| 12 February 2004 | Thursday | 20 Zilhaj 1424 |
French ban on headscarves
Spurious pesticides
While one must welcome President Pervez Musharraf's call for debating the Hudood Ordinances, it has to be noted with regret that nothing has been done over the years to sort out this anomaly.
Speaking to the First Ladies and ministers from the Asia-Pacific region, the president observed that the issue concerned the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. As he put it, the nation has to adhere to Islamic laws, but the question is one of "correct interpretation".
As they stand today, the Hudood ordinances were promulgated by Gen Ziaul Haq without the consent of the people of Pakistan. Being a dictator, he used to legislate through decree. Even in such a sensitive religious matter he did not try to obtain the views of all sections of the ulema.
Instead, the Hudood ordinances reflected the views of a small coterie of clerics who had chosen to side with the general for narrow and partisan political purposes.
The ordinances provide for corporal punishments for drinking, fornication, adultery, rape and blasphemy and were then rubber-stamped by a parliament elected on a non-party basis which was required to indemnify all of Zia's actions and irregularities on pain of dismissal.
The ordinance concerning sexual offences are blatantly anti-women, especially when it comes to rape. One of its worst features is that it is unfairly biased against the victim, for the moment she reports rape she is arrested. This is something that defies all logic and common sense.
According to the Constitution, no law can be enacted if it goes against the tenets of Islam. The big question is who has the right to legislate in an Islamic state.
Whether they concern civil and criminal matters, or relate to the economy, finance, education and environment, all laws must have the people's will as a sanction behind them. This means that only a parliament elected by the people has the right to make laws.
In any country, laws are meant to conform to society's needs and conditions. These conditions change, and it is the legislators' job to revise, amend and make new laws that are in keeping with new social realities.
This requires Muslim legislators to continue to define and re-interpret the Quran and Sunnah from time to time in the light of changing norms and values of life.
The Hudood ordinances have been criticized by large sections of society. Liberal opinion, human rights activists, women's lobbies, minority groups, and many sections of the ulema have called for their repeal. This government has accepted the shortcomings of the Hudood laws but has refrained from doing anything practical.
Instead, it now wants a debate, as suggested by President Musharraf on Tuesday. This is in sharp contrast with the reality that this government never hesitates to issue an ordinance when it feels like doing so for expedient reasons. In the past, it also withdrew its own proposal to make improvements in the procedure for registering blasphemy cases.
It is time parliament debated this issue and acted. As Iqbal has pointed out, ijmah (consensus) can be achieved in modern times only through a parliament. We have an elected parliament, and it certainly has the right to debate the Hudood laws and interpret all "Islamic" laws promulgated by Ziaul Haq and revise and repeal them where called for by dictates of justice, equity and tolerance.
Movement and dynamism are essential features of Islam. The Hudood ordinances were enacted by a dictator who had his own agenda for self-perpetuation. They lack any moral sanction. The issue must be debated thoroughly and the views of all sections of the ulema ascertained so as to make a new law that will be in keeping with both the dictates of Islam and modern society.
French ban on headscarves
The French National Assembly's overwhelming vote in support of a bill prohibiting religious emblems in state schools has further fuelled the controversy which has put France in the spotlight for several months.
Although Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, large Christian crosses and Sikh turbans will fall under the purview of the ban in public schools, the Muslims feel the most hurt.
Given their large presence - France has the largest Muslim minority in Europe (five million) - inevitably the Muslim reaction has been the loudest. The passage of the French law will also rob the West's credibility in its campaign to assure the Muslim world that the war against terror is not directed against Islam.
It is not easy to justify the ban in view of the fact that religious symbols have so far not proved to be a major source of social disharmony and friction. In fact, the racial tension that has marked French society from time to time is rooted not so much in religion as in ethnicity.
It is therefore difficult to understand the need for the ban on the headscarf, except as a political ploy to win support of the far right which backs the National Front in the regional polls next month.
Even if this law wins President Chirac some electoral gains, its long-term repercussions are bound to prove an obstacle to social integration in France and could have a negative fallout politically, socially and also vis-a-vis its foreign policy.
At the heart of the matter is the French approach to multiculturalism and secularism. While one would appreciate the French society's commitment to a system which keeps religion out of public life and government, this hardly requires every citizen to abandon his religious faith, especially when he can balance secularism with his personal beliefs and values.
By and large the Muslims in France have displayed much flexibility in their approach, in spite of the discrimination they have suffered in political and public life.
Rather than addressing the problem of the unjust marginalization of the minorities, it is a pity that the French government has taken a step that smacks of racism, negates the fundamental rights of a big segment of its population and will strain its relations with many states.
Spurious pesticides
Members of the Kissan Board Pakistan, a farmer's body, on Tuesday highlighted problems being faced by growers as a result of overpriced and spurious pesticides being sold in the market.
The Board says that the rise in the prices of pesticides is because of the higher than expected demand by farmers following the pest attack last year. To make matters worse, this increase in demand has come at a time of an artificial shortage as some pesticide dealers have resorted to hoarding.
Needless to say, this shortage and the sale of pesticides at rates three times the original price have put the farmer in a tight corner. This situation is being further exploited by some unscrupulous elements who are making spurious pesticides on a wide scale.
These pesticides, which are either adulterated or fake, are freely available. It is said that the extensive damage caused by last year's pest attack on the cotton crop was because a number of farmers trying to fight the problem unknowingly used spurious pesticides.
The government needs to take serious note of the situation. There are allegations that some government officials are ignoring the seriousness of the problem and its implications.
As the country's economy is largely agriculture-based, all steps must be taken to ensure that agricultural production is not affected by these problems which can be prevented and controlled by swift action.
The government plans to boost cotton production to 15 million bales by 2010. To make this a reality, it has to take serious note of the complaints by cotton growers of problems which are affecting their production. One way to do this would be to evolve a pesticides policy so that there is some direction in their import, production, sale and marketing in the future.