THE government finally approved of a constitutional package for resolving the on-going conflict on the issue of Legal Framework Order (LFO). However, the package was doomed from the beginning as the government evaded the most contentious issue of General Musharraf’s tenure as Chief of Amy Staff.

Amongst the proposals made by the government, it is suggested that Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution may also be amended. The proposal is that where the president comes to a conclusion that a situation has arisen in which the government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary, the president may pass an order to dissolve the National Assembly.

However, the order of dissolution shall not be immediately implemented. Instead, the president would make a reference to the Supreme Court seeking the opinion of the court on the validity of his action within 30 days. If the Supreme Court upholds the presidential order, the assembly shall be dissolved and the government dismissed. If the Supreme Court holds otherwise, the assembly and the government shall continue to function.

This proposal relating to premature dissolution of the National Assembly by the president subject to the approval by the Supreme Court is indeed a novel idea. In the past the Supreme Court came into the picture only after the dissolution of the assembly has taken place; now it is being made privy to the dissolution process.

There are a number of arguments in favour of the proposal. It would provide a viable and civilized method for resolving a difficult issue through dispassionate arguments before a neutral forum which enjoys the confidence and respect of all the contestants. It is always preferable to resolve disputes judicially rather than through street protests and use of force. Resorting to the Supreme Court for resolving such a contentious issue could have an overall positive effect on our political culture. Dialogue and arguments rather than force would be used as the proper mode for resolving disputes.

It would also act as a prophylactic check on the discretionary powers of the president. If the president knew that his exercise of power would be subjected to searching scrutiny of the Supreme Court before it takes effect, he would refrain from using his power arbitrarily and would do so only when unavoidable. He would also know that if the Supreme Court does not uphold his action, his survival in office would become difficult.

The proposed amendment would also provide a meaningful opportunity to the aggrieved party namely the federal government as well as the members of the National Assembly to convey their views and defend their performance before the dissolution becomes effective. It would give them a timely opportunity to restrain the president from nullifying the mandate of the electorate. In the past they could go to the court only after dissolution has taken place.

This amendment would also rectify the present constitutional imbalance. The judiciary, which is one of the most vital organs of the state, has been relegated to political insignificance. It has rightly been described as the least dangerous branch by an Americana scholar. Any constitutional amendment which strengthens the judiciary in its equation with other organs of the state is to be welcomed. More so when such power is conferred by the representatives of the people after a deliberative process and not assumed by the court through judicial activism.

As against the arguments in favour of conferring adjudication power on the court, there are equally cogent arguments to the contrary. The foremost is that this would politicize the court and further damage its reputation and standing in the public eye. Unfortunately, the present public perception of the court leaves little room for trial and error. No court has ever emerged unscathed from divisive national disputes of the present kind.

From our first constitutional conflict in Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan’s case to the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah’s case which legitimized military rule and conferred the power to amend the Constitution on one individual, the court’s record as arbiter of political disputes has been abysmal. Demonstrably the court is not an appropriate forum for resolving political disputes. This is evident from the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Qazi Hussain Ahmed v Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2002 SC 853) in which the court lamented that all political questions which should have been dealt with and resolved at the political level had been brought to the court.

We also need to remember that whenever such a reference is made by the president, it is usually done in a charged political atmosphere. When the survival of the government and the assembly are at stake, cooler heads may not necessarily prevail. Whatever the court may decide, there may always be a formidable section of society which would cry foul and refuse to honour the court’s verdict. The court hears legal arguments addressed by professional lawyers and delivers judgment strictly on the basis of legal submissions. On a controversial political issue which bitterly divides the people, would it be prudent to involve the court in such disputes? We must appreciate that even if it is couched in constitutional terminology, dissolution of the National Assembly and dismissal of the government is not a legal issue. It is a political question. It is an issue which requires value judgment, a task which judges by training as well as temperament are not suitable for. No amount of legal brilliance could ever be a substitute for political wisdom which cannot be gained by hearing legal arguments. The US Supreme Court earned universal opprobrium by indulging in making a political choice in the electoral dispute between George Bush and Al Gore.

It would also create an anomalous situation. The Supreme Court may give an opinion on a reference before dissolution and yet parties may approach the court for a binding judgment after the dissolution. Would the court, exercising its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3), of the Constitution, be bound by an earlier opinion given on a presidential reference?

Worse still, such issues may divide the court itself as happened in the past. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah’s dissent in the case of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v the president (PLD 1993 SC 473) and Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza’s dissent in the case of Benazir Bhutto v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 388) are stark reminders of the schism amongst the judges on the issue. The judiciary divided on a sensitive political issue is highly damaging for the institution.

If our Supreme Court is dragged into prejudging the question of dissolution and dismissal, it is most unlikely to emerge from the crisis with its neutrality and prestige intact. Being accessory to the process of dissolution of the National Assembly, the court would hardly be spared the mudslinging that is bound to follow. The judiciary is an institution whose strength and moral authority rest on the respect it commands from the people. Wherever judges have been involved in political controversies, the mud sticks to their eternal discredit.

To command respect the judiciary must not only be impartial and independent but must also be perceived as such by the people. Our judiciary has never declared a dictator as usurper while he is in power. Instead, they have been granted power to amend the Constitution — not an act to earn the respect and appreciation of the people. Any action which lowers the judiciary in the public eye must be avoided at all costs.

There is yet another reason, for caution. If the Supreme Court upholds a president’s order, the Assembly will be dissolved and elections will be held. If the court does not uphold the president’s action, the Assembly and the government would continue to function. Is this a realistic scenario? Would the president who had come to the conclusion that the situation warranted fresh election be able to resume normal equation with very cabinet and the assembly which he wanted dismissed? The last time when the Supreme Court refused to uphold the order of the president and restored the Assembly and the government, the cohabitation lasted less than a month and the judgment was nullified in the face of the court.

The following comments by Dr Mohammad Sayed Tantawy, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, in response to Newsweek’s scepticism about the genuineness of the Holy Quran, have been sent to us by the ambassador of Egypt.

[Many of us, Muslims, were outraged at the article published in July 28, 2003, issue of Newsweek magazine entitled “Challenging the Qur’an”, in which a so-called German scholar claims that the original language of the Holy Qur’an was Aramaic, not Arabic, and that today’s copies of Islam’s holiest book were a mistranscription of the original text received by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

I personally felt that my duty was to respond immediately to this article which was full of deliberate historical mistakes. Then, I said to myself that as ambassador of Egypt in one of the largest Islamic countries, Pakistan, it would be useful to ask for comments from the highest authority in the Muslim world, that is from the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, Dr Mohammad Sayed Tantawy, who kindly spared some of his most precious time to provide me, and my fellow Muslim brothers of Pakistan, with the following comments.]

IN this article Stefan Theil sheds light on the scepticism of Christoph Luxenburg, a professor of Semitic languages at one of Germany’s universities, regarding the genuineness of the Holy Qur’an in the Arabic language.

The German scholar claims that “the original language of the Qur’an was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic” and that “the copy of the Qur’an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Mohammed’s (pbuh) original time, which, according to Islamic tradition, was destroyed by the third Caliph, Osman Ibn-Affan, in the seventh century.”

These allegations are definitely unsound as Allah’s words in Surae Yusaf (Joseph) are: ‘We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an in order that you may learn Wisdom.” The same fact is also revealed in the following verses of the Qur’an: 13:37, 16:03, 20:113, 29:195, 39:28, 41:03, 42:07, 43:03 and 46:12. Any opinion in contradiction with Allah’s words is undoubtedly incorrect.

Furthermore, never was the original text of the Holy Qur’an destroyed. Evidently, Luxenburg is not knowledgeable about the exact historical events that took place. In the seventh century, out of fear that there existed some altered versions of the Qur’an after the Prophet’s death, Caliph Osman ordered, and personally oversaw, the gathering of all other versions besides the original one and had them destroyed. As a result of these efforts, the original version of the holy Qur’an as directly learned from the Prophet is the only existing version today.

Luxenburg’s claim that “Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Mohamed’s death” is utterly untrue since it is factual that Arabic was the prevailing language in the Arab peninsula for at least over a hundred years prior to the Prophet’s sacred mission. The Arabs were well known for their unparalleled poetry prior to Islam. It is a pity that a professional researcher spared himself the effort to get acquainted with the superb “Seven Hanging Poems.” We highly recommend to Luxenburg, as proof to disable his allegation, to read, for example, the hanging poetry of Emroe El-Qaiss, Zohair Ibn-Abi-Salma and Antara Ibn-Shaddad.

The German professor also asserts that the “Qur’an had Christian origins” and claims, according to the Aramaic version of the Qur’an, that the Qur’an is composed of the “teaching’ of the ancient Scriptures,” as opposed to the Arabic version of the Qur’an, which confirms that it is a “revelation’ from Allah.” The Holy Qur’an is Allah’s Sacred Book, which is certainly a revelation from the Almighty to his Prophet through the Angel Gabriel. It should be noted, however, that this Sacred Book, and Islam, in general, are comprehensive compared to all holy faiths, beliefs and doctrines.

In his article, Theil also states the differences between the Arabic and Aramaic versions of the Qur’an regarding the interpretation of the phrase the “Seal of Prophet” in Sura 33, which refers to Prophet Mohamed. In the Arabic version, this phrase means, as stated in the article, that Mohammed is “the final and ultimate prophet of Allah,” whereas the Aramaic version claims him only to be a witness to the authentication of the Old and New Testaments. In fact, Mohamed is both the final and ultimate Prophet of Allah, as well as a witness to the genuineness of the Testaments. As the Qur’an states, “It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book confirming what went before it and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and Gospel (of Jesus) before this.”

The German scholar, according to Theil, asserts that the original Qur’an “was in fact a Christian liturgical document — before the expanding Arab empire turned Mohamed’s teachings into the basis for its new religion long after the Prophet’s death” This allegation is also incorrect since, as stated above, the Prophet received his religious instructions from revelation from Allah and Mohamed’s teachings were never turned into a new religion as they are consistent with the contents and instructions of the Qur’an.

Allah says in Sura Hashr (The Gathering), “So take what the Apostle assigns to you and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.”

Another point that must be clarified is that the Holy Qur’an orders women to “draw their veil over their bosoms,” which is in conformity with the Old Testament, as the Holy Qur’an orders women to be decent in dressing. Professor Luxenburg’s claim that the Qur’an orders women to “snap their belts around their waists” in an insinuation to hatred and terrorism incitement is a mockery. Professor Luxenburg is advised to be extremely careful in interpreting the Holy Books. Furthermore, whoever orders women to place explosives around their waists is both ignorant and a terrorist.

Theil also states that if Luxenburg’s assumptions that the Qur’an was originally in Aramaic, then Mohamed Atta’s fellow hijackers, whom he told were to marry 72 wide-eyed virgins in paradise, will be disappointed since the interpretation of the paradise verse in Aramaic states that they will be rewarded with “white raisins” and “juicy fruits” instead. Luxenburg’s allegation is far from correct. “Houris” mentioned in the original version of the Qur’an means “lustrous wide-eyed virgins” and not raisins and fruits. However, Atta’s assumption that they will be married off to 72 of them is not based on any grounds whatsoever. Besides, it must be made clear that suicide bombers do not blow themselves up for the sake of sexual reward in their afterlife. They have a worldly cause, be it misguided, namely that of freeing their families and countries from occupation, oppression and injustice.

Although the German scholar’s book to be published this fall is about the interpretation of the Qur’an, the writer of the article in the Newsweek, Stefan Theil, does not miss the opportunity to link it to the tragic events of September 11 and Palestinian suicide bombers in an attempt to insinuate that Islam is a religion of violence. His aim is to remind the readers of the allegations propagated through the western media, implying that Islam advocates the use of violence, thus trying to undermine Islam and promoting universal hatred against Muslims — a matter that is highly unacceptable.

Finally, scholars and researchers are advised to avoid a faulty engagement in discussing the Holy Books because these books are revelations from Allah to His prophets “to lead men from the depth of darkness into light” Words spoken by those who are not specialists in divinity and who lack true and faithful insight into the religion are certainly unsound and untrue.

May peace be upon you.

At a time when Muslims all over the western world are mistreated, to say the least, one must remain vigilant towards what is being published about our great religion of Islam.

DURING his recent visit to the United States, President Pervez Musharraf, in his various speeches and statements expressed almost quite as much concern for the problems confronting the Muslims at large as for those facing Pakistan. At times he spoke like a spokesman of the Muslim people. This was not altogether unprecedented. In many a session of the United Nations in the past, Pakistan assumed a similar role.

However, what came as somewhat unexpected was the President’s forthright declaration that the West looked to Pakistan to provide leadership and that Pakistan was willing and able to lead the Muslim world out of the crisis it had been facing since the terrorist attacks in the US and the subsequent declaration of the war against international terrorism.

Addressing a gathering of Pakistanis in New York the President spoke of the “widening gulf of perceptions” between the West and the Islamic world and went on to stress the urgent need to bridge the gap. As a seasoned general trained to face all manner of risks and hazards, he felt confident that Pakistan could bridge the gap. Was he making a bid to be the leader of the Muslim world? Indications were that he was.

This too is nothing unprecedented. The historian Prof S.M. Burke has quoted the first prime minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, from his speech at the inauguration of the Motamar-i- Alam-i-Islami session in Karachi in February 1951 as saying: “Since a cardinal feature of the Islamic ideology (which was the inspiration behind the creation of Pakistan) is to make Muslim brotherhood a reality, it was part of her mission to do everything in her power to promote fellowship and cooperation between Muslim countries.”

However, Pakistan’s bid to assume the leadership of the Muslim world could run into problems. Firstly, not all Muslims countries, particularly those of the Middle East and the Gulf, have traditionally had an extraordinary sense of self-assurance. Secondly because of their oil resources and the patronage extended to them on that account by the US, the sole world power since the end of the cold war, they have enjoyed comparative peace and stability and may tend to look upon Pakistan as unstable and therefore perhaps not reliable as a senior partner.

Thirdly, most such nations have kings and monarchs at the helm of their governments who are not averse to accepting favours from the advanced nations such as the US, something that gives them a sense of self-sufficiency and security and therefore not quite in need of support from a country like Pakistan. Finally, there are countries like Iran who have a strong sense of their national identity and heritage and do not accept patronage from anyone else. They strongly believe that their country should be independent in managing its own affairs.

It is relevant to recall that when the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) was launched in Rabat in August 1969, after the burning down of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the “revolutionary regimes” of Iraq and Syria declined to attend and even Egypt was stated to be a ‘lukewarm’ participant. There were even cynical observations such as whether Islam could be a strong enough force “to weld together such a large number of heterogeneous peoples into a meaningful partnership.” The basic reality of the observation remains unaltered. Gen Pervez Musharraf cannot be too sure that his wish that the Muslim nations should be united to rid themselves of the ignominy of being labelled terrorists would be easily fulfilled.

The general has called for restructuring of the OIC to “evolve a realistic strategy to secure justice for the Islamic people.” This is too idealistic. Not all Muslim nations may be subjected to the same sort of injustices and the “major powers” may not have a reason to extend their support equally to all of them. In the Iran-Iraq war the US chose to support Iraq but in the Iraq-Kuwait conflict it decided to go to war against Iraq, inflicting extremely severe punishment on the Iraqi people. The US’s present war against Iraq is also by no means seen as a just war by all Muslim countries.

However, President Pervez Musharraf’s position on terrorism deserves to be fully endorsed. While short-term measures such as the war against Taliban can be effective in dealing with wanton and senseless violence against innocent people, a long-term strategy should be evolved to deal effectively with the root cause of any acts of terrorism. A clear distinction should also be drawn between terrorism and the armed resistance by a weak and oppressed people to secure their right of self-determination. The need for a definition of terrorism including the use of force by a state to suppress a legitimate demand for self-determination cannot be over-emphasised.

The Pakistan President made a forceful effort to draw the world community’s attention to the struggles of the Palestinian and Kashmiri peoples for their respective right of self- determination. It is doubtful however that he has been able to correct the prevailing perceptions.

The United States has given its full support to Israel despite the untold suffering inflicted by the latter on the Palestinian people. It has vetoed the Security Council’s resolution condemning the Israeli government’s policy to call for expelling the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from his homeland and even to put him to death.

The peoples of Palestine and the Indian held Kashmir continue to be victims of state terrorism despite all the rhetorics at the New York conference on “Fighting Terrorism for Humanity”. As far as the Indian held Kashmir is concerned the US is apparently prepared to make no change in its policy of treating India as a strategic ally, with the freedom to go on acquiring the most sophisticated lethal weaponry from the US and other sources under its sphere of influence.

As far as the power wielders of the world are concerned UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s declaration that we delude ourselves if we think military force alone can defeat terrorism may as well have been a cry in the wilderness.