| 23 May 2004 | Sunday | 03 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 |
Harsh laws and human rights
Fundamentalists and extremists are not confined to the Muslim world. They are alive and well and, one may even say, thriving among American Christians and Jews. A brief account of their dispositions and objectives may be of interest to readers.
One of the distinguishing attitudes of a fundamentalist in the three Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is that he goes by the literal meaning of the scriptural text. He does not treat any part of it as allegorical or metaphorical and, thus, open to interpretation. His presence would cause others no concern if he were to remain within his own circle of like-minded persons and did not come knocking on his neighbour's door. But such self-denial or reticence on his part is unlikely.
Albert Einstein (the renowned scientist) once observed that a man fully convinced of the truth of his religion could not be tolerant of those who subscribed to a different faith. He would first try to convert them to his own beliefs, and he would most likely go on to hating them if his initial endeavour failed. Hatred would then lead to persecution of the dissident This trend of mind motivates him to seek political influence, possibly dominance.
The term "fundamentalist" came into vogue in America about the middle of the 19th century with the rise of a movement that preached the Second Coming of Christ. It was sparked partly by a group of Christian theologians at Princeton University revolted by Darwin's theories of evolution that contradicted the Biblical version of man's creation.
According to one estimate, some 35 million Americans subscribe to fundamentalist Christianity. They favour the patriarchal family structure, subordination of woman to man and the safeguarding of her chastity, control of education and religious indoctrination of children, and corporal punishment to discipline them.
The hard-core fundamentalists oppose science, modernity, feminism, free choice, sex education in school, affirmative action, free speech, civil rights, and tolerance of the dissident. They feel called upon to transform America into a Christian nation, control its government, and eventually turn it into a "theonomy" (Rule of God).
They would enforce uniformity of belief and practice throughout the land. One of their more virulent spokesmen, Randall Terry, has had this to say: "I want you to let a wave of intolerance, a wave of hatred, wash over you. Yes, hate is good." He abhors pluralism, he is not content merely with equal rights for his followers; God expects him to "conquer this country" and have the Bible replace the American constitution.
In his well-known work, With God on our Side, William Martin tells us that the "theonomic" order the Christian fundamentalist wants to enforce will make male adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrines (heresy), and incorrigible behaviour on the part of defiant children subject to death penalty, preferably administered by stoning.
Recalling Biblical warnings that persistent disobedience to God will ultimately invite His wrath, Jerry Falwell explained the events of 9/11 as God's punishment for the doings of pagans, abortionists, gays and lesbians, and the American Civil Liberties Union (a radical champion of secularism and equal rights). While running for president in the American elections of 2000, Pat Robertson, another well-known priest, proclaimed that "after the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil, and the state will not permit it."
Fundamentalists have gathered considerable influence in high places. More than 40 members of the United States Senate and about 170 members of the House of Representatives are said to be more or less sympathetic to their platform. In a recent address, William H. Rehnquist, chief justice of the United States, is reported to have said: "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor that has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
The Christian fundamentalists in America believe they are doing God's will. President George W. Bush, said to be a sympathizer, justified some of his recent controversial actions in the following words: "God told me to strike at Al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East" (June 27, 2003).
As if the president's own inclination in this regard were not enough, a pamphlet, said to have been widely distributed by a fundamentalist group asks American soldiers serving in Iraq to pray that Mr Bush and his advisers will remain mindful that God is in control, and that they must look to Him and seek His wisdom daily instead of relying on their own understanding of affairs and events.
Fundamentalists turned extremists consider violence as a legitimate vehicle for dealing with persons who reject their creed and programme. They harass, vandalize, and sometimes burn down abortion clinics and gay and lesbian clubs. FBI sources report that approximately 71,000 hate crimes were committed in America between 1991 and 2000. Some of these acts are attributed to a group that calls itself the "Army of God".
Individuals under its spell have committed horrendous terrorist actions in recent years. Eric Robert Rudolph carried out several bombings in Atlanta, including one in the 1996 centennial Olympics compound. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 persons. Racial extremism mixed with the religious variety has prompted the lynching of thousands of black Americans and the burning down of their churches over the years.
Let us now turn to Jewish fundamentalism before we refer to a very peculiar type of violence to which the Christian fundamentalists are inclined. American Jews belong to one of three groupings, namely, orthodox, conservative, and reformed. Fundamentalists are more likely to be found among the orthodox. Called "Haredim", their men and boys wear hats ("yarmulkes") and loosely fitting clothes, often black. Married women keep their hair covered.
They pray three times a day, reject pork, eat strictly "kosher" (similar to our "halal") food, and will not mix meat with milk or any milk product. (They will not cook meat in butter or put milk in their tea or coffee if their meal includes meat.) There is a long list of actions they will avoid on Saturday, which is their day of fasting and rest ("Sabbath). They tend to forego movies, television, and much of what goes as music. They would much rather study the Torah than make money.
So far so good. But, unfortunately for many others, they believe also that God has always intended for the Jews to retake all of Palestine and the lands beyond which, according to their scriptures, were theirs some two thousand years ago. It is now His will that they should repossess these territories. It is then fit and proper for the state of Israel to expel, or otherwise get rid of, the Palestinian Arabs.
The Jewish settlers in occupied Arab lands are the vanguard troops in a campaign rooted in their reading of the Old Testament. The Israeli victory in the 1967 war, and its conquest of the West Bank and Gaza, were evidence of a divine plan at work.
Jewish fundamentalists want to recreate an ideal, but largely imagined, past. The state of their dreams would implement the "Halacha" (Jewish law as codified by Rabbi Maimonides, 1135-1204), that their rabbis would interpret as and when needed. They would elect a king to be assisted by an ecclesiastical, judicial and administrative council. Clerical commissars would be posted in all establishments to make sure that the laws were enforced.
Men and women would be segregated in public places and modesty in female dress and conduct would be required. Those guilty of adultery, and those who drove on Sabbath or desecrated it otherwise, would be stoned to death. Gentiles (non-Jewish people) in the kingdom would be treated as "resident aliens", who must accept their perpetual inferiority, "endure the humiliations of servitude", and "keep their heads down to Jews".
A strange twist of theological coincidence makes for an alliance between the Christian and Jewish fundamentalists in America. The Christian "end of time" theology speaks of the Second Coming of Christ. Some time before the "Last Day", Jesus will come back to earth, cleanse it of all evil (including the Jews who do not convert), and have truth, justice and righteousness rule.
This is Armageddon, in the prospect of which all true believers delight and the fulfillment of which they await. But Jesus will not return until the Jews re-occupy and rule all of their Biblical lands. This must happen regardless of the concomitant belief that after his return the Jews must all either convert or perish.
Christians must do what they can to hasten this second coming of Christ. They must, therefore, support Israeli expansionism even if it means the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Israeli violence against them, howsoever brutal it may be, must be accepted as a necessary course of action for reaching an otherwise ardently desired goal.
A group of men and women, with a good deal of power and influence in America, subscribes to the theology of Christ's Second Coming and the accompanying circumstances. In addition to President Bush himself, it is said to include Vice-President Chaney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby; John Ashcroft, the attorney-general; Thomas Delay, majority leader in the House of Representatives; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary; Douglas Faith, under-secretary in defence; and Elliot Abrams on the National Security Council staff.
During a recent visit to Israel, Mr Delay told his listeners that there was no middle ground worth taking in Israel's dealings with the Palestinians. Others in this group may not be as blatant in their public speech but one can be sure that they will do nothing effective to restrain Israeli hardliners.
Jewish fundamentalists may regard the Christian version of Armageddon and their end-of-time theology as fantasy. But they will not go out of their way to repudiate it, for it suits them well inasmuch as it brings crucial political and economic assistance to Israel.
The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, US.
E-mail: anwarsyed@cox.net
Harsh laws and human rights
The president has once again announced his intention to review the Blasphemy and Hudood laws and to establish a national human rights commission which, it can be surmised, would prevent, as part of its charter, the unjust and harsh application of these laws. Two questions that instantly arise are: will protests from the clerics stall the review of Islamic laws once again; and, secondly, how independent will the commission be?
The scepticism underlying the Dawn editorial of last Tuesday that these laws will not be reviewed even this time round is widely shared. A debate, howsoever threadbare or reasoned - in parliament, in the media or in scholarly circles - is unlikely to result in a consensus (for which the editorial pleads) as all of them and, more particularly, the legislators (it is they who have ultimately to amend or repeal the laws) stand in thrall of the demagogues who arouse passions and refuse to listen to reason.
The politicians of the hue who induced General Ziaul Haq to enact these laws - for it served their ends as well as his - are more confident and vocal today than they were when Musharraf first mooted this proposal some three years ago. The medley of parties in the ruling alliance show no signs of conviction or guts to defy them.
On the contrary, they might even prevail upon President Musharraf not to stir this hornets' nest. The chief of the Q League, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, has said more than once that his League and the MMA religious alliance think alike and are in fact one soul in two bodies.
President Musharraf is thus once again treading on a treacherous ground. He should not be seen retreating before the clergy too often. Instead, he should leave the laws in question atrophy as knowledge and common sense join hands and the police and the courts act with greater awareness of the law and commitment to duty. The public safety commissions in which the president reposes much hope could be expected to weigh the evidence before a case is registered.
The sad plight of many unwary victims, especially women and minorities, may one day persuade the legislators to act but the present lot, it is certain, will not, for they are worried and, it seems, will so remain, with their own survival and not about the harassment to the public. Many unfortunate people have lost their lives, dignity, jobs and property without being convicted or even tried in courts. The others can be spared the same fate by involving the safety commissions in the investigations.
The concentration now should be on the formation of a human rights commission which the people trust and the government too accepts its findings and acts upon its recommendations. We have a non-governmental commission today which is independent and investigative, but its leadership is too secular for the orthodox right and too acerbic for every government and critical of public policy.
Its reports do receive attention but bring no solace to the victims, nor right a wrong. A national commission would almost certainly pay more heed to what the commission led by Asma Jehangir, Asfaryab Khattak, Hina Jilani and I.A. Rehman has to say than the official authorities now do.
What difference the proposed national commission is able to make to the sad state of human rights in Pakistan would depend on how it is constituted and by whom, its charter, its accessibility to the aggrieved, the compassion it shows for them and the speed with which it proceeds. Its success would, however, hinge on the government not influencing its work or judgment nor letting any other authority or pressure group do it.
It would be of paramount importance that the charter of the commission is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for that is the standard by which a country is judged and not the rights under its own laws which can be discriminatory and sometimes even perverse.
UDHR's 40 articles spell out the rights which are applicable to all people in all countries and in all situations. The defining principle of all these rights could be summed up thus: all human beings are equal in dignity and rights and equal before the law and presumed to be innocent until proved guilty, and that every one has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Our religious orders and holy men should have no quarrel with it for the Quranic injunction is - "la iqrah fiddeen".
The proposed commission should be able to identify the laws and customs, taboos and usages which contravene these rights and the state should feel morally bound to modify or repeal them, for Pakistan is one of the early signatories to the Declaration.
The Constitution of Pakistan, on the other hand, makes the rights subject to law and morality. Since there is hardly ever a general agreement on the fairness of a law or on what is moral and what is not, the rights to the weak and dissenting are denied both by the state and by the majority. Interestingly enough, Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits "torture" as a means of extracting evidence as if intimidation and coercion were permissible.
The Objectives Resolution, like the Constitution, also makes most rights subject to law and morality. Ironically, while making the Resolution a substantive part of the Constitution, General Ziaul Haq overlooked the fact that it made his own regime illegal for it stipulates "the state shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people".
In framing the law and the charter of the proposed commission, the president and parliament could benefit from the Indian example. India's National Commission for Human Rights, in 12 years of its existence, has been able to establish practices and procedures which inspire confidence among the citizens and, perhaps, the government too is not averse to its role.
The commission's intervention on behalf of the Muslim victims of the Gujarat pogrom, for instance, persuaded the Supreme Court of India to observe that the conduct of the Gujarat high court had damaged the credibility of the state's criminal justice delivery system and negated the human rights of the victims. It therefore ordered the trial of the perpetrators of the communal violence in key cases outside the state of Gujarat.
The chairman and four full-time members of the Indian commission are selected by a committee consisting of the prime minister, speaker, home minister, leaders of the opposition in the lower and upper houses and deputy chairman of the council of states. Also the chairpersons of the commissions on minorities, women and backward castes and tribes are ex-officio members. A retired police officer and a former ambassador are among its full-time members. The other two are retired judges. Their tenure is fixed and the terms of their appointment cannot be changed nor can they seek another job under the government.
Legislation through ordinances is an exception elsewhere but a standard practice in Pakistan. No one would, however, blame the president if he were to promulgate an ordinance to constitute the commission, for nothing can be more urgent than protecting human rights which are deficient and yet are violated more than respected.
All our institutions have failed or are failing. Democracy has not struck roots here because no election commission since after the fateful 1970 election has been independent. Pakistan could redeem itself somewhat by establishing a human rights commission which should be viewed by the world as the very quintessence of integrity and independence.