|
Articles & News
Implementation of Shari’ah
Some
fundamental issues are at the center of debate today; almost
everywhere: in private discussions and in political meetings, in
the press and in the Parliament. These include deteriorating law
and order situation, economic sanctions and financial crisis,
poisonous effects of provincial and regional prejudices, specter
of sectarianism, country’s isolation on the foreign policy
front, hegemonic designs of India, American deceits and
injustices, external pressure to cap and undo our nuclear
capabilities, government’s apologetic attitude and consequent
complications, and machinations to push us toward the trap of
CTBT.
The Islamic movement in this context had invited the nation and
its leadership to realize that a real and lasting solution of
these problems lies in the enforcement of Shari’ah. The campaign
for the enforcement of Shari’ah had just started when the
government introduced 15th Constitutional Amendment Bill. On the
one hand, the amendment was a response to people’s old demand
for constitutional provisions to make Qur’an and Sunnah the
supreme law of the land, on the other hand it was a mischievous
attempt to sidetrack the established constitutional process and
amend the Constitution to provide for an extraordinary
accumulation of power by the government under the excuse of
difficulties in introducing Shari’ah. Resultantly, such an
undisputed issue as the enforcement of Shari’ah became a bone of
contention. Instead of adopting Shari’ah for the solution of
problems, focus of attention shifted to political and legal
implications and also on ill intentions and the shameful
struggle for individual power and party position. A group which
lacks grassroot support is causing harm to Islam, the Islamic
State, supremacy of Shari’ah and the role of Islam (deen) in
collective life simply because it presently enjoys power,
favourable media and external backing.
This situation demands to concentrate on the real issue and not
to get lost with side issues. It demands rising above all
factional, party and personal differences, interests and
prejudices, and to realize the importance of the need of
enforcing Shari’ah besides highlighting the mode and modalities
for the realization of this goal. This is necessary because
Shari’ah is just another name of Islam and a pattern of thought
and action given by Islam and, as the Prophet (peace be upon
him) has said, whose qualities are that it leads us
single-mindedly to our destination (hanifia); soothes us by
removing difficulties (sahla); is easy and inclined to leniency
(samha); is radiant and bright (baidha); and so clear that its
night is like a day (lailiha ka-nahariha).
Before proceeding further, there is a need to remove some basic
misunderstandings that are being created with aplomb by the big
and influential people.
The most regrettable is the attitude of secular and non-Muslim
lobby in the country. Engaged in an open war against the Islamic
State, this lobby is in forefront of the campaign against the
supremacy of Shari’ah. The leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party
and the organisations working for the so-called human and
minority rights are all seen united in this ‘cause’. Posing to
be a liberal, Ms. Benazir terms every effort towards the
enforcement of Shari’ah as religious extremism and the
machination of General Zia’s creed. While those who are
notorious for creating a lot of noise in the country in the name
of human rights are busy emptying their barrels all around,
Christian leadership has also plunged into the fray vowing it
would not allow Muslims to introduce their Shari’ah in their own
country! Despite all their tall claims of upholding democracy
and respecting the will of the majority, the western media and
policy makers are rearing this tiny minority in Pakistan.
Then, there is another group which lacks in courage to support
or advocate secularism, liberalism and atheism openly, but its
motives are no different either. Raising alarm over an imaginary
danger, its target is so-called religious theocracy or ‘mullah’s
Islam’. In the name of ‘the Islam of Iqbal and Quaid-i-Azam,’ it
wants to sabotage the cause and efforts of enforcing Shari’ah in
the country.
The constitutional amendment bill presented by the government
has defects and flaws. The nation, therefore, cannot accept it
without removing these defects and incorporating in it desired
changes and improvements. Whatever may be the intentions,
objectives and political considerations of those presenting the
bill for the supremacy of Qur’an and Sunnah, there are strong
reasons and undeniable facts which are causing doubts and
apprehensions in this regard. However, people and Islamic
leadership of the country should not be bogged down with minor
problems at the expense of the real issue. All should strive to
strengthen the movement for the enforcement of Shari’ah and to
settle this issue constitutionally and legally once and for all,
regardless of the origin and form of the movement. Our target is
to attain Allah’s pleasure and to achieve the real objectives of
the movement for the establishment of Pakistan. We have to honor
the sacrifices of Muslims of the sub-continent offered to
achieve and make Pakistan a model Islamic State. It was for this
objective that Islamic movement raised its voice for
establishing Islamic system in 1948 and has been struggling,
ever since, for supremacy of Shari’ah and establishment of the
true religion.
When Allah has given man choice of either accepting or denying
Him as his master and benefactor, either take the path of
obedience or of revolt against Him (as is guaranteed that there
is no compulsion in religion), we or any Muslim state cannot,
therefore, refuse this right to people. Two points, however,
need to be clear:
While those opting for infidelity and perfidy enjoy right to
freedom of belief and action, in no case they are allowed to try
to stop the overwhelming majority of Muslims from modeling their
personal and collective lives in accordance with Qur’an and
Sunnah. Nor are they allowed to employ pressure tactics with the
help of foreign political and cultural powers. While accusing
others of ‘religious fascism’, the secular lobby is itself
guilty of dirty ‘secular fascism’. Despite all its influence and
control of media, this small minority has no right to stop
Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligations. Though they
have every right to entertain whatever thoughts they like, and
we defend it, but they should refrain from imposing their ideas
and priorities on the masses of Islamic State of Pakistan. It is
in the interest of democracy to control such a fascist and
aggressive mentality.
Many historical factors are responsible for the ideological
diversity and weaknesses in today’s Muslim society. It is
necessary to accommodate or tolerate them. Identification of
differences and disputes is possible only through a process of
education and learning, persuation and understanding, discussion
and dialogue. The Muslim society takes its roots from the values
of freedom and tolerance. Unity in diversity and
all-inclusiveness of the framework of Allah’s restrictions are
its distinct features. It is like a garden where different
flowers blossom.
In spite of all differences, leniency and tolerance have always
been our customs. Even today, these are the secrets of existence
and progress. This, however, does not mean that just under
pressure from differing opinions, an overwhelming majority
should give up those ideals for which there is general
consensus, which masses believe to be the main objectives of
their lives and which they consider to be the only way to
success in the life hereafter. The majority has its rights just
as minorities have theirs. Mutual respect should be the guiding
principle for all.
It is also to be understood that one’s claim of being a Muslim
and a believer in Qur’an and Sunnah entails some demands. A
person is surely free to accept or not to accept Islam. But
accepting it is a responsibility and every responsibility has
its own demands. After becoming a Muslim, man’s freedom in some
areas is restricted because Islam is a pledge given by a person
that he willfully believes that Allah is his benefactor, the
Prophet (peace be upon him) is his guide and leader and Islam is
his religion and way of his life. There is no concept either of
‘partial Muslim’ or of ‘semi-Muslim’. Commonsense and logic also
do not accept such notions. Qur’an clearly states: "O,
believers! enter into Islam completely and follow not the
footsteps of the Evil One." (2:208)
By following some injunctions of Islam and disregarding others
one cannot become Allah’s obedient. By willful and voluntary
acceptance of Islam, a person restricts his freedom within the
limits set by Allah. He can exercise his discretion only within
these limits. He limits himself of his own accord. Thereafter,
he loses his right to accept what he likes and to reject what he
does not. This is necessary or it would be incompatible and in
fact a duality and hypocrisy for which there is no room in Islam
or in any religion because it leads to nothing but to tussles
and wastage of time and energies. Holy Qur’an has declared "the
Command is for none but God: He has commanded that you worship
none but Him; that is the right religion." (12: 40); "Follow the
Revelation given unto you from your Lord, and follow not, as
friends or protectors, other than Him." (7:3); "If any do fail
to judge by (the light of) what God has revealed, they are (no
better than) unbelievers." (5:44); "But no, by thy Lord, they
can have no (real) Faith until they make thee judge in all
disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance
against thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest
conviction." (4: 65)
This is the way of true Muslims and demands supremacy of
Shari’ah. This is the right course for the believers and
non-believers have no right to stop the believers from modeling
their lives in accordance with their own Faith and belief.
It should also be clear that there are no versions of Islam. It
is a deen revealed by Allah and a way shown to us by the Prophet
(peace be upon him). It is complete code of life and presents
solutions to all matters and the problems of life. It fully
provides for what is needed for development and progress of the
human society to keep it in line with its ever-changing
requirements. Within its framework, obedience and submission,
liberty and freedom, difference and diversity each has its own
place according to its own laws and principles.
Islam provides clear and unambiguous guidance for life. It also
provides for the changing needs of time. It however does not
permit anything which opposes, negates or hurts its set of
values. The yardstick of Prophet’s saying, accept what is right
and sounds good and reject what is unbecoming and doubtful,
keeps this process going. After Allah's pronouncement "this day
I have perfected your religion for you", Islam has remained same
despite all the changes of time and space. Islam is not
different for Muslims in Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Europe,
America and Africa. Similarly Islam in the first century or
fourth century was not different from what it is in the
twentieth century. Islam is like a river that keeps its own
direction of flow while tributaries continue joining it.
The ideas and concepts of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Maalik, Imam
Shafiyee, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, al-Ghazali, Ibn-e Temiya, Shah
Waliullah’s school of thought or those of Iqbal or Quaid-i-Azam
(Muhammad Ali Jinnah)were same. They all adhered to the same
Islam. They neither believed in nor advocated anything not
contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah, or ‘revised’ blend of Islam.
It is unfair to show them in confrontation with so-called
mullah’s Islam and to use the names of Iqbal and Quaid to find
escape from the code of life prescribed by Allah and practiced
by Prophet (peace be upon him).
The sole mission of Allama Iqbal's life was to struggle for the
enforcement of Shari’ah and setting up of a true Islamic
society. Similarly Quaid-i-Azam and his colleagues (Liaquat Ali
Khan, Nawab Ismail Khan, Bahaduryar Jang, Sardar Abdurrab
Nishtar and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani etc.) were all devoted
to this Mission. During Pakistan movement and after
establishment of Pakistan, there are at least 200 statements of
Quaid-e-Azam alone wherein he declared Islam, Qur’an, Prophet’s
example, and struggle to establish Islamic laws and Islamic
civilization as the raison deitre of Pakistan. It is, therefore,
unfortunate that despite all this clarity, a deplorable
campaign, based on distortion of one or two speeches of the
Quaid, continues unabated to project his views to the opposite.
Disregarding the facts, such people continue to propagate their
own views, which speak of their ill intentions. They are not
interested in Quaid’s policy and mission. They want only to
exploit his few words for their own ends. But their false
propaganda is just like a wall of sand and is, therefore,
destined to collapse.
In his concluding speech at the annual session of All-India
Muslim League in 1943 in Karachi, Quaid-i-Azam said:
"What is that keeps the Muslims united, and what is the bedrock
and sheet-anchor of the community? It is Islam. It is the Great
Book, Qur’an, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am
sure that as we go on and on there will be more and more of
oneness _ one God, one Book, one Prophet and one Nation."
In 1945, his message to Frontier’s Muslim Students Federation of
the was:
"Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim
ideology, which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a
precious gift and treasure."
In his Eid Message, the same year, he said:
"Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Qur’an
is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil,
commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code; it
regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of
daily life."
On Feb. 12, 1948, he pledged in Sibbi Darbar that:
"It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden
rules of conduct set for us by our great law giver, the Prophet
of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the
basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has
taught us that our decisions in the affairs of the State shall
be guided by discussions and consultations."
We should be informed as to what is the type of Quaid’s and
Iqbal’s Islam which is not in conformity to the teachings of
Qur’an and Sunnah? In fact, it is just an accusation against
these two celebrities and is a shameful attempt of confusing the
issue. There is no confusion in Shari’ah and every Muslim is the
flag bearer of Shari’ah and wants its enforcement, as it is a
trust from Allah and his prophet. It guarantees our freedom,
well being in this world and the success in world hereafter. It
had been the way of all the prophets and was brought in its
final and finished form to the humanity by Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him). Muslim Ummah is its trustee and only those
would succeed who take this route.
"Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they
find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) _ in the Law and the
Gospel _ For he commands them what is just and forbids them what
is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and
prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); he released them
from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them.
So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and
follow the Light which is sent down with him; it is they who
will prosper." (7: 157)
In order to understand the pros and cons of the enforcement of
Shari’ah, it is imperative to first understand the Shari’ah
itself: its nature, purpose and objectives. The difference
between Shari’ah (Islamic law) and the western law should be
kept in mind. Literally, Shari’ah means ‘path’. In old days
people used to fetch water for their daily use from wells, ponds
and springs etc. of their area. Due to repeated use of the track
by people as well as their animals, a way would chart which used
to be straight, short, broad, wide and clear. Such a way is
called Shari’ah in Arabic grammar meaning the straight, wide and
clear way leading the people of a settlement straight to the
source of the water-reservoir. This word is used in Qur’an again
and again. In the Islamic terminology, Shari’ah means the way of
life prescribed by Allah through his prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) which is the only way of acting upon the injunctions
of Islam and modeling life according to them.
Qur’an and Sunnah are the real sources of Shari’ah. One part of
the Shari’ah is related to beliefs, thoughts and feelings while
the other is related to individual and collective life. Fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence and law) is the part of Shari’ah which
deals with the subject of modeling individual and collective
life in accordance with Islam. According to the fuqaha (Muslim
jurists), Fiqh is the elaborate knowledge of practical problems
of Shari’ah deducted from its principles and logic. Shari’ah
provides guidance with regard to almost all aspects of human
life. It specifies the dos (amr) and donts (nawahi), the
permissible (halal) and the forbidden (haraam), the liked (mustahab)
and the despised (makrooh). While describing these limits, it
also defines the allowed (mubah) and the scope of human freedom.
This is the area where the discretion of law making has been
exercised in every period of time and would continue to be
exercised.
One part of Shari’ah pertains to individual’s and institution’s
free will and own initiative. Thus, through a self-executing
system, Shari’ah is an integral part of the individual and
collective life of all Muslims and much of the matters is
covered in worship and matrimonial regulations. The other part
of the Shari’ah, however, needs the collective force of society
and state. This is the part for which the present day
constitutions, the laws, the state machinery, the procedural
setup and the judicial system have to be structured so that they
can serve the purpose of Shari’ah by implementing all of its
injunctions.
Islamic law is not only a religious, ideological and spiritual
code, but, at the same time, it is also the law for the state
and judiciary. The religious laws and the laws of the land and
judiciary may be different in other religions and societies
where religion is generally considered to be a personal matter.
A person is free to practice it if he considers it fit and
suited to his taste. On the other hand, the laws of the land and
judiciary pertain only to worldly affairs. Such laws emanate
from traditions, orders of the ruler, superior authority,
passage by the constituent assembly or through the verdict of a
court. Islamic law is a unified and universal law. ‘Religious
law’ is not restricted only to the relationship between Allah
and man, it also covers human relations, a person’s relations
with society, group and the state. It covers all aspects of life
including personal, economic, civil, criminal and international
dealings. It regulates worship, family life, economic struggle,
social affairs, crime and punishment and war and peace.
Being a religious law, it is a matter of belief for every
Muslim, which requires him to act thereupon. A law is,
therefore, not a symbol of terror or coercive power but is in
fact the requirement of one's belief, call of his inner self,
wish of his life-time, and the etiquette of life. Its
enforcement, therefore, is not subject to use of force or
police. It is simply a call of one’s conscience and in obedience
to Allah. The Police and the court, no doubt, have their own
place. The distinction of the Islamic law is, however, the
harmony between the voice of the inner self and the laws in the
world outside and the capability of both to supplement each
other. That is why the Islamic law is acted upon not for any
fear of the police or its informers but because of the call of
the conscience and for the sake of one's success in world
hereafter. The spirit to act on the law is as strong in the
darkness of night and in loneliness as in the daylight and in
the presence of a Mohtasib (Ombudsman i.e. a system of vigilence).
It is this spirit which forces the ‘guilty’ not only to repent
but also to ask for the punishment (to purify himself).
This being the spirit of the Islamic law, it is also a fact that
Shari’ah does not leave its implementation entirely on the call
of one’s conscience and free will. In line with human nature and
the needs of the society, it lays down clear rules for
consolidation of the state, establishes the rule of law, puts
the administrative machinery in place and sets up the
institutions of police and the judiciary. In this way it
strengthens the inner strength and the spirit with the help of
outer force and system. On one hand, it uses the state and all
of its organs for instruction, education, and better
demonstration. On the other hand, it mobilizes the state power
and judiciary to bring the lawbreakers under control and clear
the society of crime and excesses. Deen (religion) and the State
supplement and support each other. In a secular society, the
state and all of its organs boast to be free from the guidance
of religion and the religion is left without the support of the
state and the resources of the society. As Hazrat Usman (may
Allah be pleased with him) has said:
"Islam is the foundation upon which the building of Muslims’
life stands. The job of the government is that of watch and
ward. Any building without foundation would be shaky and
collapse and a building without a watch and ward system is
unsafe and is in the danger of being looted and usurped."
The discussions so far makes it clear that:
Shari’ah provides guidance for the entire gamut of life,
Only Qur’an, Sunnah and the principles evolved in their light
streamline the individual and collective life of Muslim and make
them an ‘organic whole’.
Shari’ah encompasses all aspects of life.
Like worldly laws, it does not use only the force of the state
requiring a person to surrender before it, but encourages
modeling the individual and collective life according to the law
which is the belief and the call of the conscience.
Besides the call of the conscience, the state and administrative
and judicial systems, all act in unison in the process of
enforcement of Shari’ah and promotion of its objectives.
The process of enforcement of Shari’ah is a beautiful blend of
an active belief and conscience, the system of teaching and
instruction, etiquette, traditions of the society and the force
of law. It is neither a mere lecture on ethics nor is it a blind
and brutal use of force.
For introduction of Shari’ah, it is necessary that the above
elements come into effect altogether. This process requires
wholehearted participation with every body aspiring for his
success in the world hereafter. It also requires the government,
the state and all of its organs to undertake the task of
enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong in addition
to caring for education, instruction and setting imitable
example. To give to the deserving what is his due and to check
the oppressor from his oppression is as necessary as saying
prayers and observing fast. Rather, the purpose of saying
prayers is to stop one from bad deeds: Prayer restrains from
shameful and unjust deeds (29:45). Similarly fasting is meant to
make people God fearing and law-abiding: so that you may become
God fearing (2:183).
The task of enforcing Shari’ah is very singular and sacred. Both
the law and the spirit of the law are important in this process.
That is why the process requires overall participation of the
people, the system itself, the education, the media, the public
institutions and the government. The role of the government is,
however, most important for two reasons: First, the state today
has become a ‘wholesome’ institution which controls most of the
resources of the country and the society and there could be no
change unless these resources are subjected to and employed for
the implementation of Shari’ah injunctions. Second, Muslim
society is struggling for a new life after centuries-old
anarchy, inactivity and slavery. Institutions established during
the course of centuries and working as anchor in Islamic system
have been destroyed and Muslims have been made to live with a
secular educational system for nearly two centuries. As a result
the situation has become as described by Iqbal:
What was not good, has become good
Because slavery changes conscience of the nations
Un-Islamic institutions and the administrative setup imported
from the western world have been forced upon Muslims. Unless all
organs working in unison for the right to prevail, supplement
individual efforts to get rid of injustices and the falsehood
and with an over all participation of the society, the state and
its organs, no change is possible under the present
circumstances. That is why the individual efforts are not
materializing. Whatever being done individually for propagation
of the good and for eradication of the evil is, no doubt,
valuable but it is certainly not sufficient for the desired
change. The ill effects of the tussle, which has continued
throughout Pakistan’s fifty years of existence, are clearly
visible. Without removing this contradiction in our lifestyle,
we cannot properly utilize our human and material resources or
achieve the desired results.
Today, the problem is not the individual crime and waywardness
but the general disorder and the organized crime which is so
widespread as if the whole universe is full of crime and
disorder (mischief has appeared on land and sea because of what
the hands of men have earned (30:40). So, without the use of the
collective forces for education, instruction, redressal of the
grievances of the oppressed, and stopping the oppressor from
oppression, the purpose of Shari’ah cannot be fulfilled. Besides
bringing the spiritual and moral changes, Shari’ah wants to
establish the system of collective justice. Unless injustices,
lawlessness and poverty are eradicated and the weak and the
oppressed are made powerful and the oppressors are brought under
control, the targets of Shari’ah cannot be achieved. As required
by Islam, this is the field where the state and its collective
force needs to be harnessed so that a system of justice and
equal dispensation for the human being could be set up in
accordance with the teachings of Qur’an: that men may stand
forth in justice (57:25).
The question is: why we have failed to make a headway towards
this goal? What is really lacking and where lies the fault? What
are the real constraints in the way of implementing Shari’ah and
how can these be removed?
As we pointed out above, Shari’ah itself has followed four ways
for its implementation:
a) Faith and inner stimulant;
b) A comprehensive Da’wah system of education, preaching and
wise counsel;
c) Civil society and its institutions, from family to waqf and
social security net; and
d) State, law and administration of justice (judicial system).
Shari’ah wants that all these be practiced individually as well
as collectively. As the state is the centre of decision and
order and stands entrusted with all the functions once performed
by the holy Prophet (pbuh.) as head of the State, therefore, the
responsibility of the state and the government is two-fold: to
take up its duties within its own circle, and also to support
and patronize all other organizations and bodies so that the
individual and the social institutions perform their respective
functions properly.
For implementation of Shari’ah at the mass (social) level the
strategy followed by the Muslims in their history provides
innovation and variety. That proves how different ways were
taken up subject to the prevailing conditions and in the light
of problems faced. The true model is one provided by the Prophet
(pbuh.) himself , who was the preacher, the patron and the
teacher, as well as the head of the State, judge and ruler.
Under the Prophets’ (pbuh.) guidance, the above four aspects of
Shari’ah were taken carefully and most appropriately, resulting
into the most prominent and highly successful revolution of
human history. The right-guided Caliphate followed the model.
When aberrations surfaced in the system of state and leadership,
Umar bin Abdul Aziz successfully attempted to revive it during
the Umayyid rule. In the later stage this comprehensiveness and
centrality could not be maintained, yet effective arrangements
were made for each area and new experiments were conducted and
approaches were tried in the light of contemporary challenges.
The areas most attended were to maintain the law and the justice
administration according to the teaching of Islam and within the
limits of Shari’ah.
In this regard the most prominent, great and historic
achievement is the compilation of fiqh and its principles by
highly creditable and trustworthy scholars (Ulema and
mujtahindeen). This was purely a non-governmental enterprise
undertaken by distinguished Muslim scholars. It became the law
of the state owing to its moral force and popular support. Their
yet another achievement was the institution of an effective and
free judicial system which guaranteed the implementation of
Shari’ah in its true spirit. The rulers were subjected to this
law exactly as were the ruled.
The perception of law as prevalent in other civilizations and
which simply meant the ‘will of the ruler’, is unheard and
un-thought of in an Islamic society. Within the Islamic State
only Shari’ah was the law of the land and the will of the ruler
was subservient to it. This law was not legislated by any
people’s representative assembly. Its constitution and progress
was not due to state patronage or through help of any
organization attached to the government. Rather, the Muslim
Ummah, its free thinking leadership, scholars and jurists (fuqaha)
and other experts, participated in the process. The law thus
came to being through a popular and democratic system and
continuously progressed. Through the rich traditions of
reasoning and interpretation (ijtihad and istehsan) analogy (Qiyas),
deduction (istimbat), clarification (Istidrak), consensus (ijma)
and safeguarding the common interests (Masalih), it has
developed like the stream of sweet fresh water and guided the
whole area of Muslim influence for 1000 years.
There are examples of God-conscience rulers as well who properly
compiled these laws and attempted to implement them in their
dominions. The prominent amongst these is the Fatawa Alamgiri in
the (South Asian) sub-continent. A similar example is the
Mujallah Ahkam-e-Adliah in the Ottoman Caliphate, jointly
compiled by the State and the scholars and jurists. The
fundamental point in the Islamic law (Shari’ah), however, is its
essence that it does not represent priority of the ruler or the
legislative body, it in fact means taking full account of the
commandments of Allah and His Prophet (pbuh), His will and
intent and to struggle and obtain guidance for the contemporary
issues and situations, from the real sources in the light of the
Qur’an and Sunnah.
This is exactly what the Muslim nation of Pakistan is striving
to avail back after having got rid of the era of slavery and
having established a free Muslim State. The list of losses
sustained and oppressions of the British colonial rule is
lengthy, but the first target of attack of the foreign
imperialism was Shari’ah and our judicial system. Slowly and
steadily other institutions were also destroyed. The last
protecting fortification — the family institution — was also
attacked from all sides. The grand social and collective system
the Muslims had created and maintained, was ultimately shattered
to pieces.
The first thing to do after the independence, was to correct the
direction of the state, to set its objectives and goals and to
formulate the principles and regulations of its legal system.
During the British rule, about 4000 laws were imposed through
government fiats and decrees. The need was of framing the
constitution on sound foundations and then laws were to be
reviewed and all laws inherited be scrutinized in accordance
with teachings of our Faith (Iman) and national sovereignty.
Then to do away with all those laws found repugnant to our deen
and in conflict with the demands of an independent state, and
undertake fresh legislation so that the two pre-requisites were
met in a positive manner and a new legal system and judicial
infrastructure was developed — all done in such a smooth way
that no crisis situation was created.
The Objectives Resolution was the first welcome step in this
direction. Since then, however, the nation has been in a state
of repeating ‘one step forward and two step s back’ exercise.
This situation creates a need to demand implementation of
Shari’ah every now and then. Just to save their skin the rulers
do some window-dressing, but real progress is not made. The
writer had a close personal experience during the Zia-ul-Haq
regime. With utmost sincerity, we provided him with a complete
and integrated program of implementing the Islamic system.
Despite all his ‘willingness’ and sincere feelings for Islam, he
could not make a real headway in this regard.
The reality underlying the implementation of Shari’ah needs to
be properly understood. Then keeping in view the nature of the
problem, a multi-dimensional action plan be designed, along with
an effective and mobile machinery to put the program to
practice. Implementation of Shari’ah does not mean making some
declarations; it is a continuous process, which has varied
directions — each supporting and reinforcing the other. Only
then we can expect integrated and lasting results. General Zia
used to say time and again ‘tell me the thing the declaration of
which implements Shari’ah’. In reply, the writer always told him
that if he really wanted implementation of Shari’ah, then it is
not a matter of mere declarations; rather it needs a detailed
and integrated program for change. Its important components are:
(i) Declaring Qur’an and Sunnah (Shari’ah), the supreme law, in
the constitution, and to accept it the permanent source of
legislation and policy-making. Then bringing such amendments in
the constitution that cleanse off anything repugnant to Shari’ah.
Opening the constitution every now and then, or leaving it
permanently to judiciary is not correct. That is why
constitution-making and legislation are seen distinct and that
difference must be respected. Particularly, when we have a
written constitution, we must honor its prerequisites.
(ii) Indicate a clear and effective working mechanism in the
constitution, for the implementation of the Shari’ah laws:
a) Article 227 is an important arrangement. This however
requires that the Parliament completes its duty within a
specified period. The 1973 Constitution provided 7 years for
this purpose, that all laws will be brought within the Shari’ah
ambit during this period. This work has not been done even
todate (1998).
b) The same article (227) also provides that future legislation
was incumbent for the implementation of Shari’ah; and this was
to be done by the Assembly and the Senate in consultation with
and support of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII).
Our record in this respect too is dismal. Against the more than
4000 laws enacted during the British rule, we have passed at
best 400 laws in the last 50 years, and even their majority
covers only some partial amendment in the laws in vogue.
Legislation during these 50 years is meagre in terms of number
of laws. As for quality, it is better to keep silent! The CII
has, since 1962, prepared about 50 reports; none has been used
for legislation.
(iii) For implementation of Shari’ah, the constitution, other
than article 227, opened another avenue called "Policy
Principles" (chapter 2, articles 29-40). This was not supposed
to be implemented through the courts, but was meant to push
forward the process in the shape of report of the performance of
the Parliament. Progress in this area is also ‘nil’.
After having proved practical ineffectiveness of these three
methods, yet another and relatively short-cut method was to
authorize the judiciary to take suo moto action or at filing a
suit, to review a law to see whether it was in accordance with
the Qur’an and Sunnah. In case of non-conformity and clash, the
court could declare it null and void.
The problem faced here was that usually the honorable judges of
the courts had neither the knowledge nor desired piety required
for such undertakings. The proper course was to first change the
system of law-education, training of lawyers and judges,
selection and the principles and rules of promotion. And to make
arrangements, that within a reasonable period, we should have
judges — from top to bottom — equipped with Shari’ah knowledge
and trustworthy before the nation for their morality and piety,
in religious matters. Though correct and ideal, this process
required lot of time. That is why, during the Zia period, the
idea was first to have Shari’ah Benches in the High Courts, but
that was not liked by the judiciary. Then the approach of
Federal Shari’ah Court was followed, which is being acted upon
since 1980. A full chapter was added to the constitution for
that purpose. While constituting the FSC, some major flaws were
left:
i) Jurisdiction of the FSC was limited, most laws were out of
its domain;
ii) It could only deal with a rule or its component, but not to
touch the ‘executive’ actions;
iii) With regard to appointments of its judges, their transfers,
demotions etc., such disruptive and whimsical regulations were
framed which were not only against the freedom of judiciary and
permanent existence of FSC, but amounted to sheer joke with
Islam;
iv) It had no powers to redress wrong or to make interim
injunctions, This means that the court was totally powerless;
v) It could take up appeals only in case of Hudud matters. Its
real jurisdiction was limited to decide about the existing
rules. The only consolation was that if within the time-frame
given by FSC, its proposed legislation was not enacted, or an
appeal is not filed in Supreme Court (against FSC’s decision),
then the Shari’ah-repugnant part of the law under question,
would become extinct. Again, it is a rarity.
So, the two ways open for implementing the Shari’ah (to the
extent of modern perception of law), remained practically
non-effective. Today, the real decision to make is: Which way to
go? Or, should we follow both the approaches (which is what the
writer suggests). However, to activate the process the changes
required are to be provided in the Constitution through
amendments. Furthermore, other actions required to keep the
process going, need be considered.
Shari’ah implementation is not a simple law enforcement action,
though the task is to be undertaken within the law circle and
employing the legal machinery, but other effective steps are
also required. We would first list the actions that are required
along with the legal process. Then, we shall make observations
regarding the present 15th amendment bill.
(1) The most important thing, in addition to law, is the policy,
policy-formulation method, policy monitoring and judicial review
of the executive orders. Legislation is not enough for Shari’ah
enforcement, a quite big area is the policy-making. Nothing has
been done in this direction, nor there is any machinery for the
purpose. Each ministry and department is free and there is no
system of Shari’ah-guidance and accountability. The Council of
Islamic Ideology is only an ineffective consultative body. It
has no other linkage with the government machinery. It works
like a satellite, whereas it should be made interactive,
constitutionally and administratively, with all the consultative
bodies and the Planning Commission. The writer had first-hand
experience when as Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and as
Minister for Planning and Development, he took steps towards the
Islamization process. He came to know that the consultative
council had no link with any policy-making body. Nor any policy
forming institution ever bothered to benefit from the services
of the Council. We organized joint sessions of the Planning
Commission and the Ideology Council and constituted their joint
committees. Only then it transpired how in policy-making the
guiding role of Islam can be mobilised. This was very precious
lesson drawn, but very brief too. After the Pakistan National
Alliance (PNA) left the government in 1979, the whole exercise
fell to ground.
This gives two important lessons: One, unless the
policy-formulation institutions and individuals are involved in
the task, no progress can be made. Second, it is no make-shift;
it has to be done on permanent footing and through institutional
arrangements. However, much will depend on the political power,
will and commitment. Looking at the 50-years history of
Pakistan, the factor that has made the process of Islamization
ineffective and fruitless, is the lack of political will. And it
is not the problem of the commitment of one individual, in fact,
it concerns the determination of the whole political machinery
and the collective leadership. Until that problem is solved,
nothing will move an inch.
(2) The second important factor and necessity is, therefore, the
political will and determination. This should be expressed at
all levels. But it will be possible only if there is ‘a
revolution in and of leadership’. Excepting a few individuals,
the position of our leadership so far has been utterly
disappointing. The change in law and policy is ultimately
dependent on the change of hands and leaders. Not only
political, but change of leadership should come from within in
every sphere of life, bringing forth individuals who provide a
model and true leadership. Three things would be essential for
this leadership:
One, its own determination, vision, character and role model;
Two, its knowledge, experience, working capability, consultative
system and high performance; and
Three, Effective monitoring, evaluation and accountability, so
that the leadership does not go astray and made to stay on the
right path.
The most prominent example is that of the Caliph Umar bin Abdul
Aziz (RA). When the old Jahilia had succeeded nullifying the
effects of the revolutionary reforms of Islam and put everything
in the reverse gear, he was successful to put the government
back on the track of Khilafat-e-Rashida within a short span of
two and a half years. He made this achievement with total
selflessness, sacrifice, a blow to the vested interest group,
and organizing the state once again for realization of Islamic
objectives. He started the process by correcting himself and
then bridled his family and tribe. He was non-compromising on
principles, followed the truth, helped the wronged, arranged the
merit and cared least about the consequences, refused to make
deals with the falsehood (batil). This was the model of
leadership that Umar, the Second, presented; and this is what we
need today.
(3) After the constitution, the law, the policy and the
leadership, is the system of education and training. Preparing
the required manpower though a system of incentives and
inducement, so that we have appropriate individuals installed in
positions at all levels and tiers. The masses should trust and
rely upon the system. Whereas it is necessary to take immediate
initiatives, it should also be ensured that the process is to be
continued with resoluteness so that the change occurs in a
natural way within a reasonable time-frame.
(4) In this whole process, the law is certainly very important,
but equally necessary is the preparation of individuals and
society in such a way, that all participate in the
implementation of Shari’ah whole-heartedly. This can neither be
accomplished through preaching alone, nor with exclusive use of
force and coercion. For introducing Shari’ah the approach taught
by the Prophet (pbuh) and which he himself followed to show a
model, is characterised by the change of mind and heart. Then,
along with correcting individual morals, is the collective mood
and the balance and beautiful mixture of the state
administration and punitive forces and law. For enforcing Sharia,
in any period of time, these two currents have to meet and
support each other. This is a wide-spread wholesome process in
which every one has a role to play. The objective can not be
realized by mere sanctions and creating an atmosphere of fear
and coercion. For the duty of enjoining what is right and
forbidding what is wrong, freedom, difference of opinion,
tolerance and understanding are a must. Otherwise, in a state of
dictatorship and regimentation the process of Shari’ah
implementation cannot succeed. Its pre-requisites are:
determination and wherewithal to perform duties, an atmosphere
of consultation, respecting rights, mutual respect, urge to
compete in virtue and good deeds, sacrifice and over-flow of
cooperation. That is how support can be provided to the
dwindling as well as to those who may be going astray to save
them from losing in this world and from the hellfire. To create
such an environment and promote such sentiments constitute an
important part of the process of enforcement of Shari’ah.
(5) This whole task is to be undertaken with mind set and
determination which, as a model, is to be found in the life of
the Prophet (pbuh.). That is, to do justice among people in this
world and pay everybody which is his/her due. Salvation in the
hereafter and pleasure of Allah and His Prophet must remain the
real target. The Shari’ah amendments cannot be implemented while
overlooking its true and clear objectives:-
-
Protection of Deen and Faith;
-
Protection of life;
-
Protection of honor, family and human
progeny;
-
Protection of intellect and understanding;
and
-
Protection of property.
These measures are a must for ensuring peace in Islamic society.
It is worth noting that in the Islamic penal code, the
punishments prescribed in the Qur’an and Sunnah as Hudud are
meant to achieve the above mentioned five objectives. While
other penal codes of the world list hundreds, rather thousands,
of crimes and prescribe their punishments, Islam restricted its
Hudud to five areas only:-
-
Hud of apostasy
or Irtidad; (for the protection of faith and belief);
-
Hud of Qisas and
Diyat; (for the protection of life);
-
Hudud of
fornication, adultery, rape, and false allegation; (for the
protection of morality, family, honour, chastity and the
progeny);
-
Hud of
prohibiting alcoholic drinks; for the protection of
intellect; and
-
Hud of theft and
dacoity; for the protection of property.
These Hudud are not mere punishments but provide protection to
the foundations of human society and the prime objectives of
Shari’ah. The purpose is not to punish, but to protect the
foundations and ensure their strengthening and to promote equity
and justice, honour and welfare for the masses. These are the
aspects of Shari’ah which by coming together and getting
integrated, make an organic whole. The program of Shari’ah
implementation should cover all these aspect, or else the whole
effort will remain incomplete and ineffective.
Seen in the light of above discussion, the 15th Amendment Bill
proposed by the government is grossly deficient, weak and falls
short of meeting the purpose. Before making comment on these
aspects, we wish to appreciate the declaration that Qur’an and
Sunnah are to be made the supreme law via an insertion in
article-2 of the constitution. It is a step in right direction
and we welcome it.
Despite the fact that the Objectives Resolution was the Preamble
in the first constitution, had become substantive part through
amendment in 1985 in the form of Article 2-A, and that the
provision of Article 227 had prohibited any legislation
repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah, yet the true and complete
supremacy of Shari’ah was not accepted in the constitution. This
is particularly evident from important court decisions over the
past 40 years, concerning constitutional matters.
When the 1956 and the 1962 constitutions were abrogated through
the force of Martial Law, the Lahore High Court and the Federal
Court, in their bold decisions maintained that the Objectives
Resolution was non-revocable. This is the basic deed settled by
the first constituent assembly and carries the position of
grundnorm. This position was particularly highlighted in the
Asma Jehangir Case. But soon the Justice Hamoodur Rehman Bench
in the Supreme Court, took the position, in an important
decision, that although the Objectives Resolution was the most
important constitutional document and declaration, yet it was
not supreme because of its not being substantive part of the
constitution.
To remove this flaw, General Zia-ul-Haq, at the recommendation
of the Council of Islamic Ideology, made the Objectives
Resolution an applicable part of the constitution in the form of
Article 2-A. After that, a few important cases were decided at
the Karachi and Lahore High Courts, in which the Objectives
Resolution was declared as controlling the rest of the
constitution. The constitutional protections available to Family
Law and certain other matters were reviewed in the light of
Objectives Resolution. However, the supreme court in the Justice
Nasim Hasan Shah Bench put a break to this process, and decided
that Article 2-A was like other constitutional articles and the
rest could not be valued on the criterion of Article 2-A.
This was the decision which necessitated that the supreme
position of Qur’an and Sunnah be included in the constitution in
quite unambiguous terms — with an explanation, that Qur’an and
Sunnah will be foremost and supreme against all other provisions
in the constitution, law, judicial decisions and the rest,
whatsoever. Also, that the foundation of the laws of the country
is Shari’ah and any other thing is subservient to it. Without
such an amendment, the said decision of the Supreme Court holds
good and till such time, the Qur’an and Sunnah and the
Objectives Resolution do not form the true supreme law. So, the
amendment is necessary. Mere declaration that Islam is the
official religion, or provision of Article-227, are not
sufficient. We believe that the amendment is essential to this
extent and effect and, therefore, be immediately made part of
the constitution.
Excepting this positive aspect of the proposed (15th) amendment,
the Bill in its present form is defective, and warrants
correction. It appears that government, in its customary haste,
presented the bill in the assembly for some expediency and
immediate gains without proper consultation and necessary
preparation. Then, Prime Minister delivered a speech and the
promise of implementing Shari’ah was ‘fulfilled’. This all is
very superficial. The necessity of amendment is there, but it
should be faultless, as far as humanly possible. Making any
amendment in the constitution is a very sensitive and
responsible task, and becomes more sensitive if the matter
pertains to Shari’ah. It is not only irresponsible to take up
the matter in easy-going way, it could rather prove highly
dangerous and troublesome for the country and the Muslim Ummah.
For brevity sake, we shall not take up the objections one by
one. Instead we would submit proposals, whose consideration
would automatically highlight the objections:
(1) Such types of amendments should not be brought before the
Parliament in haste. Before presentation the Bill should have
been widely discussed and thoroughly consulted. The nature of
the subject was such that the whole gamut of Shari’ah
implementation would have been reviewed. The exercise should
then have led to presentation of a ‘white paper’ before the
nation covering constitutional amendment, the manner of changing
the law and required steps, the system of re-designing the
policies, the accountability system, and education and
preparation of the society, and the related laws. The proposed
amendment bill being part of that white paper would have been
openly discussed on popular level and proposals would have come
from all directions. Then, in the light of this discussion and
accommodating various proposals, the government could have come
in the Parliament, with a constitutional bill. This approach can
be adopted even now.
(2) Seen analytically, the 15th Amendment in its present form
covers five areas, and attempts to settle all with one stroke:
a) Supremacy of Qur’an Sunnah;
b) The (enhancement of) authority of the central government, in
total disregard to constitution, law and the judicial decisions;
c) Regard for every fiqh (jurisprudence) in matters of personal
law;
d) Protecting the rights of minorities;
e) To bring down constitutional amendment to the level of
law-making, so that constraints in the way of Shari’ah
implementation are removed.
It is neither just nor a right way to bring all these five areas
together. Every issue merits separate handling. Only necessay
measures must be included while others, which can cause
objections and mischief, should be abandoned. We therefore,
propose that article-1 of the proposed amendment should make
Qur’an and Sunnah as the Supreme Law with an explanation that
this article will be "comprehensive and over and above all other
provisions, laws and court decisions." In this way the supremacy
of Shari’ah will become final and unambiguous as far as the
constitution and the law are concerned. This is the fundamental
amendment and should form core of the proposed Bill.
(3) We feel that central government does not need any special
enhancement of authority. The government is already
authoritative. According to the same (given) rules and
regulations, the government should fulfill its responsibility
regarding Shari’ah. It should stay accountable before the
constitution, the law and the courts and refrain from acts which
may put the country in the lap of dictatorship, for which there
are many clear indications and tendencies. It is therefore,
necessary that the exceptional authorization of article-5 should
be provided only to the matter of supremacy of Qur’an and Sunnah,
and not to the executive orders.
If the government insists to have this provision, then it
requires an amendment by adding provincial and local government
along with the federal government and that every entity will
fulfill its respective responsibility within the
constitutionally delegated framework of authority. Furthermore,
if the federal or provincial government creates an alternative
or supportive (administrative) machinery, it should do so
through proper legislation so that door is not opened for
whimsical acts. The whole process should be transparent and
should not be above accountability.
(4) One highly objectionable aspect of the proposed (15th)
amendment is its proposed manner for amending the constitution.
It is loaded with enormous dangers. What a pity that
constitutional amendment — the most difficult task in any
constitution the world over — has been brought down to the level
of normal legislation, where not only the two-third majority
(currently required) of the total membership of the two Houses
is waived, but also the simple majority (i.e. the presence of 50
percent of the members) is not considered necessary. According
to the proposed amendment a majority of those present will be
sufficient. That means if members are available even to the
extent of quorum, amendment can be brought with their simple
majority. We know very well how far the words ‘elimination of
constraints’ can be stretched. General Zia availed one such
permission granted by the Supreme Court by to implementing first
‘provisional constitution’ and when restored the (1973)
constitution inserted 104 amendments in it. Therefore, such
authority can never be granted. If there is a real need of
reviewing the constitution, an appropriate way could be followed
(We shall propose it later).
(5) Articles 3 and 4 (of the Bill) are un-necessary. Both these
provisions (in respect of personal law and religious,
educational and cultural freedoms for the minorities) are
already there in the constitution and need not be repeated
everywhere. This only reflects inferiority complex, which does
not look appropriate to be expressed in the constitution. If,
however, the intention is to satisfy some specific pressure
groups, then we have no objection to it in principle. Fact of
the matter remains that the minority, particularly the Christian
minority which constitutes only one percent of the population,
is not pressing for its rights but objects to the right of
Muslims of having their Shari’ah in their own country. This
reflects the colonial mentality which the Christian minority
used to express during the British and other Western colonial
dominations at the instigation of the ruling powers. Even today,
they do so at the provocation of western powers. In France, a
Muslim woman is not allowed to wear scarf and in our country a
minority group demands that Muslims should not follow the tenets
of their own religion. We, therefore, need not be defensive and
offering regrets or ‘incentives’. Its true response is what the
Qur’an has prescribed: "To you be your Way, and to me mine"
(109:6).
(6) The biggest fault of the 15th Amendment is that it does not
provide answer to the real problem, which necessitates a clear
declaration about the supremacy of Qur’an and Sunnah in spite of
the Objective Resolution being part of the constitution. In
fact, the Supreme Court has made an important observation that
in interpreting the constitution every article has its own merit
and is not subservient to any other article, unless so clarified
as in case of article 58 (2) B or 203-A. Also, certain articles,
like article 8, are self-executing while others, e.g. 2-A are
not.
The amendment should have aimed at removing these difficulties.
In our proposed scheme, addition of notwithstanding any
provision in the constitution, law or decision of any court of
law in article-1 (of the Bill), will take in its scope the whole
of constitution and the legal system. This is exactly the
position the Qur’an and Sunnah should have. The difficulty to be
encountered is, however, what has been pointed at by Maulana
Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Judge Shari’ah Bench (SC), and Dr.
Tanzeel-ur-Rehman, former Chief Justice of Federal Shari’ah
Court: Who is to decide where the clash is and how to resolve
it. There could be many ways to follow. But, proceeding ahead
without addressing this problem would mean that pandora box of
court suits and controversies is opened and the nation gets
further confused. In that case Shari’ah would become an
instrument of legal anarchy, instead of providing justice.
Surely, this would not be a proper treatment of Shari’ah.
(a) It is important that flaws and contradictions in
constitution and the clashes and inconsistencies found in laws,
should be dealt separately (case to case). The constitution can
not be permanently left at the mercy of central government or to
the courts, either. These entities are the product of the
constitution and derive their authorities from there. Thus,
there is a need of a Constitutional Commission, consisting of
constitutional experts, mature and trustworthy politicians and
distinguished religious scholars, to bring amendments in the
constitution.. The Islamic Ideology Council should also be
consulted. The Commission should indicate within 6 month, or a
year at the most, all the discrepancies in the constitution
inhibiting supremacy of the Shari’ah. Then the Parliament should
remove these discrepancies through a suitable amendment in the
constitution. All this be done in one go. The door should not be
let open for government or any other group to raise their
problems every now and then.
(b) For general laws two methods can be employed: following the
pattern of article-8, an addition to article-2 that as laws in
clash with fundamental rights constitutionally stay null and
void, similarly the laws in vogue that are repugnant to Qur’an
and Sunnah would be considered void, after the expiry of the
stipulated time — say, one year.
Most of this task has already been done by the CII and the Law
Commission. The Parliament should consider these recommendations
and reform the present laws in one year, or such repugnant laws
should automatically become null and void.
The other method is the empowerment of the Federal Shari’ah
Court. The number of its judges should be increased and its
jurisdiction extended to cover, other than the constitution, all
laws to be reviewed and scrutinized. This will be a normal
process to sancronize all laws with Shari’ah through the FSC.
The question of any law being against Shari’ah, raised in any
court, should be referred to FSC because if this (review)
authority is delegated to every court it would create confusion.
Every court cannot be relied upon because of the lack of
knowledge of Shari’ah, and capability. In the normal courts,
including High Court and the Supreme Court, Muslim and
non-Muslim judges have equal position. To see whether an
article, law or order is according to Shari’ah or against it, is
a delicate issue and cannot be left to non-Muslim judges. The
only way, therefore, is that the jurisdiction and authority of
the FSC is enhanced, its number of judges and resources
increased, and to include in it competent and religious-minded
judges and erudite scholars. That is the way the issue can be
solved amicably.
(7) The issue of the jurisdiction of the Federal Shari’ah Court
should necessarily be settled in the proposed constitutional
amendment. Important in this regard is that appointment of
judges to the FSC should be regular and that rules of
appointment, transfer, change in job assignment and degradation
should be identical to those for the High Courts and the Supreme
Court. Also, FSC should be authorized to redress grievances and
to issue interim orders. To have an effective accountability
system, it is necessary that the scope of judicial review be
extended, with certain restraints, to include executive orders
along with the laws. This is a right the Federal Shari’ah Court
should enjoy.
(8) The whole system of constitutional and law education and
training needs immediately overhauling. There should be academic
and training courses for legal practitioners and experts of all
levels. In the reforms of 1980, International Islamic
University, the Judicial Academy, the International Institute of
Islamic Economics and Da’wah Academy were set up to also meet
this requirement. If we are really sincere to our claims about
enforcing Shari’ah then all these areas merit urgent
consideration. The whole government and administrative machinery
is to be geared up. The masses are also to be educated and
trained. Without covering all these aspects, and making simple
announcements every now and then, will be useless. Rather, these
are injurious to the cause, against the sanctity of Shari’ah,
would disappoint people and could invite the wrath of Allah.
The simple and straight way is that with utmost honesty,
confidence and transparency, we stand up to fulfill all the
requirements the task of implementation of Shari’ah demands. If
we cannot do so, we should at least refrain from taking such
steps which only confuse matters of consensus, give rise to new
controversies, invite adversaries to launch fresh attacks and
only deceive the sincere and innocent people. We should always
keep in mind what Allah Almighty has ordained:
And when your Lord declared (publicly): "If ye are grateful, I
will add more (favours) unto you; but if ye show ingratitude,
truly my punishment is terrible indeed." (14: 7)
This is an ADAPTATION of Tarjumanul Quran Isharat of October
1998, (written Originally in Urdu) by Prof Khurshid Ahmad
(Janaati islami)
|
