|
| July 07, 2006 | Friday | Jumadi-ul-Sani 10, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Now a missile crisis
Environmental fiscal reform
Friday feature: Tolerance in Islam
Let there be law
ISLAM, which literally means ‘submission’, establishes and promotes peaceful co-existence. Unfortunately, it has been misconstrued by the West as a religion spread by sword that promotes extremism and intolerance towards other religions. These views are not only based on the ignorance of Islamic teachings and principles, but also on the outrageous conduct of certain Muslim groups and factions.
CONFUSION with regard to President Pervez Musharraf’s future plans seems to be getting worse confounded. Not a day passes without a PML(Q) bigwig or someone else chipping in with what one would call the products of warped minds about how things will go next year. The one value that is missing in all this is the sanctity of the democratic process. Basically, this talk revolves round the possibility of a postponement of the general election by a year, filling the vacant assembly seats through by-elections if the opposition chooses to resign en bloc, and the existing assemblies re-electing President Musharraf for another term. The views expressed by Punjab Chief Minister Pervaiz Elahi on Monday were followed by what PML(Q) President Chaudhry Shujaat said on Wednesday. In a newspaper interview he accused the opposition of trying to destabilise the government, said the assemblies’ tenure could be extended by a year and repeated the claim that the assemblies could re-elect the president. He did not tell us in what way the opposition was trying to destabilise the government, and said if opposition parliamentarians resigned, the PML(Q) would win all the vacant seats through by-elections and confine the opposition to drawing rooms.
To add to the prevailing confusion, President Musharraf himself contributed his bit by saying that being a soldier he could not contest an election. The general is right: but then the same rule held true in 2002 when he held a referendum which turned up a 98 per cent Yes vote legitimising his rule. The same can be said about his seeking — and getting — a vote of confidence from the assemblies to have himself declared an elected head of state. In fact, “re-election” assumes that the general has already been elected as president. Speaking at a public rally in Gilgit on Wednesday, he said that he would quit if the people stopped supporting him adding that if they wanted him to stay in power, they should vote for the PML(Q). The speech obviously shows the confusion and the contradictions inherent in the present situation. The point is that if President Musharraf wants to stay at the helm of affairs, he must seek a re-election by shedding his uniform and contesting the election as a civilian along with other candidates. But the general loves his uniform — as he said the other day — and would like to remain both head of state and army chief. It is this contradiction that is now being sought to be sidelined or circumvented by means that may be constitutionally permissible but certainly morally and politically questionable.
If President Musharraf wants to stay on in power, he should discard the uniform and contest the presidential election as a civilian. A law bars a government employee from entering politics before the expiry of two years after retirement. This hurdle can perhaps be overcome by means of one of those legal contrivances for which our constitutional experts are quite famous. This will be a far better of way seeking a re-election than the devices now being talked about by the PML(Q) leaders: postponing the election by a year and asking the existing assemblies to re-elect President Musharraf. If the move to extend the assemblies’ tenure is meant to counter the opposition’s threat to resign, then perhaps the PML(Q) leaders’ utterances could be taken as political posturing. But what causes concern is that they often sound serious about their constitutional scheming.
THE seven missiles, including the long range Taepodong-2, that North Korea fired on Wednesday have created quite a flutter among the international community. With the Iran nuclear crisis still unresolved, it is not surprising that Pyongyang’s move has drawn the fire of the nuclear disarmament circles. Washington’s reaction has been the strongest and, as has happened in the case of Iran, could lead to an escalation of the crisis. True, North Korea has not exercised restraint in its nuclear and missile programmes as was needed in the interest of international peace and stability. Which is a pity because in the nineties there were hopes that a change was in the offing. At that time President Clinton’s policy of engaging with Pyongyang and Seoul’s ‘sunshine’ policy vis-a-vis the north had begun to draw North Korea into the international mainstream. In 1994 a framework was agreed upon on North Korea’s nuclear programme in the six-nation negotiating process. In 1998, when the Taepodong-1 was fired, the US could persuade President Kim Jong Il to declare a moratorium on missile testing.
Pyongyang’s missile launches have drawn the world’s disapproval. Inarguably, a country that is poor and underdeveloped and is incapable of feeding its people adequately has its priorities wrong if it is focusing on its missiles. But there is also need to take into account North Korea’s point of view. Just when the country had begun to be drawn into the international community, the US decided to pull back. George Bush, who entered the White House in 2001, labelled North Korea, along with others, an axis of evil and repudiated the policy of bilateral engagement. What followed was not unexpected. North Korea walked out of the NPT, announced its nuclear bomb and has now ended its moratorium on missile testing. The American reaction will determine the course of the crisis. Washington has threatened to use sanctions against Pyongyang, though it is being advised by some of its own friends to exercise restraint. Given the realignments that are taking place in global politics — China and Russia have challenged the US on Iran and have opposed sanctions against North Korea — the Korean missile crisis will only worsen the chasm in world affairs.
THE environmental fiscal reform (EFR) project launched recently by an international NGO could lay some misconceptions to rest. Fiscal and environmental issues are often seen to be mutually exclusive if not contradictory. The reality is that sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction are dependent in large part on the state of the environment. It has been noted across the developing world that environmental degradation hits the poor the hardest. Depletion of forest cover, land erosion and soil contamination lead to loss of livelihood, as do overfishing, destruction of natural hatcheries and other shocks to the marine and riverine ecosystems. Water and air pollution have a direct impact on health and overall quality of life. Social costs aside, an ailing workforce has a bearing on urban and rural productivity, besides putting additional pressure on a cash-strapped healthcare system that it is already bursting at the seams.
The scars of environmental degradation are already all too visible in Pakistan. Prolonged drought and erratic weather are damaging agriculture, the mainstay of the economy. In the country’s northern areas, ruthless logging by the timber mafia has made landslides a perennial threat to life and property. Large-scale erosion is also silting our reservoirs and rivers at a rapid rate, hampering irrigation as well as power generation and increasing the severity of seasonal floods. Financial managers for whom human misery is not a priority concern should remember that all this comes at a staggering monetary cost. If root causes are addressed, recouped revenues and funds currently tied up in damage control could be channelled towards socially productive avenues. To do this, the emphasis will have to shift from short-term gains to sustainable development aimed at equitable economic growth and poverty reduction. The architects of the three-year EFR project hope to engage government at both federal and provincial levels. That may well be their biggest challenge.
Islam has universality as it recognises and respects all prophets and messengers who came before Prophet Muhammad: “And Allah has ordained for you... which He ordained Nuh (Noah) and that which We... ordained for Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus) saying you should establish religion...” (42:13).
Religious tolerance has been incorporated at the heart of the Quran. The teachings of the Torah of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus have been mentioned in the Quran itself: “And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (this Quran) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it...” (5: 48).
Islam not only supports but in fact heralds freedom of thought and religion. It has been laid down very clearly in the Quran that Islamic faith shall not be imposed on those who are reluctant or not willing to adopt the same: “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2: 256) “...Your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey the message in a clear way.” (16:82) “Had Allah willed, they would not have taken others besides Him in worship.” (6:107).
Freedom of worship has been duly provided and all places of worship have been declared sacred: “...Had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely, have been pulled down.” (22:40) Muslims are strictly forbidden from slighting the religion of non-Muslims: “And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah...” (6:108).
Islam lays down that justice should be provided to both Muslims and non-Muslims without any form of discrimination whatsoever: “...When you judge between men, you judge with justice...” (4: 58) “...Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses, and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice...” (5:8).
Muslims have been instructed to deal with non-Muslims in a just and kind manner: “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of your religion... it is only... those who fought against you on account of religion... Allah forbids you to befriend them...” (60: 8,9).
It has been laid down that all disputes that may arise between Muslims and non-Muslims should be settled through peaceful dialogue and consultation. Regardless of irrationality or show of hostility on the part of the non-Muslims, Muslims have been instructed to be kind, gracious and reasonable and make an effort to settle the dispute in a peaceful manner: “...Allah orders the faithful believers to be patient at the time of anger and to excuse those who treat them badly...” (41:34).
Muslims have been forbidden from helping their brotherhood against non-Muslims with whom they have an agreement of peaceful relations: “...But if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance...” (8:72).
Non-Muslims residing in a Muslim state are protected persons. Their life, liberty, and property are protected from all forms of infringement by the Muslim state. The Prophet once said: “Beware on the Day of Judgment; I shall myself be the complainant against the one who wrongs a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him.”
Islam preaches religious tolerance and the same was practised by the Prophet and the Caliphs of Islam after him. The Prophet had to face extreme adversity and hostility from the disbelievers when he was spreading the message of Islam but he forgave them. When the Prophet migrated to Madina and became the leader of the Muslims, the first thing he did was to conclude a treaty between Muslims and Jews and Christians residing there whereby they were all granted the same rights which Muslims themselves enjoyed and were granted full religious freedom. When a Christian delegation from Najran came to Madina, the Prophet received them in his mosque and they were invited to offer their prayers inside it. The Muslims along with the Prophet prayed on one side of the mosque and the delegation prayed on its other side.
The followers of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) followed his example. When Umar, the Second Caliph, liberated Jerusalem from the Romans’ occupation, he agreed to the conditions laid down before him by the Christian inhabitants of that city. At the time of prayer he refused to offer his prayers in the church there for fear that Muslims may misinterpret his action and forcibly convert churches into mosques at a later point in time.
Once a Christian woman complained to Caliph Umar that the governor had taken her house in order to add more land to an adjoining plot for the construction of a mosque. Although she was offered a large amount of money as a compensation, the Caliph on hearing her complaint ordered that the construction of the mosque be stopped and her house be restored to her in its original condition.
Muslim history is not only free from mistreatment of non-Muslims by Muslims but the latter has also protected the former from other hostile factions. It is an established fact that it was in Muslim Spain that Jews enjoyed absolute respect and security while they were ill-treated in other parts of Europe. After the fall of Muslim Spain, Jews found sanctuary in another Muslim realm, the Ottoman Empire.
In India, Muslim rulers would make generous and regular donations to the temples and sacred places of Hindus and other non-Muslims. Thus it can be said with conviction that Islam is indeed a religion which endorses harmonious interaction and tolerance coupled with religious freedom between Muslims and non-Muslims: “O Mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you know one another.” (49:13).
THE Supreme Court’s rejection of the Bush administration’s plan for terrorist trials has rightly been seen as a rebuff of the president’s unilateral legal approach to fighting Al Qaeda. But in a subtler way, it is also a profound rebuke to Congress.
The nation’s legislature has mostly sat on the sidelines for the duration of the war on terror, letting the administration make its own rules — and ride roughshod over the law as well as fundamental American values. The court’s action forces the administration to invite Congress into the process of designing trials for enemy combatants. This presents a major opportunity to bring the legal framework of this conflict — and the country’s political system — back into balance.
This chance is far broader than the relatively narrow question of how accused terrorists should face justice. There is an opportunity to provide legislative authorisation — along with limits, safeguards and accountability — for all of the powers and practices the U.S. government may need in a long-term confrontation with violent Islamist extremism.
Congress should audit the administration’s treatment of prisoners, whether in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in secret locations abroad. It should scrutinise its interrogation methods, including those that skirt prohibitions against torture. It should review the government’s domestic surveillance and debate the proper balance between ensuring Americans’ privacy and gathering intelligence effectively.
The immediate danger is that Congress will become reckless and hasty and abdicate the responsibility the court has given it. With midterm elections looming, the administration may push for quick legislative fixes. It may ask for a simple statutory authorisation for the military commissions it wants to use for terrorist trials. It may also seek to counter the court’s ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires humane treatment for all detainees, includes Al Qaeda members. Having granted the administration a blank check for so long, Congress should not offer a rubber stamp.
Instead, and as a start, Congress needs to examine comprehensively what changes, if any, the administration truly needs in the ordinary rules of military justice to bring Al Qaeda suspects to trial. Many military lawyers believe terrorist trials could proceed smoothly using the normal system of courts-martial, which the military utilises to try its own personnel. The administration has several concerns, chiefly the need to protect classified intelligence information and its desire to use evidence collected in the rough and tumble of war that might not be admissible in a conventional court-martial. Its own rules offered maximal flexibility at considerable risk to fairness. Congress must satisfy itself both that any deviations are truly needed and that they are no broader than absolutely necessary.
Legislators also have an important role to play concerning the court’s holding on Geneva’s Common Article 3, which could have a major impact on treatment standards for prisoners. The import of the decision is to make it a potential crime under U.S. law to treat prisoners inhumanely, yet the Geneva article is vague in its language. As a consequence, it is essential that Americans fighting the war get clear guidance as to what conduct is prohibited. Given the administration’s ugly history of construing vague language requiring humane treatment as allowing inhumane treatment, it cannot be permitted a free hand in that interpretation.
At a minimum, Congress should force the administration to publish the guidance it gives to personnel in the field concerning the article’s meaning. More broadly, it should consider legislation putting meat on the treaty’s rather bare bones. It should consider every exceptional practice the administration has tried to justify: from “waterboarding” and other practices of torture and near-torture to “renditions” of suspects to foreign governments to the holding of prisoners incommunicado. One obvious place to start would be to stipulate that the CIA’s network of secret prisons is not consistent with Geneva’s requirements: Its detainees must be transferred to U.S. facilities, registered with the International Red Cross and guaranteed humane treatment.
Other issues not directly addressed by the court warrant close examination, too. As we have argued before, Congress should put on firmer legal ground the basis on which captives in this war are detained in the first place.
— The Washington Post