|
| July 27, 2007 | Friday | Rajab 11, 1428 |
Banning capital punishment
An effective TB control strategy
Friday feature: Riba, the forbidden fruit
Turning against terror
ISLAM, the last of the Abrahamic religions, preached by Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), lays stress on the complexities of human relationship which are governed by contractual obligations, social norms, cultural affiliations, and most importantly, economics.
QAZI Hussain Ahmad’s decision to quit parliament and Maulana Fazlur Rahman’s criticism of the MMA chief’s resignation tend to highlight the utter chaos in the opposition camp. The JI chief resigned in violation of the MMA’s collective decision not to exercise the resignation option. However, Qazi Hussain Ahmad has often toed a line independent of the MMA, disregarding the fact that his party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, is part of the six-party alliance. This prompted Maulana Fazlur Rahman to ask whether Qazi Hussain had joined the MMA in his personal capacity or the Jamaat itself was an MMA component. The JI chief’s hard line on a number of issues has often been in sharp contrast with the MMA’s policies, and the pragmatism which the JUI chief has shown on some key issues has been missing in Qazi Hussain’s case. On the Lal Masjid issue, for instance, the JUI leader had publicly accused the Aziz-Ghazi duo of showing lack of flexibility during the negotiations. Quitting the assemblies on the women’s bill or to pre-empt President Pervez Musharraf’s re-election had been a major issue with the MMA, but the leadership decided last year that resignations from parliament would be inadvisable. In fact, Maulana Fazlur Rahman said that such a move would be “suicidal”. The JI chief’s decision to resign has understandably angered the MMA leadership.
The goings-on in the MMA highlight the chaos in the opposition’s ranks in general. The result of the multi-party conference in London showed that the opposition was more divided than ever before. The final declaration was amended on the PPP’s insistence that the resignation issue should be considered an option and not be made binding on all parties. Sensing a deal between the PPP and the government, the other participants of the London meeting got together and the very next day formed a new alliance — the All Parties’ Democratic Movement — in a move that seemed designed to isolate the PPP. On Wednesday, the ANP and the PkMAP formed an alliance, with a demand focussing on the creation of a new province in which Balochistan’s Pakhtoon-majority parts will join the NWFP with a new name. This alliance-forming habit seems to ignore the fact that once formed such groupings entail restraint and demand unity of thought and action. The Muslim League (N) is already a PPP ally in the ARD, but ignoring the PPP sensitivities, the new alliance included the MMA. Which was a provocation for the PPP, with which the PML (N) signed the Charter of Democracy last year. In forming and breaking alliances, the opposition seems to forget that the government is keeping its cards close to its chest. Whether it is disinformation on the government’s part, or perhaps evidence of chaos in the military-led government’s own thinking, it is still not clear whether the elections will be held in time or, as hints have been dropped, the assemblies’ tenure could be extended by a year. The opposition would do well to concentrate on just two points: ensuring a free and fair election and the end of the duality of President Musharraf’s role as head of state and army chief. Perhaps it suits the government to spread disinformation to keep things hazy, but the opposition’s cause would be better served by a focussed attention on a limited agenda whose clarity appeals to the voters. In contrast, the opposition’s strategies at the moment seem to be focussed against parties and personalities within its own ranks.
CITING Amnesty International, a report in this newspaper has pointed out that close to one-third of the world’s entire death row population is in Pakistani jails. Clearly, Pakistan’s laws and judicial system are out of step with those of a large number of nations that have abolished the death penalty as it is considered a barbaric mode of ensuring justice and a travesty of human rights. Moreover, as a deterrent, it has not achieved the desired results in bringing down fatal crimes. In Pakistan, which has more than 7,000 inmates on death row and that executed 82 convicts last year — the third highest figure worldwide — crime is soaring. Instead of restraining criminals, capital punishment, along with a gamut of human rights abuses, is brutalising society. This is reason enough for outlawing this barbaric penalty. However, there is another equally valid reason why capital punishment should be banned. This pertains to the inequality in society and a flawed mode of police investigation and prosecution that in a number of cases results in the conviction of the wrong person. Justice cannot be even-handed in a system where coercion and forced confessions in police custody are the norm and where the credentials of lawyers, especially government lawyers, leave a lot to be desired. It is mostly the poor who are sent to the gallows. Not having access to good lawyers, frequently tortured into confessing a crime they may not have committed, and unable to arrange for blood money if found guilty, the injustice is often palpable. Meanwhile, the wealthy are able to get away literally with murder.
In the name of compassion and in recognition of the questionable mode of investigation and flawed judicial system that exist in the country, the government would do well to consider abolishing capital punishment. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan also advocates this, suggesting an interim moratorium on the penalty while existing cases of death row prisoners are reviewed by a parliamentary committee. This suggestion should be seriously considered if the government wants to be seen to respect fundamental human rights.
IF the government wants to win the war on tuberculosis, it must do more to make people aware of the disease. According to a recent report, TB kills 9,000 people in the NWFP every year. The number is likely to be higher given that it is difficult to register patients, especially in the rural and tribal areas where there are very few healthcare centres. Nonetheless, it is a high enough figure for a disease that can be contained if diagnosed early and treatment is sought on time. Sadly, many people are still unaware of the symptoms of the disease or the free treatment centres that are there in the province. The most effective way of dealing with TB is by implementing the strategy of DOTS (directly observed treatment, short course) but results have not been very promising. Pakistan will have to rethink its strategy if it wants to meet the targets set out by the World Health Organisation which is to reduce the number of TB patients by 10 per cent by 2010. Early this year authorities said that they planned to get more health workers and even religious leaders involved in shedding social stigma often associated with TB. This must be done more forcefully so that the message is conveyed effectively.
These efforts will prove futile if TB control centres are not fully equipped to deal with patients seeking treatment. Despite a TB control programme in Kohat district, 200 people are said to be afflicted by TB every year. Why is this happening? Most people cannot afford private treatment which can cost up to Rs200,000. How many in this poor country can afford that? The health ministry must look into this matter and ensure that all centres are amply stocked with preventative and curative medications. Pakistan ranks sixth on the list of TB-stricken countries and it must commit itself to eradicating the disease in a few years.
According to Islamic perspective, all wealth belongs to God Almighty: “And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth…” (3: 109) “Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and spend of that whereof He has made you trustees.” (57:7)
Market mechanism is indeed an integral part of the Islamic economic system as the very existence of private property is dependent on the former. But profit, a strong motivating factor in free enterprise, if not controlled, may overpower the basic norms of social and economic justice prevailing in Islamic public and social order. The underlying principle operating in Islamic market law is twofold: individual autonomy to own productive resources to further one’s economic interest and protecting the consumer from harm.
Individual interest has to be so pursued that collective interest of society is not put at risk. Thus any individual business undertaken to cause harm to the fabric of society has been strictly prohibited. In short, the basic principles of Islamic economic system are that moral values are the guiding factors for all economic activities; there should be maximum utilisation of human and material resources, the same to be managed equitably; wealth should be distributed and circulated fairly, and last but not least, prohibition of riba.
Riba literally means ‘increase’. In Shariah, it is an addition over and above the principal amount i.e. paying money for the use of money. Prior to the emergence of Islamic faith, over fourteen hundred years ago, almost all religions of the world prohibited money lending as the same was conducive to earning of profit on the sum lent. Biblical provisions such as “…take thou no usury of him or increase: but fear thy God…” (lev. 25-36) and, “…that hath taken off his “hands from the poor that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgment, hath walked in my statutes, he shall not die for the inequity of his father, he shall surely live” (Ezekiel 18:7) depict the same.
Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher, declared money as sterile, which he compared to a barren hen and so rejected the very concept of interest, for to him the sole purpose of money was to facilitate exchange and not to beget greater sum of money. Acquisition of profit and income through money lending was prohibited in the Roman Empire as well.
The Holy Quran, which is an undisputed source of Islamic law and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet expressly prohibit riba. “And that which you give in gift (to others), in order that it may increase (your wealth by expecting to get a better one in return) from other people’s property has no increase with Allah…” (30:39) “O you who believe! Eat not riba doubled and multiplied, but fear Allah that you may be successful.” (3: 130) “Those who eat riba will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaitan (Satan) leading him to insanity…” (2:275) “…Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from riba (from now onward), if you are (really) believers.” (2:278)
Abu Hurairah narrated that the Holy Prophet once said: “On the night of Ascension I came upon people whose stomachs were like houses with snakes visible from the outside. I asked Gabriel who they were. He replied that they were people who received riba.”
On another occasion, according to Abu Hurairah, the Holy Prophet said “There will certainly come a time for mankind when everyone will take riba and if he does not do so, its dust will reach him.” Ibn Masud narrates that the Prophet once said: “Even when riba is much, it is bound to end up into paltriness.”
According to Anas Ibn Malik the Holy Prophet once stated: “When one of you grants a loan and the borrower offers him a dish, he should not accept it; and if the borrower offers a ride on an animal, he should not ride, unless the two of them have been previously accustomed to exchanging such favours mutually.” The Holy Prophet in his last sermon told the people: “Every form of interest (riba) is cancelled; capital indeed is yours which you shall have; wrong not and you shall not be wronged. Allah has given His Commandment totally prohibiting riba. I start with the amount of riba which people owe to Abbas and declare it all cancelled.”
Broadly categorised, riba is of two kinds: riba al-Nasi’a and riba al-Fadl; the former refers to interest on loans which has been duly mentioned in the Holy Quran (see 2: 279, 2: 280). Riba literally means ‘increase’ and nasi’a means ‘delay’. Therefore it means the profit which is acquired in case of delay in repayment of money. Riba al-Fadl is the excess measured in terms of weight, value or counting.
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri relates on his authority that the Holy Prophet once said that gold must be exchanged for gold, like for like, from hand to hand. Any increase, fadl, in one commodity over the other is riba. Silver must be exchanged for silver, like for like, from hand to hand, and any increase is riba. Salt be exchanged for salt, like for like, from hand to hand, any increase is riba.
Barley be exchanged for barley, like for like, from hand to hand, any increase is riba. Riba al-Fadl pertains to any form of exploitation or unlawful gain accruing through business transactions. Thus, whereas riba al-Nasi’a deals with increase earned on money itself, riba al-Fadl incorporates all other forms of unfair material advantage which any one party may have over the other.
It must be taken into consideration that riba was condemned even during the jahaliyah period i.e. Arabia before the advent of Islam. In A.D. 605, before the advent of Islam, the curtains of the Holy Kaaba caught fire and the house of Allah incurred severe damages. In order to reconstruct the same, contributions were sought from the general public but only honestly earned money was accepted, while prostitutes and people practising usury were barred from contributing. Thus even the pagans of Arabia considered usury to be an immoral and dishonest practice.
Socio-economic justice is indispensable to an ideal Muslim society, where a balance has to be maintained between individual interests and collective welfare; where incentive should not be mingled with or converted into greed causing injustice to others.
THE sages teach that tragedy is instructive -- if its bitter lessons can be swallowed. Now a new poll finds that support for suicide bombings and other violence against civilians has plunged across the Muslim world, markedly, though not exclusively, in countries that have experienced such attacks.
The data, released Tuesday by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, point out a clear path toward Western reconciliation with the estranged Islamic world -- if we're deft enough to take it.
The Pew poll and other recent surveys paint a seemingly contradictory picture of Muslim public opinion. In country after country, Muslims distrust the United States and reject its policies. They see the "global war on terror" as a war on Islam and actively fear US military intervention. A stunning 93 per cent of Bangladeshis and 92 per cent of Moroccans, for example, say they are somewhat or very worried that the US could someday pose a military threat to their nations. At the same time, however, Muslims increasingly repudiate Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's methods (though not necessarily its political goals).
This contradiction is worth probing. In Lebanon, for example, 63 per cent of those polled this spring said they opposed the US-led war on terror. But only 34 per cent thought that suicide bombings against civilians were sometimes or often justified —down from 74 per cent who considered suicide bombing justifiable in 2002. Support for Bin Laden plummeted from 20 per cent to one per cent of those surveyed in Lebanon, and substantial drops were also registered in Jordan, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and Kuwait.
The exception to this trend is in the places where Muslims see themselves at war with a vastly stronger enemy: Israel and Iraq. A stunning 70 per cent of Palestinians see suicide bombings that kill civilians as justifiable, and large numbers across the Arab world view US troops in Iraq as fair game. Also, Shiites are more likely than Sunnis to endorse suicide bombing. Nevertheless, the data suggest that terrorist tactics are falling from favor.
Can Western leaders drive a deeper wedge between extremist groups like Al Qaeda and Muslims around the world? One person who has clearly decided to try is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He has forbidden his ministers to use the inflammatory phrase "war on terror" and pointedly avoided calling the Glasgow airport attack "Muslim" or "Islamist."
Instead, he simply branded it "criminal." British Muslims were overjoyed. Critics mocked Brown's political correctness, rightly noting that linguistic self-censorship will not inspire similar self-restraint by the terrorists setting off the bombs.
The question, however, is whether British police will now receive more cooperation from Muslim citizens on whom they depend for information to thwart the next bombers.
— Los Angeles Times