Accountability in Islam

ISLAM is a multifaceted religion where awareness of Divine rights has been given on the one hand and a functional network of an Islamic state has been laid down on the other. It not only expounds a comprehensive system for effective management of state affairs, but has also conceptualized accountability of the state authorities in order to keep the holders of power under effective check.

The very essence of an Islamic state is that sovereignty belongs to God: “Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and He is Possessor of power over all things”. (67:01). The sovereignty exercised by the rulers in an Islamic state is a sacred trust bestowed on them by God: “Then We appointed you viceroys in the land after them that We might see how you behave”. (10: 14). The rulers on earth are to practise and implement the commands of Allah which have been laid down in the Quran, thus the Book of Guidance serves as a workable constitution for running an Islamic state: “And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a confirmation of that which was before it and a clear exposition of that which is decreed for mankind, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds”. (10: 37).

The primary focus of an Islamic state is the promotion and endorsement of the religion (Islam). At the same time it is concerned and operates to provide safety and protection to those who come under its governance. It looks after the welfare of the people and also creates a sound social fabric where a healthy intellectual, economic, and family life of individuals is developed, encouraged, and safeguarded.

As all the affairs of an Islamic state must be transacted by counsel, the ruler of the state is also 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 conducting ijma or mutual consultation. And once appointed, the ruler is to manage all affairs by consulting those around him. And those who give advice are required to do so conscientiously and judiciously, or refrain from giving the same. The public is also under an obligation to give sincere and beneficial advice to the ruler. It is important to note that obedience to a ruler is contingent on his imposition and enforcement of Islamic principles. Where a ruler deviates from the right path, he is no longer entitled to obedience by people. In other words, if a government fulfils the requirements imposed by the Quran and the Sunnah, its claim to the allegiance of people becomes absolute. The Prophet (PBUH) said: “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler), whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders do not involve disobedience (to Allah). But if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, one should not listen to it or obey it”.

From the above-mentioned principles it follows that people are duty bound to supervise the activities of the government, to give their consent to right actions, and to withdraw it whenever the government deviates from the right path. It also becomes evident that the accountability of the ruler of an Islamic state is twofold: (1) he is answerable to God, as power bestowed on him by God is a sacred trust; and (2) to people who are his subjects.

The rules and precedents set by the Prophet (PBUH), in accordance with the teachings of the Quran, regarding accountability of government, were also observed and further elaborated by his successors. People would openly question the Pious Caliphs about the various actions and measures taken by them. The Caliphs, considering themselves answerable to 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. Unlike the western legal systems, in Islam, there is no room for the authorities to be immune from the law. Even the head of an Islamic state may be challenged, in both official and private capacity, in the court.

Where the ruler is the custodian of public property and their interests, the judge is the custodian of the law and responsible for implementing the same. The office of judge is independent of all executive control and he can exercise his authority without any form of interference from influential quarters. He decides all disputes in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah: “So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed ....” (5: 49).

Further, a judge is required to be impartial and decide on the merits of the case uninfluenced by external strains be they of kith and kin, caste or creed, the status of the parties, or monetary benefits: “O you who believe! Be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) near relatives, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man ...” (4: 135)

The following statement of the Prophet (PBUH), which he made while deciding the case of a noble woman who had committed theft illustrates the same: “Verily those who were before you were destroyed because when a noble man from among them committed theft, they passed no sentence on him. By Allah, had Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, I would have cut off her hand”.

It is given in the Quran: “Surely We have revealed the Book to thee with truth that thou may judge between people by means of what Allah has taught thee. And be not one pleading the cause of the dishonest”. (4: 105). It is agreed that the occasion of the revelation of this verse was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim, in which the Prophet (PBUH) decided against the Muslim. The Muslim, supported by his tribe, had falsely accused the Jew of theft. At a time when help was sorely needed for the defence of Islam, a verdict against a man supported by his tribe meant a loss of alliance with that tribe. But such considerations carried no weight with the Prophet (PBUH) who cleared the Jew of all the charges.

Thus, the verse lays down that justice is above all other considerations. The Prophet (PBUH) once said: “Judges are of three types, one of whom will go to Paradise and two to Hell. The one who will go to Paradise is a man who knows what is right and gives judgment accordingly; but a man who knows what is right and acts tyrannically in his judgement will go to Hell; and a man who gives judgement for people when he is ignorant will go to Hell”.

The Quran and the Sunnah define the main responsibilities of a judge. The Pious Caliphs issued detailed instructions about the qualification, appointment, and conduct of judges. Letters written by Caliph Ali to his governors regarding the administration of justice in their territories thoroughly explain who should be a judge and what should be the conduct of a judge. Caliph Umar’s case is an example of how unsuitable judicial behaviour must be dealt with. He once had a lawsuit against a Jew. When both parties went before the judge, the latter rose in his seat out of deference to Umar who looked upon the act as an unpardonable judicial weakness.

Thus, in an Islamic state all state-organs are subject to the law and are accountable for their actions. The Creator, well aware of the weaknesses of mortals, has laid down effective checks to be imposed on those who exercise power.

The status of Northern Areas

REBUTTING India’s recent claim that Gilgit-Baltistan was an integral part of its territory, the Pakistan foreign office has stated that as part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the area is a disputed territory the final status of which is yet to be determined.

The stance of New Delhi on the status of Gilgit-Baltistan (designated as the Northern Areas) belies ground realities and is sinister. However, the position taken by Islamabad on this issue is equally tendentious and fraught with serious implications for the country. It is, therefore, necessary to put the matter in perspective.

It may be recalled that on March 16, 1846, a treaty was signed between the British colonial rulers of India and a Hindu warlord of Jammu, Maharaja Gulab Singh, at Amritsar. By the terms of this treaty, the British government sold to Maharaja Gulab Singh, for a paltry sum of 75,00,000 rupees, the mountainous country with its dependencies situated to the eastward of the Indus and westward of the Ravi, including Chamba. The treaty of Amritsar marked the commencement of the history of the state of Jammu and Kashmir as a political entity.

The treaty also provided that the limits of the territories of the state of Jammu and Kashmir should not be, at any time, changed without the concurrence of the British government. However, when Maharaja Gulab Singh conquered Gilgit and Baltistan, the British government, acting out of expediency, overlooked the transgression of the Amritsar treaty as it was keen to consolidate its grip on the strategically important northern parts of India and, as such, wanted to keep the Dogra warlord in good humour.

The forcible occupation of Gilgit-Baltistan by Maharaja Gulab Singh and subsequent Dogra rule over these territories for many years has led to a false assumption that they constituted an integral part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The fact of the matter, however, is that the people of Gilgit-Baltistan regard themselves as being distinct from the Kashmiris. They argue that even if, by a quirk of history, Gilgit-Baltistan had been subjugated by the Dogra rulers of Kashmir it did not mean that it became part of that state, just like the British occupation of the subcontinent in the 19th century does not mean that it become part of Britain. In this connection it may also be pertinent to mention that in June 1941, the resident of Gilgit, Lt. Col. M.S. Frazer, had been informed by the British government that although Hunza and Nagar, the two major princely states and many other smaller states in Gilgit, were under the suzerainty of the state of Jammu and Kashmir they were not part of it. The British government, however, did not make their position public at that time fearing that it would be unpalatable to the ruler of Kashmir and its own war efforts in that state might also suffer a setback.

It is, thus, evident that the Northern Areas, which have their own long history with a distinct geographical identity, were not part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and, as such, it is unfair to keep their constitutional status in limbo by unnecessarily linking them to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan should give up its reluctance to formally integrate the Northern Areas into its territory as the fifth province of the country, as demanded by the inhabitants of these areas, following their decisive military victory against the Dogras in 1947. Needless to say, it would also be in Pakistan’s own strategic interests to do so.

In 1990, a petition was filed in the high court of Azad Kashmir, which raised the crucial question of the administrative, political and geographical status of the Northern Areas. It was argued by the petitioners that these areas formed part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir at the time of independence and should, therefore, be annexed to Azad Kashmir and brought under its administrative control. The petitioners, however, ignored the fact that the Northern Areas had never been part of Kashmir and the Dogras had imposed their despotic rule over these territories.

The petitioners also claimed that the uprising by the inhabitants of the Northern Areas against the Dogras in 1947 was an offshoot of the Azad Kashmir movement. However, the founder-president of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar M. Ibrahim Khan, in his book The Kashmir Saga states that the Muslim officers of the Dogra Army in Gilgit, that wanted to join Pakistan, had raised a local rebellion, of their own, against the Dogra ruler, after independence when it became clear that he has no intention of acceding his state to Pakistan and was trying to perpetuate his rule over the Northern Areas.

The Azad Kashmir high court delivered its verdict on March 8, 1993, on the petition that had sought the reversion of the administrative control over the Northern Areas to the government of Azad Kashmir. The court accepted the petition and directed the Azad Kashmir government to immediately assume the administrative control of the Northern Areas and to annex it with the administration of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The court also asked the government of Pakistan to provide adequate assistance and facilities to the Azad Kashmir government in attainment of the said objective.

The supreme court of Azad Kashmir, however, overturned the verdict of the high court and decided that while Gilgit and Baltistan were an integral part of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir they were not part of Azad Kashmir. The supreme court did not, however, indicate if they were part of Pakistan either, and, therefore, the ambiguity about their legal status of the Northern Areas continued.

However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its landmark decision, on May 28, 1999, ruled that the people of the Northern Areas were citizens of Pakistan, for all intents and purposes, and directed the government of Pakistan to initiate appropriate administrative and legislative measures within six months from the date of its verdict, to ensure that the people of these areas enjoyed their fundamental rights, namely, to be governed by their chosen representative in parliament and to have access to justice for the enforcement of their fundamental rights under the Constitution. It is astonishing that the Supreme Court’s decision has not been implemented even after a lapse of six years and evidently there are no signs of its being implemented in the foreseeable future.

It is hoped that President Pervez Musharraf will review the situation and ensure the restitution of the basic political and other rights to the people of the Northern Areas without further delay.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Rise in oil price

THE crude oil price is too high, the high period is too long. When will oil price go down? This is the question asked by many oil consumers when they saw the oil price increase by leaps and bounces to 64.26 dollars per barrel in New York market and 63.51 dollars in London last week. People’s smile was just half way after the price fell to 60 dollars three weeks ago.

Since the beginning of this century, especially since the US launched Afghanistan and Iraq wars, oil prices have always been increasing. After the war, people thought the oil price should have been lower. But the fact is that it has increased from 31 dollars per barrel in 2003 to 41 dollars in 2004 and then 56 dollars in 2005. Particularly, from the end of August last year to this January, the price was almost more than 70 dollars per barrel.

Why does oil price only increase but not decrease? Analysts say the primary reason is the geopolitical influence.

Although the two wars the US launched came to an end, the troubles have never stopped. Until now, Al Qaeda still make trouble from time to time in Afghanistan. The situation in Iraq is even worse, American troops, more than one hundred thousand, cannot withdraw, while the civil wars took place constantly.

Meanwhile, the US started to shift its attention to Iran on the latter’s nuclear issue. Terrorist attacks and threats also happened in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. These all contribute to the crude oil price hike.

Secondly, the strong world economy promotes the growing world demand for crude oil. Over the past years, although the US has been involved in wars, its economy is quite good; the economies of emerging industrial countries including China and India are also developing rapidly; Japan and European countries such as Germany, Britain and France also see economic revival. The oil demand of a country, whether developed or developing, is bound to grow as long as its economy develops fast.

Thirdly, the price protection system of major oil producers is not conducive to a quick fall of oil price. When crude oil price goes up, oil producers definitely make more profit. No matter what happens, they don’t want to see the oil price go down too fast. Whenever there are signs of ups and downs, the Opec countries will try to adjust its price protection system to keep it steady and get an ideal price range because neither too high nor too low will be good.

Finally, oil dealers and speculators cook up the price. Due to the unstable international situation, many oil companies have earned huge profit from oil business. Last year, Exxon-Mobil, Shell and Total earned a net profit of $36 billion, $23 billion and $14.3 billion respectively. Exxon-Mobil renewed its world record of annual profit and the latter two broke their domestic records. It is estimated that 70 per cent of the oil price hike was caused by speculation.

The cost of crude oil is estimated at just 15 dollars per barrel. With the same amount of profit, then the price should be between 30 and 34 dollars. But the oil price has been lingering above 60 dollars per barrel. The unduly high oil price is not good for big oil users, nor for world economy and even oil producers themselves, because if the oil price is too high, sooner or later, it would possibly plummet at any time.

— People’s Daily Online