UNLIKE western legal systems, Islamic legal system is based on Divine revelation. Revelation consists of: Communications made by Gabriel, under the direction of God, to the Prophet, either in the very words of God or by hints; such knowledge as occurred in the mind of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) through inspiration from God; and opinion of the Prophet, embodied in the form of ratiocination, delivered from time to time on issues that happened to be raised before him.

In answer to the question as to how opinion of the Prophet can form a part of Divine revelation, God says: “Your companion errs not, nor does he deviate. Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed — One Mighty in Power has taught him, the Lord of Strength. So he attained perfection” (Al-Quran, 53:2-6).

Revelation is available to us in the form of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. The Quran comprises only those revelations that are made in the very words of God, while the rest form the corpus of the Sunnah.

It must be mentioned that the two Arabic terms Hadith and Sunnah are generally taken to be synonymous, but there is a vast difference between the two. Hadith literally means “tale” or “narrative”; whereas, Sunnah literally means “trodden path” or “busy path.” Hadith refers to a tradition or story of the Prophet, and Sunnah signifies the law deduced from it. In other words, Sunnah, with reference to Islamic law, denotes a rule derived from the sayings or conduct of the Prophet as narrated in a Hadith.

On founding the Islamic commonwealth in Madinah, in 622 AD, the Prophet not only acted as a spiritual leader but also as a political leader of the Muslims. Also, being the supreme judicial authority in the state, cases used to be brought before him for adjudiciation. These were decided in the light of the Quran, yet, where the Quran was silent on an issue, or required further interpretation, the Prophet gave a decision based on ratiocination. The exercise of such authority by the Prophet has been duly recognized in the Quran: “...And whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain (three from)...” (Al-Quran, 59: 7)

“And it behoves not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair, to exercise a choice in their matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off to manifest error.” (Al-Quran, 33:36). “Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah...” (Al-Quran, 4:80). “But no, by thy Lord! They believe not until they make thee a judge of what is in dispute between them, then find not any straightness in their hearts as to that which thou decide and submit with full submission.” (Al-Quran, 4: 65)

While the fundamental issues of life have been answered and dealt with in the Quran, the task of providing a further explanation to the Muslims was entrusted upon the Prophet. This further explanation, the Sunnah, is available not only in the judgments so pronounced by the Prophet, but also in what the Prophet otherwise said and did. Thus, the Quran and the Sunnah, the two primary sources of Islamic law, constitute one complete whole and are fundamentally interdependent. God defines the relationship between the two in the following words: “... Indeed, there has come to you from Allah, a Light (the Prophet) and a clear Book.” (Al-Quran, 5: 15)

No book can be read in darkness. Similarly, light alone is of no use unless it is utilized for some beneficial purpose. The light of the Sunnah is essential for reading and understanding the Quran.

God further says: “... And We have revealed to thee the Remainder that thou may make clear to men that which has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.” (Al-Quran, 16: 44) “He it is Who raised among the illiterates a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His messages and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom...” (Al- Quran, 62: 2)

Let us consider some examples that illustrate the bond between the Quran and the Sunnah. The punishment for theft is prescribed in the Quran in the following verse: “And (as for) the man and the woman addicted to theft, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah...” (Al-Quran, 5: 38)

The Prophet has qualified the punishment mentioned in the Quran. According to him, there can be no amputation of hand if the worth of the stolen item is less than a certain amount, i.e., a fourth of a dinar. Lunatics and minors have been exempted from this punishment. Further, the hand is to be cut off from the wrist.

The Quran lays down that prayers can be shortened in the presence of fear: “And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will give you trouble...” (Al-Quran, 4: 101)

The Prophet, declaring it to be a gift of God, allowed the shortening of prayers on every journey, whether there is danger or not. The Quran declares: “Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal), and that beaten to death, and that killed by goring with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten — except what you slaughter; and that which is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols), and that you seek to divide by arrows...” (Al-Quran, 5: 3).

The Prophet laid down exceptions regarding the consumption of fish, liver, etc. Similarly, the Sunnah has prohibited the consumption of many things, even though the verse above makes no mention of them.

Muslims are told in the Quran: “Say: Who has forbidden the adornment of Allah, which He has brought forth for His servants, and the good provisions? Say: These are for the believers in the life of this world, purely (theirs) on the Resurrection day. Thus do We make the messages clear for a people who know. Say: My Lord forbids only indecencies...” (Al-Quran, 7: 32, 33)

The Quran is silent regarding solemnization of a valid marriage. The elements of marriage such as consent, fixation of dower, etc, are rules that were prescribed by the Prophet.

The Quran instructs the Muslims to offer prayers. It was the Prophet who told the Muslims how and when prayers are to be offered. The Quran is silent on this issue.

The above-mentioned instances show how the two primary sources of Islamic law rely on each other. Whereas the authority of the Sunnah is derived from the Quran, the former serves to strengthen and clarify the structure of Islamic law. The two sources are interwoven in such a way that they cannot be separated from each other. Both may aptly be called an ‘integral whole.’

THE governments of Europe have agreed that by 2015 they will give 0.7 per cent of their national income in foreign aid. Admittedly, that’s 35 years after the target date they first set for themselves, and it’s still less than they extract from the poor in debt repayments.

Though he does not become president of the EU until later this year, Tony Blair can take some of the credit, for his insistence that the G8 summit in July makes poverty history. It’s inspiring, until you understand the context.

Everyone who has studied global poverty — including European governments — recognises that aid cannot compensate for unfair terms of trade. If they increased their share of world exports by 5 per cent, developing countries would earn an extra $350 billion a year, three times more than they will be given in 2015. Any government that wanted to help developing nations would surely make the terms of trade between rich and poor its priority.

This, indeed, is what the UK appears to have done. In March it published the most progressive foreign policy document ever to have escaped from Whitehall.

A paper by the departments of trade and international development promised that: “We will not force trade liberalisation on developing countries.” It recognised that a policy that insists on equal terms for rich and poor is like pitting a bull mastiff against a chihuahua.

Unless a country can first build up its industries behind protectionist barriers, it will be destroyed by free trade. Almost every nation that is rich today, including the UK and the US, used this strategy. But the current rules forbid the poor from following them. The EU, the paper insisted, should, while opening its own markets, allow poor nations “20 years or more” to open theirs.

But two weeks ago the Guardian obtained a leaked letter showing that Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, was undermining the UK’s new policies. His most senior official complained that the policy document was “a major and unwelcome shift... Mandelson is taking up our concerns and will press for a revised UK line”.

We are being asked to believe, in other words, that a man who owes his entire political career to Tony Blair, and who has repaid him with nauseating sycophancy, was conspiring to destroy his cherished policy. It doesn’t look likely, and it doesn’t take a great imaginative effort to see a double game being played.

Before the election, Blair makes one of his tear-jerking appeals for love, compassion and human fellowship, and gets the anti- poverty movement off his back. After the election he discovers, to his inestimable regret, that love, compassion and human fellowship won’t after all be possible, as a result of a ruling by the European commission.

This outcome was predicted by the World Development Movement when the remarkable paper was published in March. “Time will tell if the UK ... will put real political capital into this announcement, or if they will hide behind the European commission and claim inability to affect the negotiations.” Nostradamus had nothing on these guys.

The idea that Blair had no more intention of introducing fair terms of trade than I have of becoming a Catholic priest gains credence from the UK’s support for the bid by Pascal Lamy, Mandelson’s predecessor, to become head of the World Trade Organisation — a post he won last week. Making Lamy head of the WTO is as mad as making, say, Paul Wolfowitz... er, satire doesn’t really seem to work any more.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that Lamy was the man who destroyed the world trade talks in Mexico in September 2003. He tried to force through new rules on investment, competition and procurement, which would have allowed corporations to dictate terms to the poor world’s governments. He persisted with this policy even when he had lost the support of European governments, and when it became obvious that his position would force the poorer nations to pull out. For cynics like me, it wasn’t hard to see why.

For the first time in the WTO’s history, the poor nations were making effective use of collective bargaining and demanding major concessions from the rich. By destroying the talks, Lamy prevented a fairer trading regime from being introduced. He left the rich countries free to strike individual treaties with their weaker trading partners. And the UK and the rest of Europe hid behind him.

So the poor world is going to need the extra aid, in 2015 and far beyond. This means that it will remain obedient to the demands of countries with an interest in its continued exploitation.

Those demands have done more than anything else to hold it down. As the World Bank’s own figures show, across the 20 years (1960-80) before it and the IMF started introducing strict conditions on the countries that accepted their loans, median annual growth in developing countries was 2.5 per cent. In the 18 years after (1980-1998), it was 0.0 per cent.

The British government has made its own contribution to the poor world’s misery by tying aid disbursements to the privatization of essential public services. It has been paying the Adam Smith Institute, a rightwing lobby group, up to #9m a year to oversee privatization programmes in developing countries. Last week Tanzania pulled out of a deal our government had rigged up for the British company Biwater to privatize water supplies in Dar es Salaam.

Again the government admitted, before the election, that its critics were right. The Department for International Development (DfID) published a long mea culpa in which it promised: “We will not make our aid conditional on specific policy decisions by partner governments, or attempt to impose policy choices on them (including ... privatization or trade liberalization).” It looks great, until you read the whole document.

On privatization, DfID admits that there was “concern that in the 1980s and 1990s donors pushed for the introduction of reforms, regardless of whether these were in countries’ best interests.” The 80s and 90s, eh? What about the privatization it was demanding in 2004 and early 2005?

What about its recent assault on the public services of Tanzania, South Africa, Ghana and the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh? What about the money it is still paying the effing Adam Smith Institute?

DfID goes on to say that it will decide whether to give money to a country by looking “to the IMF to provide an assessment of a country’s macroeconomic position”. It knows full well that the IMF continues to judge countries by the degree to which they embrace privatization and liberalization. Yet again the British government is outsourcing its ethics, using the policy of an international body to make justice history.

While using the right language and flattering their critics, the UK and the EU are keeping the poorer nations where they want them: beholden to their patrons. Suddenly, an increase in aid doesn’t look like such good news after all.

— Dawn/Guardian Service

AFTER a couple of false starts in the ‘90s, the Pakistan establishment has taken a fresh step towards creating a National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR). A bill has already been introduced in the National Assembly. It is essential that while welcoming the move the contents of the bill should be thoroughly scrutinized in a public debate across the country, particularly because some of the flaws in the draft could greatly undermine the usefulness of the proposed institution.

Since Pakistan is a late-comer in this field, it should be proper to learn from the experience of comparable societies in Asia-Pacific as official human rights commissions have been functioning for quite some time in Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Islamabad has itself recognized the value of the regional experience by basing its National Commission for Human Rights Bill almost entirely on India’s Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993, although the few deviations from the Indian law are of a fundamental nature.

The usefulness of an official human rights commission is judged, in the first instance, by the roster of its functions. The Pakistan bill is quite comprehensive in this regard. The proposed NCHR will have the power to inquire into complaints of human rights violations; intervene in court proceedings relating to human rights abuse; visit jails / reformatories and report on conditions there; review laws (including those on terrorism) that impinge on human rights and recommend remedies; review provisions of the constitution and the laws that offer protection of human rights and suggest improvements; make recommendations for effective implementation of international HR instruments; assist in drafting and execution of HR education and research programmes; conduct an HR awareness programme; encourage and help HR NGOs; and such functions as are considered necessary for the prevention of violations of human rights and / or their promotion.

The 10 functions listed above have been taken from the Indian law (the language is largely unchanged). The Pakistan NCHR will also encourage ratification of international instruments and ensure their implementation. However, two additional functions of the proposed NCHR that are not found in the Indian legislation have a sinister ring and are unlikely to be approved by independent critics at home or abroad. First, according to Section 11(k) of the bill, the Pakistan NCHR will “contribute to the reports which Pakistan is required to submit to the United Nations bodies and committees pursuant to its treaty obligations, and where necessary, may express an opinion on the subject with due respect for their independence”. Secondly, Sec. 11(m) defines a function of the NCHR as “pursuing or defending issues, complaints, representations and matters for and against Pakistan relating to human rights before any official or non-governmental organization, body or forum in Pakistan and, in consultation with the Foreign Affairs Division, before any international organization and foreign government or non-governmental organization”.

A more blatant elaboration of the apology-making role of the NCHR is difficult to imagine. The commission will be required to issue rejoinders not only to UN bodies/Rapporteurs but also to national and foreign human rights NGOs.

All state commissions on human rights generally function as judicial tribunals for the adjudication of cases of infringement of human rights. They are also required to promote human rights through non-judicial actions. The composition of a commission is, and should be, influenced by an assessment of the special conditions and needs of the society concerned.

For instance, the very composition of the Australian commission, called Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, indicates priority target areas. The commission includes a race and discrimination commissioner, an aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner, a sex discrimination commissioner, privacy commissioner, and a disability discrimination commissioner.

The New Zealand commission also includes a member to function as the race relations conciliator and privacy commissioner. In India, the heads of three statutory national commissions — for minorities, for women, and for scheduled castes and tribes — are deemed to be members of the National Human Rights Commission. These arrangements clearly reveal an essential realization by the law-makers of the areas of greater concern in regard to HR violations. The Indian law also provides for the constitution of HR commissions in the states of the union, an admission that in a federal-type polity HR issues need to be tackled at the level of constituent units (states in India, provinces in Pakistan).

The bill on Pakistan’s NCHR acknowledges the existence of provinces (two members from each province), the Islamabad capital territory and Fata (one member each), minorities (two members), and women (two members). Of course, there will be a member from the National Assembly and another from the Senate. It seems the idea is to respect the state’s power structure and some features of division of population and leave the commission to discover for itself the major HR realities. However, possibilities of linking up the commissions on women and minorities (one hopes they are alive) with the NCHR could still be explored.

Despite the importance attached to the judicial functions of national human rights commissions only two states in Asia-Pacific region, India and Nepal, provide that the commission must be headed by a retired judge — a former chief justice of the supreme court in the case of India and a retired chief justice or judge of the apex court in Nepal. Of all the countries in the region, India’s preference for judges is the most prominent. Besides the chairperson, who must be a former chief justice of the supreme court, out of the four regular members one should be a sitting / retired judge of the supreme court and another has to be a sitting / retired chief justice of a high court.

The authors of the Pakistan bill do not seem to be sure of their priorities. The head of the NCHR may be a retired judge of the Supreme Court or an eminent person of known integrity and competence and 20 years’ experience of human rights — whatever that may mean. One of the two members from each province may be a retired high court judge or qualified to be a high court judge or a bureaucrat who retired in grade 21 or higher. The partiality to retired persons steeped in the official outlook is obvious.

Pakistan apparently favours a large commission, a chairperson and 19 members. Only the Indonesian decree of 1993 envisaged a larger body — a chair, two vice-chairpersons, 25 members — and Malaysia put the limit at no more than 20 members. All other countries in Asia-Pacific have smaller commissions. Perhaps the dominant view is that obesity is not necessarily a guarantee of efficiency. In Pakistan where the strength of even the Supreme Court is 17, the decision to have a 20-strong NCHR will have to be justified, unless the members are not supposed to be full-time public servants.

Far more important than the composition of a state human rights commission is the designation of the appointing authority, which has a direct bearing on the independence of a commission as well as its democratic character. Various devices have been employed in the Asia-Pacific region to lay down a selection process that inspires confidence. In India, the chairperson and members of the NHRC are appointed by the president on the recommendation of a committee comprising the prime minister (chair), the Lok Sabha speaker, the home minister, the opposition leaders in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

In Fiji, HR Commission head and members are appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister who consults the leader of the opposition and the house standing committee on human rights. Mongolia follows a unique selection procedure. The HR Commission members are appointed by parliament out of candidates nominated by its speaker on the basis of respective proposals made by the president, the standing committee on legal affairs, and the supreme court.

The members of the HR Commission of Sri Lanka are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council and in its absence on the recommendation of the PM made in consultation with the speaker and the leader of the opposition. One of the members is named chairperson by the president.

The president and members of the National HR Commission of Thailand are appointed by the king after they have been nominated by a committee comprising the president of the supreme court, the president of the supreme administrative court, the attorney-general, the law society chairman, and representatives of academia, HR organizations, political parties and the public media. Out of them (22), the senate elects 11 members by secret ballot. The senate president sends their names to the king for royal orders and counter-signs these orders.

All these formulas reflect a growing realization that members of national human rights commissions should not attract doubts about their independence of the executive. The practice of associating the parliamentary opposition for filling key state offices, which include election chiefs and heads of statutory commissions, is growing in many parts of the world, including Pakistan. This is considered an essential stage in the transformation of a majoritarian democracy into a higher, participatory model.

The authors of the Pakistan NCHR bill have chosen to disregard the Asian models discussed above and penned down a single sentence to describe the formation of the commission: “The president shall appoint the chairperson and the members and for that may seek nominations and recommendations through the federal government.” This text is ambiguous enough to permit the selection of nominees by more than one agency, but ambiguity is never a feature of action required to make a regime democratic and responsible. Selection of NCHR members by the president alone will never allow the commission to enjoy the credibility such an organization must always have.

What exactly will be the impact of NCHR’s intervention in complaints of human rights violation? Section 12 (power relating to inquiries), Sec. 13 (investigation), Sec. 17 (inquiring into complaints — procedure), and Sec. 18 (steps after inquiry) of the Pakistan bill are identical with sections 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Indian law. The NCHR of Pakistan will have full authority to inquire into complaints, summon record and persons concerned and examine witnesses. If the matter merits trial, the commission will refer it to a magistrate or “approach the Supreme Court, or the high court concerned, for such direction, orders or writs as the court may deem necessary”. And the Pakistan bill provides, as does the Indian law, for the establishment of human rights courts at the district level for regular judicial hearings.

A section of the Indian Act (sec 19) that failed to find favour with the authors of the Pakistan draft, and perhaps rightly, lays down the procedure in cases of complaints of HR violation by members of the armed forces. In such cases the Indian commission can only ask for a report from the central government, refer its findings to the same government (and not to courts), and publish in its reports its communication to the government and the action taken by the latter. It is undoubtedly a bad provision and Pakistan will do well to keep a similar section out of the final draft. That would mean the adoption of a uniform procedure to deal with all infarctions regardless of the identity of perpetrators.

This discussion does not mean that an adequate and satisfactory law will be a sufficient guarantee of the proposed NCHR’s efficacy. Practically the whole project will depend upon the choice of suitable persons to serve on the NCHR and on guarantees of a congenial environment. Many Pakistani institutions created by properly drafted statutes have failed to deliver and realize their potential because one condition or the other, and sometimes both, could not be fulfilled.

The authors of the bill on Pakistan’s NCHR are believed to have taken a long time to transcribe the text from easily identifiable sources and there is nothing wrong about it. The only problem is that wherever adaptation demands any alteration the text becomes sloppy, repetitive and ungainly. This is, however, a small matter and can be taken care of in the standing committee and even during the debates in the houses of parliament.

The creation of a National Commission for Human Rights will be a development of unusual significance for the state and citizens both. The bill should be translated into people’s languages and widely disseminated and civil society organizations have an obvious duty to ensure a national debate that is thorough, informed and fruitful.

A LONG time ago I wrote a magazine piece about how Bob Woodward’s famous source, “Deep Throat,” could have been a mere Secret Service technician — any one of several people detailed to keep Richard Nixon’s secret White House taping system operating.

I figured that anyone with access to the system could quickly learn all that mattered about the Watergate burglary: The president’s men had done it and the president was covering it up. I showed the piece to Woodward, who would not say whether it was right or wrong, just that it made sense. We both knew, though, that “Deep Throat” was Mark Felt.

Woodward’s knowledge was firsthand, up close and certain. Mine was different. It came from having worked with Woodward early in his career. I was looking into rumours that Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew of Maryland, was under investigation by the US attorney’s office in Baltimore.

Somehow — I can’t remember exactly — I worked a bit with Bob on that story. His source, a person he used to call “my friend,” had terrific information — stuff that, looking back on it, not even the prosecutors in Baltimore had yet learned. Woodward would refer to his notes, and I could see the initials “M.F.” They stood either for “my friend” or Mark Felt, whose name almost instantly surfaced. I thought it didn’t matter. The two were the same. There was a single source.

Now we know it is Mark Felt. He has confessed, if that’s the right word — although given his age (91) it’s not exactly clear what he was intending. Suffice it to say, though, that he is the man. He was No. 2 in the FBI back in the Watergate days, and he just could not abide the way the bureau was being abused by Nixon and his White House colleagues. They wanted to use the FBI to block any real investigation into the Watergate burglary. Felt simply would not permit that.

I applaud. We all applaud, or we should. Here was a man who put his career — and it was a truly great career — on the line. Here was a man who took seriously all that stuff about duty and loyalty and — permit me, please — the American Way. He was, to say the least, no showboater.

He did not rush out to write a book or appear on “Larry King Live” or sell his story to the movies, which he could have done. No, he did what he thought was right.

The reason I loved my theory about the nonexistent Secret Service technician is that he was the proverbial little man. He was the guy you don’t notice who is appalled by wrongdoing and wants to do the right thing. He asks no reward and he demands no fame.

He wants only to show the big boys that the little guys, in the end, cannot be taken for granted. He is always there. He has to be taken into account. He can always go to the media. Felt was too important to be “the little guy.” That made what he did even braver. He was always an obvious suspect. He clearly knew too much.

For more than 30 years I have had people tell me that Deep Throat did not exist. He was invented, made up. Or he was a composite — a piece of this person and a piece of that person with some fiction thrown in. I knew better. I had seen the notes and, besides, I knew Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They would not lie. —Dawn/Washington Post Service