emphasises offering the salah several hundred times.

As the Quran says, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is an excellent role model and following in his footsteps can lead to success in the life hereafter. In him we find examples to emulate whether we are father or husband, teacher or trader, leader or warrior. Be in matters of state or personal life, Prophet Muhammad’s life and sayings have glittering instances of perfect conduct and practical lessons on highest moral and ethical values that can guide us even today. And it is the Hadith literature that explains at length the Prophet’s life and his message.

In any other religion we do not find any thing similar or equivalent to Hadith since Hadith is quite separate and distinct from the scripture of Islam — the Quran. The scriptures of many religions consist of, along with what is believed to be revealed or inspired, sayings and teachings of the founder or pioneer of the religion. In some cases, blended with the beliefs and teachings are the biographical details of the pioneer and the commentaries on his teachings.

For example, Tripitaka or the Buddhist scriptures, committed to writing several centuries after the death of Gautama Buddha, consist of Buddha’s teachings as well as commentary on these teachings. Similarly, Avesta, the Sacred Book of Zoroastrianism, contains information about life and thoughts of Zoroastra along with Gathas or Hymns. Even Pentateuch, or Torah, and Gospels have some biographical segments along side what is supposed to be the actual revelation sent down by God.

No other religion can offer any example where the sayings and deeds of the Prophet (though Muslims believe that a Prophet is responsible for conveying the message only and Allah is the ‘founder’ of all revealed religions) are preserved and codified separately and, more importantly, as meticulously as Hadith of the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace be upon him), have been preserved, distinguishing them from the scripture in quite an impressive manner.

After the Prophet’s bodily death, Hadith and sunnah have served as a guiding light for Muslims. Aside from the lack of details about the manner in which Islamic teachings are to be carried out, without Hadith there would be a chasm of fourteen centuries between the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and us. And, as a scholar wrote, even the very existence of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) would become a myth because it is the personality and the character of the Prophet of Islam that gives the credibility not only to all Islamic beliefs and worships but the Quran itself. As a result, the integrity and genuineness of the Quran would become debatable and the whole body of Islamic dogmas and practices would become liable for questioning and doubt.

Hadith explains and elaborates the Quran. It provides us with the background against which certain verses of the Quran were revealed and are to be interpreted. Such verses are in quite a large number. At times it becomes very difficult, even impossible, to understand a Quranic verse in its true context unless the relevant Ahadith are consulted. One can easily misinterpret the Quran and be misled in the absence of certain Ahadith.

Therefore, for a Muslim, accepting only the Quran as the basic source of Islamic beliefs and injunction and not abiding by Hadith amounts to repudiating Islam. Let there be no doubt that without Hadith Islam is incomplete. In fact Hadith has made Islam survive in its original and actual form with its practical applications and in its true spirit. And it is, perhaps, one of the reasons why some quarters that have anti-Islamic approach have tried to dismantle this base, questioning the reliability and authenticity of Hadith literature.

THE Indian participants of a recent amity conference in Islamabad have indicated that the problems faced by their government in dealing with the freedom struggle in the occupied Kashmir often imperil the security of the Muslims of India.

This is not only morally and politically unjustified but also negates the secular pronouncement of the Indian rulers. The Indian security forces in the Valley and some other parts of the occupied state indulge in untold excesses. The Indian establishment views the Kashmir question “through the jaundiced and distinctly communal lens of Hindu-Muslim conflict.”

At least one Indian author and scholar, Sumantra Bose, has gone on record to say that “much like what happened in Bosnia, many Kashmiris do feel that they are being killed and destroyed because they are Muslims.” From the accounts rendered by many Indian Muslims, it is beyond doubt that the Indian authorities’ frustration in not being able to cope with the uprising in the occupied Kashmir frequently manifests itself in their unacceptable treatment of the Muslims in many parts of India.

At the same time it would be unrealistic to deny that while the Kashmiris‘ freedom struggle was inspired mainly by a strong sense of idealism and was free of any communal bias, it is beginning to lose its original character. Many sections of the freedom fighters are now motivated by a spirit bordering on jihad. Significantly, however, the All Parties Hurriyet Conference continues to be non-communal.

The responsibility for transforming a peaceful democratic movement into a militant and now near-jihadi movement must be borne by New Delhi itself. The systematic denial of democratic rights and subversion of democratic representation to the Kashmiri people in the governance of their homeland has driven the freedom fighters to a state of desperation.

Even an ardent admirer of Pandit Nehru and the Congress, Shaikh Abdullah was constrained to say as early as 1968: “The fact remains that Indian democracy stops short at Pathankot (the last major town in eastern Punjab before one enters the state of Jammu and Kashmir). Between Pathankot and Banihal Pass (which connects Jammu with Kashmir) you may have some measure of democracy, but after Banihal there is none; what we have in Kashmir bears some of the worst characteristics of colonial rule.” The situation has gradually become only worse since 1968.

Since the 1970s (when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi manipulated the elections to the Kashmir state assembly and punished the Kashmiri people by installing a ruthless governor like Jagmohan) the disputed state has been subjected to the worst and crudest form of colonial treatment by the rulers in New Delhi.

However, Pakistan too has to realize that its policies have not helped the Kashmiris’ struggle for self-determination. If the persistent demand by the United States and many other foreign countries to put an end to the cross-border infiltration and help control “terrorism” in the Indian occupied Kashmir is any indication, the elements in Pakistan are perceived as being involved in (Indian) Kashmir.

As a result, the secular APHC is in the danger of being marginalized in the armed struggle in the Indian-held Kashmir and replaced by jihadi factions who have in the past been involved in the civil strife in Afghanistan and Chechnya. This could only give India a pretext to tighten its grip over Kashmir and alienate the freedom fighters from their sympathizers abroad.

Although the relationship between New Delhi and the Kashmiri people has always been a troubled one, the Muslims of India have kept themselves scrupulously aloof from it. During the 1965 India-Pakistan war which basically concerned Kashmir, there was no instance of any significant section of Indian Muslims playing a partisan role in sympathy with the Kashmiri Muslims.

It was thus naive on the part of a seasoned Indian journalist, M.V. Kamath to protest in an article, against “the Muslims in India having looked on passively at the craven communalism in Kashmir without lifting their little finger...” The fact is once the Kashmir issue had been referred to the UN and the fighting between Kashmiri patriots aided by Pakistani irregulars and the Indian forces which had erupted shortly after partition had ended with both India and Pakistan accepting the UN-sponsored ceasefire, there was no occasion for any “craven communalism.

Indian author Rafiq Zakaria questioning Kamath’s observation has posed the question: “Has India ever bothered to involve Indian Muslims in the Kashmir affair? It is obvious that India does not quite trust the Kashmiri Muslims.”

The fact is that the Indian Muslims’ exposure to New Delhi’s relationship with the Kashmiris is a very limited one. The flow of news from the occupied Kashmir to India (and indeed to the world at large) is strictly controlled by the Indian authorities.

They seldom allow foreign journalists to visit the Valley. In any case — as a number of Indian writers themselves admit — the Indian Muslims have no means of influencing the Kashmiri people.

It has been noted that during his 17 years as prime minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his emotional effervescence over Kashmir, never appointed a Muslim from Kashmir to his cabinet. The saner elements in India recognize that it would be in India’s own interest to promote trust in the Muslims within their own domain and encourage contacts between the Kashmiris and the Indian Muslims and reassure both of them that they have a place of honour in society.

Pakistan can help the Kashmiris and the Indian Muslims by not allowing itself to be deflected from the path of normalization of relations with New Delhi on which it is now embarked.

The World Meteorological Organisation normally produces statistics-heavy reports at the end of the year, not news bulletins about today’s weather. Its announcement on 2 July that the record extremes in weather being experienced globally this year are evidence that climate change is actually underway is therefore much more than just another salvo in the long argument about global warming.

In Geneva, where the WMO is based, daytime temperatures have not fallen below 25C (77F) since late May — the hottest June in at least 250 years. In the United States, May brought a record of 562 tornadoes (the previous record for one month was 399). In India, the pre-monsoon heat-wave brought peak temperatures of 45C (113F) and directly caused at least 1,400 deaths. As the WMO statement cautiously observed: “New record extreme events occur everywhere somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes has been increasing.” But there is still no sense of urgency, and hardly anybody addresses the real context of this change.

Four weeks ago, for example, the Bush White House censored a government report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency that analysed global warming and its sources. It eliminated any suggestion that human activities, notably industrial and vehicle emissions, were at least partly responsible for climate change.

It removed references to a widely accepted 1999 study showing how sharply temperatures had risen in the previous decade compared with the 1,000-year pattern, and substituted a controversial later study, partly financed by the oil industry, that disputes the evidence. The green lobby complained, and the media covered the story in a desultory way, but everyone continued to behave as though there was lots of time. The problem is that ‘global warming’ was the first aspect of climate change to catch the public’s attention, and for the vast majority of people it remains the only threat — if indeed it is a threat.

After all, warmer isn’t necessarily worse, and anyway it’s a gradual process and we’ll all probably be safely dead before it gets too serious. Climate researchers have known that this is untrue for about twenty years, since the evidence of the Greenland ice-cores became available, but it has still not affected the public debate.

Those cores go down two miles (three km.) into the Greenland ice-cap and bring up year-by-year evidence of weather that goes back a quarter-million years. What the shocked researchers realised when they examined the cores is that climate change — real climate change — is not gradual at all. It’s a threshold phenomenon, a sudden flip into a radically different state that may then persist for a very long time. The real danger we face is that gradual warming of the sort we are experiencing now will trigger a sudden cooling that could drop average global temperatures by 5C (9F) in ten years.

The sudden cooling and the accompanying droughts would destroy most of the agriculture that now sustains six billion of us, and at least 90 per cent of the human race would be killed by famine and war in a matter of a decade or so. These abrupt climate changes can herald the beginning of the next Ice Age, but climatic flips like this can also occur for lengthy periods even in the midst of warm-and-wet interglacial periods like the present.

We do still live in the Ice Ages, of course. For the past three million years, ever since continental drift closed the channel between North America to South America and changed the ocean currents, glaciers have covered over a third of the planet’s surface almost 90 per cent of the time. The recent pattern has been around 100,000 years of freeze followed by a much shorter warm period. The previous interglacial, which ended 117,000 years ago, was only 13,000 years long, so at 15,000 years we’re already into overtime on this one — but we don’t even need a major Ice Age to do the damage.

The process by which the climate flips is now fairly well understood. The trigger is a phase of gradual warming that, either through glacial melting or just more rainfall, increases the amount of fresh water on the ocean surface between Labrador, Greenland and Norway. This critical part of the North Atlantic is where the Gulf Stream’s water, having become salty and dense through evaporation, sinks to the bottom and flows back south — but if it is diluted by too much fresh water on the surface, it doesn’t sink and the circuit is broken.—Copyright

THE 1990 finance commission projected the revenue receipts of federal divisible pool taxes, after deducting 5 per cent collection charges, but for royalties on crude oil and natural gas, and excise duty and surcharge on natural gas, the collection charges have been worked out at 2 per cent. No explanation has been put forward for different rates of collection charges, which, in fact, are one of the lowest in the world — hardly touching 2 per cent!

Another recommendation was that the ratio between excise duty and development surcharge on natural gas should be substantially improved in favour of excise duty. As far as the award of the commission is concerned, this was a superfluous recommendation because the full amount of development surcharge was recommended to be paid to the provinces concerned. However, the recommendation indicates the direction in which the next finance commission and the federal government have to move in regard to the development surcharge on natural gas.

In the history of finance commissions in Pakistan, no finance commission was so controversial as the one constituted on December 10, 1996, with revised terms of reference, which were, among others, to recommend the distribution between the federation and the provinces of the net proceeds of (i) taxes on income, including corporation tax but not including taxes on income consisting of remuneration paid out of the federal consolidated fund; (ii) taxes on sales and purchases of good imported, exported, produced, manufactured or consumed; (iii) export duties on cotton; and (iv) to consider the inclusion of other federal taxes, including customs duties and federal excises, but not including tax on income paid out of the federal consolidated fund.

The very establishment of a national finance commission by a caretaker government violated one of the basic principles of good governance — an interim or caretaker government fills the gaps between the dissolution of the National Assembly and fresh elections within ninety days of the dissolution. Its main duty is to look after day-to-day administration, and not to take any decision that may have long-term financial, political, administrative, economic and commercial implications. The other principle, which was ignored, was festina-lente: ‘hurry up slowly’. There was no question of ‘hurry up quickly’ in a matter of such importance as the establishment of national finance commission. This should have been left to the elected government, as was done in 1990 And within a short period of two months, the commission submitted its report, and the Distribution of Revenues and Grants-in-Aid Order 1997 was issued on February 12, 1997!

Even the terms of reference were not in accordance with the Constitution. In so far as only a few “specified” taxes are included in Article 160, the commission has a restrictive constitutional jurisdiction. The incorporation of “Consider the inclusion of other Federal Taxes including Customs Duties and Federal Excises, but not including tax on income paid out of the Federal Consolidated Fund” in the terms of reference, is ultra-constitutional, and, there is a mixing of direct and indirect taxes, as well. The words, “but not including tax on income paid out of the Federal Consolidated Fund” are redundant, because (if the intention is the same) they are already mentioned with earlier part of the terms of reference, in conjunction with “taxes on income”. Customs duties and federal excises are not taxes on income!

Under the Constitution, the president has to specify “such duties of excise”, and “such other taxes”. No “such duties of excise” have been specified by the president in the terms of reference. The commission’s charter is limited. The wholesale inclusion of federal excise is not visualized in the Constitution. Similarly, all taxes and duties cannot be included in the divisible pool. If ‘customs duties’ are to be included, the president has to specify which ‘customs duties’ would be divisible.

If the intention of the framers of the Constitution was such, they would have said “all or such duties of excise” and “all or such other taxes” in Article 160. Except ‘income tax’ and ‘sales tax’ (as defined in Article 160), there is no provision for inclusion of the whole of the net proceeds of federal excises or customs duties or any other federal tax. Their wholesale inclusion is unconstitutional.

The Distribution and Revenues Order 1997 has included taxes not mentioned in the Constitution and in the terms of reference, like “wealth tax”, “capital value tax”, and “any other tax which may be levied by the federal government”! This was beyond the constitutional limit.

The constitution is very clear. It does not include “any other tax which may be levied by the federal government”. The duty of the national finance commission is to recommend to the president the distribution of the net proceeds of the taxes, raised under the authority of the parliament, and as listed in Article 160. It does not cover any tax to be levied in future. And how could the finance commission recommend, and the president / government agree to include for distribution “any other tax which may be levied by the federal government”?

The commission, like other commissions, recommended that distribution of all taxes would be on population basis. Since the divisible pool was enlarged, the commission recommended that the centre should retain 62.5 per cent and the provinces be assigned 37.5 per cent of net proceeds of the taxes. As such, Punjab was to receive 57.88 per cent, Sindh 23.28 per cent, NWFP 13.54 per cent, and Balochistan 5.30 per cent.

Is it fortuitous that the terms of reference of the national finance commission, established in 2000 is almost the same as for 1996-97 commission? There is a continuing constitutional violation, which is further compounded by inclusion of a new item “GST on services”, which is not mentioned in clause (3) of Article 160; it is not even covered by “such other taxes as may be specified by the president”, because “services” have not been specified.

The idea of including all federal taxes in the divisible pool appears to have been borrowed, in a quarter-baked manner, from the recommendations of the tenth Indian finance commission, which had suggested an alternate scheme of devolution, in its report, submitted in December 1994, for the years 1995-2000. Under this scheme, proceeds of all shareable taxes would constitute a common shareable pool from which a share was to be devolved to the states.

The Commission observed, “In the framework of cooperative federalism, the Constitution currently provided for sharing of two taxes, income tax and union excise duties, with the states .... Recent economic reforms, including tax reforms, have underlined this fact. The progress of reforms will be greatly facilitated if the ambit of tax-sharing arrangement is enlarged so as to give greater certainty of resource flows to, and increased .flexibility in tax reforms for the two layers of government”.

The tenth commission recommended 29.5 per cent of the proceeds to be devolved to the states under this scheme. This excludes grants-in-aid. The commission suggested that this scheme of resource sharing be brought into force after necessary amendments to the Constitution.

And when the eleventh commission was at the end of its task, the Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Act, 2000 received the assent of Indian president. This “altered the pattern of sharing of central taxes between the centre and the states in a fundamental way”, under which all central taxes and duties are to be shared between the centre and the states. The terms of reference of the eleventh commission had to be modified by the president to include all central taxes and duties for distribution; this required the commission to redetermine the share of the net proceeds of all Union taxes and duties, which might be assigned to the states, and the respective share of each state.

The commission recommended that the share of the states be fixed at 29.5 per cent of the net proceeds of all taxes and duties, referred to in the union list. The criteria and relative weights for determining inter-se share of the states are population (10 per cent); distance (62.5 per cent); area (7.5 per cent); index of infrastructure (7.5 per cent); tax efforts (5 per cent); and fiscal discipline (7.5 per cent). The commission recommended that the ceiling of overall transfer of resources (tax devolution, grants-in-aid, and grants in other forms like Plan Grants) should be 37.5 per cent of the gross revenue receipts of the centre.

What we, in Pakistan, have done is that we have included all federal taxes and duties in the divisible pool without any constitutional amendment to give a proper legal and constitutional cover to our borrowed idea.

Finally, a word about “net proceeds”, which, under the Constitution, “means, in relation to any tax or duty, the proceeds thereof, reduced by the cost of collection, as ascertained and certified by the Auditor-General”. Normally, every Finance Commission has assumed the cost of collection as five per cent, when it is actually two per cent or so. Has the auditor-general ascertained and certified the cost of collection as 5 per cent or less than that? If it is less, has the federal government distributed the enhanced portion of the net proceeds among the provinces. Most probably, not.

Concluded