|
| August 04, 2006 | Friday | Rajab 8, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Time for talks
Hudood draft bill
Friday feature: Basic Islamic values
A new challenge for Nato
THE Quran and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) nourished the Islamic concept of freedom. Never did he deny his followers the basic freedoms. Muslims could always speak their minds while in his presence. He consulted them and listened to their views and counsels. The first Muslim community lived in unprecedented freedom under the banner of the Holy Quran and the leadership of the guiding Messenger.
SO, Sindh’s political crisis is over. Unless some new misunderstandings crop up — of which there is always a fair possibility — one can perhaps hope that the present set-up will last till general elections are held next year. This was the second most serious political crisis to hit the province since the PML-Q and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement became partners in a fragile coalition formed in December 2002 with the avowed purpose of keeping the PPP out of power. In January last, too, the MQM had given an ultimatum to the government on the Balochistan and Kalabagh dam issues. Later it withdrew the ultimatum, but not before Mr Altaf Hussain had an ego trip: both President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had to have a long talk with him on the phone and assured him on the two issues. Barely six months later, another crisis rocked Sindh again, with the MQM ministers submitting their resignations because of differences with Chief Minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim. Their resignations were not accepted, and the federal government seems to have made an earnest effort to patch up the differences between the coalition partners. However, the reconciliation process often proves to be a cliff-hanger, with the situation taking a sudden turn for the worse. At one point, a solution seemed imminent, but the MQM did something very unwise — it boycotted a meeting called by the president not because the general had said something nasty about it but because Dr Rahim indulged in a bit of bravado. Later, Governor Ishratul Ibad apologised to the president, and the party chief rang up from London to assure the general that his party had full confidence in him. The president reportedly advised the MQM not to go public with its differences with the coalition partners and to try to resolve them behind the scenes.
With the crisis resolved, one hopes that the two sides will now work together as a team for the betterment of the people of Sindh which in fact should be their priority. The MQM should also try to dispel the impression that it is incapable of having a durable and harmonious relationship with its coalition partners: the history of its ties with the PPP and PML-N testifies to this impression. With the PML-Q representing the interior of Sindh and the MQM the urban part of the province, this coalition — even if cobbled together for expedient reasons — can serve the people of the province if all members of the coalition put their petty differences aside and concentrate on constructive work. So much needs to be done in Sindh, especially in the rural areas, where the people lack basic necessities of life. While much is being done to develop Karachi’s infrastructure — and the effort needs to be appreciated — similar development plans are conspicuous by their absence in the interior of Sindh.
Dr Rahim obviously has an image problem, for even if he is well meaning, the MQM is not the only party to have reservations about him. There is a “forward bloc” in the PML-Q which too is unhappy with the way Dr Rahim has been running the province. Perhaps, all coalition partners should realise that a general election is a year away, and they should try to improve their image among the people by delivering. The people are unlikely to have a high opinion of parties that seem to be mostly bickering among themselves, rather than doing jobs they are meant to do.
THE Balochistan governor has declared victory against militant tribesmen, saying that the revolt led by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti has been quelled. With more and more Bugti and Marri tribesmen laying down arms and surrendering to government forces in the troubled tribal belt of Dera Bugti and Kohlu, the governor’s claim seem credible. The clashes that ensued between militant tribesmen and government forces since December last have left scores dead, including 64 civilians, among them women and children. This is not only tragic but also serves as a reminder that wages of war are invariably high. The calm now prevailing in Dera Bugti and the cessation of acts of sabotage, such as the blowing up of railway, power and gas infrastructure or bombings carried out in settled areas, should tell all involved that peace could have been achieved without involving such a heavy price in terms of lives lost and human suffering endured. If a sense of accommodation had prevailed on either side and acts of terror had not been resorted to, the state need not have moved militarily against its own people.
The military battle may be over but the sense of deprivation prevailing among the Baloch remains. It is time to go back to the table to ensure that peace lasts. Militants who have laid down arms should be assured that the state does not perceive them as enemies, and that the Baloch people will get a fair share in the various development schemes underway in their province. This is the only way to ensure that a sense of fair play prevails among tribesmen so that they cannot be induced to take up arms again by disgruntled sardars, who have used them to carry out acts of violence and sabotage in Balochistan and elsewhere. Side by side, the government must also put in place an agreed mechanism in consultation with the relevant tribes for the eventual integration of the tribal areas into the national mainstream. This can only begin to happen once the fruits of development start trickling down to the local communities that continue to reel under extreme poverty.
AT long last the much awaited draft amendments to the Hudood Ordinances were approved by the federal cabinet on Wednesday. A ministerial committee has also been set up to ensure its passage in parliament. Although one would have liked to see a repeal of these draconian and discriminatory laws that were promulgated under General Zia’s rule, one only hopes that the draft bill does not include the offensive portions which discriminate against women and minorities. This is imperative for a mere cosmetic change will prove inconsequential for the scores of women who have been targeted under these unjust laws. Over the last few months, there has been a discernible change in the government’s attitude towards the controversial ordinances. The most recent step was the presidential ordinance ordering the release of women prisoners involved in crimes other than murder, robbery and terrorism.
The next step — the actual passage of the bill — is not likely to be smooth sailing given that the religious parties have said they will oppose any move to amend the Ordinances which they describe as divine laws. It is the religious parties’ ability to galvanise public support — and letting that support turn violent — that has made the government retreat on many issues in the past; the deletion of the religion column in the passport is one such example of the religious lobby’s perceived might. However, on this issue the government has the support of the Council of Islamic Ideology so it should not waver in its commitment to amend or repeal laws that do not quite conform to Islamic principles of justice — as indeed the Hudood Ordinances do not. One hopes that once this battle is won, other contentious and discriminatory laws — like the blasphemy law — will to be addressed. No society can progress if its people feel that some laws are unjust and arbitrary.
The freedom that Islam grants is based on commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom. Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is the complete breakdown of the moral and social order. The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, and modern theories of freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept of higher moral values or self control. For Islam, freedom lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without responsibility; no responsibility without freedom.
Islam clearly insists upon freedom of belief for all human beings. This freedom is the basis of Islamic social system. On the basis of this concept, the Islamic state itself guarantees freedom of worship to its non-Muslim subjects. From this concept we can understand the meaning of the letters which the Prophet sent to kings and rulers, calling them to Islam and asking them to stop oppressing their subjects so that they would have freedom of worship.
Say: “O men! Now truth has reached you from your Lord! Those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who go astray, do so to their own loss.” (10:108)
Because Allah has granted man free will, which allows him to choose his course in life, man is answerable to Allah for his actions. Deeds illustrate the quality of will, whether it is good or evil, whether it follows truth, and justice or whether it is corruptible by its own desires. “Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful.” (76:3) “...Nay! Man is evidence against himself, though he puts forth his excuses.” (75:14-15)
Divine reward or punishment is ordained in accordance with man’s free will. Without free will and its adherent responsibility and commitment there could be neither reward nor punishment. “And stop them, for they shall be questioned.” (37:24) Islam insists that man has free will because that is the way that Allah created him. It allows him to express this freedom and to practise it within the limits of commitment and responsibility and self control. Man has an obligation to choose the path of righteousness, and to safeguard his freedom and that of others.
Freedom of thought in Islamic society is like a deep river flowing towards its destination. When it widens it becomes more resplendent. Freedom of thought is related to one’s moral freedom, but comes within the framework of ideological commitment: In an Islamic society, one is free to act according to one’s own conscious moral convictions, to make ideological or intellectual choices, and to make decisions on the basis of these convictions and choices. If one is forced to do something of which one is not convinced or which one has not freely accepted, as it goes against one’s nature, then that is Islamically unacceptable.
The Quran says: “The one who strays does so at his own loss: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.” (17:15)
Freedom of speech and thought is now universally recognized as a basic right of an individual. Islam has never denied such a right. Under the Charter of Human Rights framed by the UN one is surely guaranteed the freedom of speech. But results of a freedom, unrestricted and unchecked may by disastrous. So the Lawgiver, while revealing His Will, through His Messenger (PBUH) prescribed a certain code of conduct in the matters of speaking about others and discussing their affairs.
The Holy Quran says: “O ye who believed, let not one group make mock of another, who are possibly better than they, or women (make mock of) women who are possibly better than they; do not scoff at each other, or revile each other with nicknames; reprobate conduct (fisq) is a bad name after belief and those who do not repent they are the wrong doers.”(49:11)
Again Quran says: “O ye who believed, avoid much suspicion, verily suspicion is sometimes sin; do not pry into each other’s affairs and let not some of you backbite others; would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye loath it! Show piety towards Allah, Verily! Allah is compassionate. “(49:12)
It is clear that from the very beginning freedom of movement of the individual was of paramount importance in Islam. Throughout the books of Fiqh and Islamic legislation there are numerous rules and details about the emancipation of slaves. Slaves were freed primarily so that they could live in the freedom and dignity of Islam and be emancipated in soul as much as in body.
“And surely We have honoured the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We have given them the good things, and We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellence over most of those whom WP have created.” (17:70)
Islam laid down the principles of justice, equality and freedom and established moral values. Since the concept of slavery was entrenched in the pre-Islamic world, and equally contrary to the Islamic concept of freedom of movement, many inducements to free slaves were introduced. Freeing a slave could help expiate sin. Sin is a spiritual perversion, called by the Holy Quran “a deviation, a malady”. It separated man from Allah and His Mercy. Freedom of a slave was one way in which a sinner could show remorse and atone for his sins and so be restored to grace.
Islam encourages freedom of thought, speech, movement, and individual conduct, but insists that this freedom encompassed a sense of responsibility and commitment. By doing so, Islam aims to build strong, unwavering characters who are secure in their self-knowledge and have confidence in themselves and their values, and whose behaviour will always reflect their strength. The Prophet (PBUH) warned us not to be foolish imitators of others. He urged us to develop our independent characters nourished by Islamic teachings.
He has said: “Do not be a mere imitator with no firm determination. You say, ‘I am with the people. Should people do good, so do I. And if they do evil, so do I’. But school yourselves. If people do good so should you. But if they do evil shun their evil deeds”.
In Islam freedom is an inalienable right which enables man to lead a moral and upright life, and brings him under the mantle of the justice and mercy of Allah.
“The mission is simple - but the delivery of it is complex,” British defence secretary, Des Browne, told the Commons last month, a neat summary of Britain’s task in Afghanistan, but also a misleading one. It would have been better to have admitted that the mission this country has taken on is anything but simple.
These are testing times for friends of a liberal, interventionist foreign policy, caught between Iraq, the White House and a prime minister who in his more manichaean moments presents every aspect of world affairs as a struggle between progress and reaction, a battle that admits no subtlety and no prospect of compromise. The many people who question this absolute vision but do not want to turn their back on the world are being left out of a debate that is being cut down to extremes.
Tony Blair did nothing to help such reasonable people last week when he denounced Islamic resistance to the West as “a revolt against the modern world — its diversity, its mass culture, its belief in equality of race and gender, its openness”. This is close to describing events in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon as part of a single battle for civilisation, which is setting the stakes far too high.
Not only does it misrepresent the reality of three different (if at times interlinked) conflicts, and the scale and causes of the fighting in each, but it dooms his task. On Mr Blair’s measure, success means reshaping societies, through force of arms if necessary, which cannot be achieved in the terms he describes. One consequence — already evident in parts of British debate — may be a gradual turning away from all progressive engagement with the world, in favour of a strict definition of national interest. A pragmatic assessment of the purpose and limits to intervention is needed if the cause is to survive.
In Afghanistan, David Richards, the British commander of Nato’s international security assistance force, took on new responsibilities for security in the south of the country and spoke, rightly, of the need to break the “cycle of oppression, murder and poverty”. That task that has so far cost the lives of eight British soldiers in action and seen the country experience its bloodiest spell in five years.
Conflict has extended beyond the southern Helmand province, where British forces are concentrated; it has certainly unsettled hopes that last year’s successful election marked a new period of stability for Afghanistan. Retreat now would mean calamity for a country whose history since 2001 has stood in contrast to the bloody mayhem of Iraq: new schools, 3 million refugees returned home, slow but real economic growth and a legitimate government — which yesterday saw a new chief justice elected.
Afghanistan was a failed state: all progress now is good news. But that does not mean doubts about what comes next should be buried. General Richards has himself expressed unease about the confused and contradictory programme of reconstruction in the country - calling it “close to anarchy”.
The risk is that for all the prime minister’s definitive vision of good against evil, Afghanistan will follow the pattern set in other countries that have seen western intervention, perhaps not Iraq but certainly Bosnia and Kosovo. Neither has become self-sustaining, though both have a form of peace.
The reality of nation-building is complex. It requires time, luck and money, it cannot be imposed from the outside alone and it means deciding that small gains are sometimes the best that can be hoped for. There is nothing noble about aiming for impossible perfection: whether a settlement before a ceasefire in Lebanon or the rapid transformation of Afghan civil society.
Accepting this does not mean abandoning liberal values, as the prime minister has said, nor does it mean tolerating injustice. Instead it means considering what can be done and what cannot; a liberal foreign policy not an absolutist one.
—The Guardian, London