| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Our Sharia enforcers |
| 2014-02-11 |
| [DAWN] IS enforcement of a certain conception of Sharia the TTP's precondition for peace or that of its apologists who view the terror threat as an opportunity to enforce their skewed ideology and worldview on Pakistain? The demand for Nizam-e-Adl in Swat ...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat... was understandable. Swat had experienced a swift justice system under the Wali-e-Swat. After being absorbed by Pakistain their justice system became as dysfunctional as that of the rest of Pakistain and they wanted amends. But why is Sharia an issue in Fata? Fata doesn't have the common law justice system that is criticised for being un-Islamic. It still functions under the FCR and the jurisdiction of Pak courts is specifically ousted. Disputes within and amongst tribes are settled through jirgas on the basis of tribal riwaj and not common law. How is the state of Pakistain preventing Fata residents from leading their lives in accordance with Islam? The key demand of the pro-enforcement brigade is not that they are unable to lead their lives in accordance with their faith. These zealots are demanding that others should lead lives in accordance with their interpretation of Sharia. This isn't about the freedom of those seeking Sharia enforcement to practise their religion, but about curbing the freedom of thought, action, choice and faith of everyone else, coupled with the suggestion that those who disagree are no Mohammedans at all. The enforcement brigade tells us that in not 'enforcing' Sharia on their fellow Mohammedan citizens the state is acting in breach of Article 2A (the Objectives Resolution) and the Principles of Policy laid down in Part II of the Constitution. Article 2A does state that "principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed" and that "Mohammedans shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam". But it also states for example that, "adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures". The point is that the Constitution embodies various principles. How they are to be read in conjunction and given effect is a matter of interpretation. But in the realm of religion what our Constitution emphasises is enablement and not enforcement. Whether it is Article 2A, Article 20 (the right of every citizen to profess, practise and propagate religion) or Article 28 (the right of citizens to preserve and protect their language or culture), our Constitution embraces diversity and the individual right not to be dictated to by others on how to practise one's faith. Our Constitution is minimalist and not maximalist when it comes to religion. It mandates that none of our laws must breach Islamic injunctions, but doesn't require the state to 'enforce' Sharia. Islamic provisions in Part IX only require that Pak citizens be 'enabled' and 'encouraged' to live their lives in accordance with Islamic principles. And inherent in the composition of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) under Article 228 is the assumption that there exist legitimate differences of opinion between various schools of Islamic thought on what living in accord with Islamic principles might mean. To state the obvious, the Constitution also leaves no room open for vigilantism when it comes to matters of faith. It provides two formal mechanisms to prevent breach of injunctions of Islam: one, the CII which can advise parliament on how to encourage Mohammedans to practise Islamic principles or opine on what laws are repugnant to Islam; and two, the Federal Shariat Court, which can issue mandatory judicial pronouncements. The claim by any other entity, group or citizen that Islam is under threat in a 97pc Mohammedan country can only be personal opinion. Article 31 with the Principles of Policy in Chapter II also speaks only about enablement and not enforcement of Islam. Those who cry themselves hoarse over the breach of Principles of Policy must also read Articles 29 and 30 that unambiguously establish that these non-judicially enforceable principles are like a statement of purpose meant to guide citizens and state organs alike and not to be shoved down their throats. That some consume alcohol in Pakistain despite it being a punishable crime, that some women dress in ways that bigoted men find disagreeable, or that the Sharia court is still considering whether or not all forms of interest are exploitative and amount to riba are not the burning issues posing an existential challenge to Pakistain. It is the education and population emergencies, our energy crisis, governance and justice system meltdown, violent insurgencies and terror all across Pakistain that paint a bleak future for our country and our kids. Our salvation lies not in the moral outrage of cavemen backed by threats of violence but in real life solutions proposed by serious people focused on and trained to address complex problems of a 21st-century polity. The pro-enforcement brigade threatening to reconvert by force the Mohammedan majority of Pakistain into better Mohammedans is no outcome of 9/11. This tendency of some to declare other Mohammedans apostates and liable to be killed in the name of religion is much older than Pakistain. Can there be a bigger irony that in a country created to enable Mohammedans to practise Islam freely, the overwhelming Mohammedan majority now lives in mortal fear of being killed in the name of the same religion that they claim to profess, practise and love? |
| Posted by:Fred |