|
| November 17, 2006 | Friday | Shawwal 24, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Landmark agreements
Winter in quake-affected areas
FRIDAY FEATURE: Islamic law & freedom
Lebanon’s new crisis
THE Islamic faith safeguards personal interests of individuals and also the collective interests of the people as a community. It serves to secure and liberate persons by providing certain freedoms and protecting the same from infringement by others. One such freedom is the freedom of information.
THE Hudood Ordinances have inflicted much injustice on Pakistani women and should have been repealed long ago. But such are the inscrutabilities of politics in Pakistan that rulers have often to choose the second best option for expedient reasons. This is what President Pervez Musharraf’s government has done vis-‘-vis the Hudood Ordinances. The Protection of Women Bill that was adopted by the National Assembly on Wednesday after months of behind-the-scenes wrangling does not strike down the odious Zina Ordinance, but it is expected to bring noticeable relief to women, especially the under-privileged ones who usually were the victim. For this the president deserves to be commended.
Under the new law, when it comes into effect after it has been passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the Zina Ordinance would lose much of its bite. Rape has been taken out of the Hudood law and put under the PPC as it was before General Zia decided to equate it with adultery making a raped woman liable of being punished for fornication if she failed to produce four eye witnesses. The second major amendment is to change the procedure for registering a zina case. The offence is no longer cognizable and only a court can decide whether the case has any merit and even if it does, the offence is bailable. There is a provision for making “lewdness” (later changed to fornication, defined as consenting sex between unmarried couples) punishable under the PPC. More than the bill itself, it is the direction the government has taken in the “long journey to protect women’s rights”, to quote the prime minister, is encouraging. The nation will wait for new laws on the other anti-women customs to be enacted, as promised by President Musharraf in his speech on radio and television on Wednesday. They will also be test cases.
As the curtain falls on the two-month drama enacted in Islamabad around the Protection of Women Bill, the implications of the political alignments taking place assume a significance of their own. In the past several weeks the president has been appealing to the liberal and enlightened forces in the country to back him against the obscurantist religious elements. In the case of the protection bill, he succeeded in enlisting the support of the PPP-P by showing respect for the party’s views in the select committee which extensively revised the original bill. But he also performed the seemingly impossible task of getting the MMA not to vote against the bill or resign from its seats in the NA as the Jamaat-i-Islami leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, has repeatedly been threatening to do. The most commendable aspect of the adoption of the bill is that parliamentary procedures were followed and extra-constitutional measures were not taken as was being contemplated at one time to win over the MMA. It is quite likely that political deals may have been made offering a quid pro quo for the MMA to keep its opposition to the bill on a low key. The federal government’s mild reaction to the Hasba bill, adopted by the NWFP Assembly, probably provides an indication of the developments taking place behind the scenes. Considering the fact that elections are just a year away, one only hopes that the politicking does not degenerate to an abysmally low level of horse trading. The government should ensure an even playing field for all parties. The military’s nexus with the religious parties which has been pronounced in the past decades, still remains a worry factor on this score.
EVEN though a breakthrough on Siachen was not achieved, the two-day talks between Pakistan and Indian foreign secretaries in New Delhi have achieved a major success by clinching what have been described as two landmark agreements. One concerns the establishment of a joint anti-terrorism mechanism, while the other is designed to ensure nuclear risk reduction. The contours of the latter agreement have not been revealed, but details about the joint counter-terrorism measures have been spelled out. The agreement establishes a six-man panel, consisting of three members from each side, to ensure coordination in fighting terrorism by sharing intelligence information. On the Mumbai blasts, no specific information was given by the Indian side to Pakistan, though it did hand over some information about Pakistanis’ alleged involvement in acts of terrorism in India. The two sides also agreed on a number of other issues, including a joint survey of Sir Creek, the decision to continue talks on their maritime boundary, and the early operationalisation of a truck service across the Line of Control in Kashmir, besides such humanitarian issues as the release of fishermen and others detained on minor charges. Regrettably, they have not yet agreed on a date for reopening consulates in Karachi and Mumbai.
A significant aftermath of the talks was the conciliatory tone of the two foreign secretaries, who agreed to “build on convergences and narrowing down divergences”. They also agreed to refrain from exchanging allegations in public. As the history of the accident-prone relations between Pakistan and India shows, going public with complaints has often vitiated the atmosphere. This was visible in the aftermath of the Mumbai blasts. By any standards, the composite dialogue to which the two sides are pledged seems to be making progress. On Siachen, it seems it is the military on the Indian side that appears reluctant on demilitarisation. But the issue needs to be settled to avoid unnecessary waste of men and material on the icy heights. A breakthrough on Siachen will have a positive impact on the Kashmir situation and strengthen the two sides’ resolve to seek an early solution to the thorny 59-year-old dispute.
WITH close to two million people still living in tents and temporary shelters in the quake-ravaged northern parts of the country, it is clear that preparations to meet the harsh conditions of the approaching winter are far from satisfactory. The prospects are forbidding: snowfall will make the roads inaccessible and hamper reconstruction and rehabilitation work. Cut off from clinics and dispensaries, the people will have no medical help at hand should the need arise, as it did last winter when cold-related illnesses including pneumonia, affected hundreds of quake victims, especially children. Food supplies may also be limited as vehicles carrying perishable goods might be unable to negotiate the snow-laden mountain tracks or face possible landslides. Besides, there is also the danger of tents catching fire as a result of burning fuel inside to keep warm. Last year, hundreds of medical teams reached the spot when the quake struck and remained there as the winter set in. It is doubtful whether the same concern will be shown this time when the emergency period has passed.
The authorities will have to speed up their efforts if they are to stave off a potential crisis. Regular helicopter relief services have yet to begin while many makeshift homes remain exposed to harsh weather conditions. Children are particularly at risk and there is a need to send vaccination teams to the affected areas. It is also important to ensure that nutritious edibles, including vitamin-enriched items, and essential medication are in adequate stock in the areas. If sufficient temporary accommodation is made available at the lower heights, those living in remote mountain hamlets might be persuaded to spend the winter here rather than freezing in shacks for the next two to three months.
Freedom of information has been provided to Muslims at two different levels: freedom of information pertaining to matters of personal interest and affairs; and freedom to be informed of all governmental policies and actions taken in furtherance of the same.
The right to be informed on all matters dealing with personal interests and affairs of the individual is one of the inherent rights of man. This freedom puts two-fold corresponding duty on him who is to play the role of informant in the situation. The informer is duty bound not only to disclose information, but also to inform truthfully without concealing even an iota of the facts:
“And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth...” (2: 42); “...and shun lying speech (false statements).”(22: 30); “...Allah guides not him who is a liar...” (39: 3). It is of the essence of justice that the one who is to disclose reveal true information: “...Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice...”(5: 08); “...those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences...they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers.” (2: 159).
Freedom of information most commonly pertains to disclosure of governmental policies, objectives and actions. Islamic law upholds a democratic government i.e. a government constituted by the elected representatives of the people. Once in authority, these representatives are accountable at two different levels. They are answerable to God Almighty as sovereignty lies with Him alone, and the powers, which these authorities exercise, are a sacred trust bestowed on them by Him, so making them liable to him for all actions taken by them while holding the seat of authority. Secondly, these representatives are responsible to the people whom they represent; they are answerable to those who are liable to obey them.
They are to exercise all powers within prescribed limits and in case they transgress those limits their subjects are no longer obliged to comply with their instructions and orders. Most importantly, they have also to practise themselves what they preach to the people so setting an example for others to follow: “Enjoin you Al-Birr (piety and righteousness and every act of obedience to Allah) on the people and you forget (to practise it) yourselves...” (2: 44).
The Holy Prophet (PBUH) once said, “A man will be brought and put in hell (fire) and he will circumambulate (go round and round) in hell (fire) like a donkey of a (flour) grinding mill, and all the people of hell (fire) will gather around him and will say to him, ‘O so-and-so! Didn’t you use to order others for Al-Ma’ruf (Islamic monotheism and all that is good) and forbid them from Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief, and all that is evil)?’ That man will say, ‘I used to order others to do Al-Ma’ruf (Islamic monotheism and all that is good) but I myself never used to do it, and I used to forbid others from Al-Munkar while I myself used to do Al-Munkar.’”
All affairs of an Islamic state must be transacted through mutual consultation, in fact even the ruler of the state is to be appointed through consultation: “And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by counsel among themselves...” (42: 38) The most important example is the appointment of Caliph Abu Bakr, the first of the Pious Caliphs, by communal decision.
During the time of the Holy Prophet, people enjoyed the liberty to question the decisions taken by him and were never discouraged from criticising the same. The Holy Prophet would give satisfactory answers to their queries and would try to dispel any apprehensions which they would harbour against the policies adopted by him. Later on people would openly question the Pious Caliphs about various actions and measures adopted by them. The Caliphs, considering themselves answerable to the people, would then explain their conduct in question. There are even instances where upon valid objection by certain people the Caliphs withdrew their orders and instructions.
Islam restrains the clash of interest between the rulers and the ruled. It has created a balance by providing this freedom whereby people are kept informed and so are able to participate in governmental matters through public opinion. Where this freedom is exercised, concentration of powers in the authority is dissipated and the same is also made accountable to the people for policies and actions. The authorities are required to elicit public opinion and not suppress this. They are to disclose all information, which is within their ambit, and see to the reaction of the people and entertain their views and put up with the criticism on their policies: “...and consult them in the affairs. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah...” (3: 159).
The same liability of an informant at an individual level with more stringent compliance is applicable on the authorities. They are not only to disclose information but are required to disclose truthfully without even the smallest measure of concealment: “...Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents...and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah i s Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.”(4: 135). Thus those in power are liable to divulge all information even if it serves to incriminate their own selves or causes the same to be subject to the most severe form of criticism by the public: “...Allah has full knowledge of what they conceal”(3: 167).
Islam, however, pays due heed to a certain level of privacy with regard to information that is sensitive in nature and disclosure of which could jeopardise the interests of the state. Such discretion on the part of the ruling body may be duly exercised in times of war where information pertains to military strategies as making the same public would be harmful to state interests, as spies of the enemy would disclose the same to them.
Further, freedom of information should not serve as a weapon whereby the right of privacy of another is infringed. It may also be exercised where a source, which is not credible, has provided information to the authorities and disclosure of the same would create false alarm or serve to misguide the people. So considering, Islamic law has not only evolved this freedom but has also laid down a certain ambit of restraint keeping in view situations which are also prevailing in the contemporary world.
Islamic law is the harbinger of this freedom, which received global recognition and was granted by the West at a later stage. Sweden, a monarchial parliamentary democracy granted freedom of access to governmental held information in 1766. The United Nations General Assembly, during its first session in the year 1946 adopted Resolution 59(1) which states, “freedom of information is a fundamental right and...the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the UN is consecrated”. This freedom of access to government held information was made a part of the law of the US in the year 1966.
THE reckless attack on Israel by the Lebanese Hezbollah movement this summer led to the devastation of the southern third of the country. Now Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has launched an even more dangerous campaign. He is attempting to stage a coup against the democratically elected Lebanese government. The pro-western administration of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which lacks Hezbollah’s ruthlessness or military strength, has been resisting. But without help from the outside world, Lebanon could experience the reversal of its popular Cedar Revolution of 2005.
Hezbollah’s new offensive is backed by Iran and Syria and serves those governments’ agendas as well as its own. The Shiite Islamic party is demanding that it be given enough seats in Mr Siniora’s cabinet to provide it with a veto over all major decisions. That would allow it to block the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament. It could also impede the formation of an international tribunal by the Security Council and Lebanon to try the perpetrators of the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Senior Syrian officials are among those implicated. Not coincidentally, the six Lebanese ministers already allied with Hezbollah and its allies resigned in the past few days, just as the cabinet was preparing to vote on a preliminary agreement on the tribunal.
To its credit, the Siniora government rejected Hezbollah’s intimidation, and the 18 remaining ministers approved the tribunal unanimously. But the crisis is far from over. Hezbollah is threatening to begin street demonstrations that could easily lead to violence. That would serve the interests of the increasingly radical Iran-Syria axis, which is attempting to prevent the spread of democracy in the Middle East, drive out the West and ultimately destroy Israel.
The Security Council should act swiftly to establish the tribunal and begin criminal proceedings. It should also consider other actions against Syria, including sanctions, if Syria continues trying to block the formation of the tribunal and sponsoring political violence in Lebanon. At the same time, Security Council action against Iran for its refusal to suspend its nuclear programme is long overdue; governments that are holding it up must be forced to choose between supporting sanctions and breaking off strategic cooperation with the West. Until Iran and Syria are made to pay a price for their attempts to radicalise the Middle East, they will have no incentive to rein in clients such as Hezbollah.
— The Washington Post