ISLAM AND POLITICS

Islam has never been an issue in Pakistan. In fact, even those parties which talk of scientific socialism or secular politics did not ignore the potential and popularity of the faith in electoral politics. What however, is a matter of concern is the emergence of propagation of an idea that Islam is opposed to progress and enlightenment.

The emergence of Pakistan on the world map left the ulema high and dry. While leaving their followers in the lurch in post-independence India, the self-styled protagonists of the 'Law of Islam' fled to 'Islamize' Pakistan. Soon after independence, when the administration of the new state was coping with huge problems arising out of the partition of the subcontinent, the ulema began arousing the religious passions of the people to get an "Islamic Constitution" passed by the Constituent Assembly. [1]

The cry of 'Islam in danger' was a powerful weapon in the struggle for Pakistan. Every contemporary politician was aware of the risk that too adventurous policy would be greeted with the dangerous words, 'Islam betrayed.' [2] The politicians therefore wished at least to preserve a facade of harmony on religious matters until the state should be more firmly established. [3] Therefore the post independence period presented the political leadership with the problem of the role of Islam in the structure of the new state. This however, was overshadowed by the need for political stability. Most political leaders and the "moderates" among the men of religion wanted to see a new flexibility in the social and political thinking in Islam. But to pursue this issue before the new constitution had been brought into operation, would have been to invite confusion and conflict.

Politics is 'the art of the possible' and in the long run depends upon convincing the convincible and politically active middle section of the population towards a particular course of action or way of life. Each succeeding government in Pakistan hence thought it suitable to continue with the agencies established to find out the methods for Islamization of the laws and the social structure. As a device to appease the Ulema and illiterate mass of the people, the political leadership conceded that if the Quran has clear guidance to offer on any matter, then that guidance must be followed.

Ironically, it was the socialist and secular Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who started the process of the so-called Islamic fundamentalism in the country. The 1973 constitution contains a number of clauses which later paved the way for the Islamization of laws. He was responsible to declare the Ahmadis constitutionally as non-Muslims. To Islamize the society, he declared Friday as holiday instead of Sunday, and introduced the subjects of Islamiat as compulsory subject for the students. He invited the Imam of Ka'ba to Pakistan to lead the prayers. However, these initiatives could not save him from the ultimate disaster and he became the victim of his own acts and deeds when almost all the religious parties joined hand in launching a campaign against him.

Bhutto's successor, General Ziaul Haq fully utilized the process of Islamization to achieve his political ends and sought legitimacy by implementing Islam as an ideology of Pakistan. General Zia, with the help of state institutions, weakened the secular and progressive forces and introduced the Hudood, Qisas and Diyat in the legal system of the country. The Federal Shariat Court was established through an amendment to the  constitution with the powers to examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. (Article 203D of the constitution)  The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) has proved as a law-demolishing agency in conflict with parliament as the constitutionally sovereign legislative body. The Council of Islamic Ideology, another constitutional body, has restricted itself to a negative role; to identify what is 'repugnant' to Islam without spelling out the alternative which is 'in conformity' with Islam. [4]

The Islamization process, which was used as a political weapon, has caused severe damage to our national life. Wrong interpretation of Islam has resulted in the rise of fundamentalism, obscurantism and retrogression. Since the death of General Zia, inconsistency and instability prevails in our laws. Instability means that the law is frequently changing or is under threat of change because of differences of opinion among the ruling factions. Three of the most obvious inconsistencies in our Islamic law are (a) those between legal norms and socially observed norms; (b) those between statutory legal norms and the norms applied in practice in the courts (e.g. Hadd is difficult to implement as confession, retraction of confession and strict standards of proof make it difficult to execute); (c) those between different formal legal norms (e.g. non-compliance with the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance is compromised by the courts but is strictly punished under the Zina Ordinance). Another example of this contradiction is that the constitution assures women equal status on the one hand but, on the other hand, they are greatly discriminated in criminal law. [5]

With the passing of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance in 1990, the victim (or heirs of the victim) of a crime now have the right to inflict injuries on the offender identical to the ones sustained by the victim. The law also allows offenders to absolve themselves of the crime by paying compensation to the victim or their heirs. In the already existing system of bribery and corruption, it gives free hand to the people with money. [6]  The Human Rights activists rightly say that in effect this means, that rich people can get away even with willful murder.

The interpretation of the Shariah Act of 1991 has been challenged by the Federal Shariat Court. Sections 3(2) and 19 of the Act, which safeguard the existing political system and the country's financial obligations (including interest payments), have been declared un-Islamic by the FSC because of the riba (interest) involved. In its ruling of January 1992, [ the FSC ruling was actually passed in November 1991, but the 50-page document giving court's opinion was circulated to bankers and government officials in January 1992.] the  Court held that rules and regulations relating to interest were repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah and should be brought in accordance with Islam. This ruling was embarrassing to the government, while on the one hand they wanted to satisfy the traditionalists, on the other hand the ruling was not in accordance with the government's international obligations. A private appeal was thus lodged with the Supreme Court against the FSC decision. Other rulings of the FSC in 1992 included one stating that the country's system of employment quotas was un-Islamic, as was the charging of court fees.[7]

Women became the special victims of Islamization and its incon­sistencies. The Zina Ordinance carried grave injustices and untold miseries on women in the country and prompted bitter international criticism. Women's rights groups helped in the production of a  film titled "Who will cast the first stone?" to highlight the oppression and sufferings of women under the Hudood Ordinances In September 1981, the first conviction and sentence under the Zina Ordinance, of stoning to death for Fehmida and Allah Bakhsh were set aside under national and international pressure.

In many cases, under the Zina Ordinance, a woman who made an al­legation of rape was convicted for adultery whilst the rapist was ac­quitted. This led to a growing demand by jurists and women activists for repealing the Ordinance. In 1983, Safia Bibi,  a 13-year-old blind girl, who alleged rape by her employer and his son was convicted for adultery under the Zina Ordinance whilst, the rapists were acquitted. The decision attracted so much publicity and condemnation  from the public and the press that the Federal Shariah Court [8] of its own mo­tion, called for the records of the case and ordered that she should be released from prison on her own bond. Subsequently, on appeal, the finding of the trial court was reversed and the conviction was set aside.

In early 1988, another conviction for stoning to death of Shahida Parveen and Mohammed Sarwar [9]  sparked bitter public criticism that led to their retrial and acquittal by the Federal Shariah Court. In this case the trial court took the view that notice of divorce by Shahida's former husband, Khushi Mohammed should have been given to the Chairman of the local council, as stipulated under Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. This sec­tion states that any man who divorces his wife must register it with the Union Council. Otherwise, the court concluded that the divorce stood invalidated and the couple became liable to conviction under the Zina ordinance.

The International Commission of Jurists mission to Pakistan in December 1986 called for repealing of certain sections of the Hudood Ordinances relating to crimes and "Islamic" punishments which discriminate against women and non-Muslims. The commis­sion cited an example that a Muslim woman can be convicted on the evidence of man, and a non-Muslim can be convicted on the evidence of a Muslim, but not vice versa.

The government of Benazir Bhutto promoted Pakistan as a moderate Islamic state. A booklet published by the Ministry of Information -- entitled, Pakistan: a moderate Islamic state -- acknowledges that "from late 1970s to mid-1980s, Pakistan often found itself specially featuring in (western media) despatches about "Islamic Fundamentalism," an expression depicting religious intolerance. The despatches brought out Pakistan as an irrational society suppressing minorities, contemptuous of human rights, treating women as inferior and generally living inside a cocoon of faith debarring contemporary compellings. Such negative references have not been totally abandoned but their frequency has considerably declined in the last about ten years. However, some developments recreated misgivings vis-a-vis fundamentalism in Pakistan as blasphemy erupted as an issue. However, a superior court restored the confidence of the people in the state's commitment to a learned approach. The court's objective and dispassionate handling of the case has re-emphasized an enlightened approach which is further sustained by the government's negotiations and consultations with leaders of religious political parties and scholars to affect amendments in the existing laws on blasphemy to incorporate safeguards against exploitation of any segment of the population.

In May 1995, the federal cabinet approved two amendments in the blasphemy law -- i.e. article 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code. The amendments stipulate ten years' prison term for instituting a false blasphemy charge against anyone and forbids registration of any  First Information Report  (FIR) on this count without a preliminary investigation by a judicial officer, not below the rank of deputy commissioner, as to the veracity of the allegation. However, the proposal met severe resistance from religious and other groups. The Provincial Assembly of the Punjab passed a resolution against the proposal on May 4, 1995. This was the second resolution of the Punjab Assembly on the issue. On April 20, 1994, the Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution urging the federal government to maintain the blasphemy law as such. On June 29, 1995, the Provincial Assembly of Baluchistan also passed unanimously a similar resolution.

The government deferred its decision to bring the bill, to amend the blasphemy law, before parliament since it was not in a position to pass the legislation. In the meantime, the government has instituted administrative changes to the procedures for filing blasphemy charges. Formerly, individuals could be charged with blasphemy if any individual filed an FIR with the police. Now, formal charges cannot be levied until a magistrate has investigated the allegations and determined that they were credible under the law.

The US Assistant Secretary of state, Robin Raphel, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee, on March 7, 1996, said that the United States recognize that the religious parties in Pakistan have "street power" and not "ballot power" and this is a major constraint for the Benazir Bhutto's government to repeal blasphemy laws. She revealed that more than 150 blasphemy cases have been lodged in Pakistan since 1986. Most of these have been brought against members of the Ahmadi community. None of the cases against Ahmadis have resulted in convictions. During the same period, at least nine cases have been brought against Christians and nine against Muslims. There have been convictions in some of these cases, but no one has been executed under the law's mandatory death penalty. Some convictions have been overturned and several individuals are currently appealing their convictions. [10]

The Lahore High Court, on February 22, 1995, acquitted Salamat Masih and Rehmat Masih from blasphemy charges. They were sentenced to death by a Sessions Judge on February 9, 1995, for allegedly writing blasphemous word on the wall of a mosque in 1993. The death sentence was quickly overturned following an international uproar.  During the appeal hearings there were almost daily demonstrations by small religious groups demanding that the sentence should be carried out. After the judgment, religious groups observed a protest day throughout Pakistan to protest against the acquittal.

The year 1995 also witnessed a ghastly incident of religious frenzy, when Dr. Sajjad Farooq, was beaten to death by people outside a police station in Gujranwala. He was declared an apostate and accused of having desecrated the Holy Quran. Dr. Farooq, who was later reported by the press to be a staunch Muslim, was dragged out from the police station where he was lodged and stoned to death by frenzied mobs. On the basis of a rumor, apparently circulated by someone out of personal enmity, through loud-speakers of the mosques in his locality he was proclaimed to be a Christian. While religious fanaticism of one sort or another has tended to manifest itself in Pakistan in occasional incidents from time to time, many in the country are now beginning to regard it almost as sacrosanct. The so-called Islamization of Pakistan during General Ziaul Haq's regime has imbued the fanatics with a spirit of self-righteousness which can only be regarded as alarming in any civilized society.[11]

Islam, which should have served to unite the people of Pakistan -- over 90 percent of them being Muslims -- has been, and is being, misused to divide them into mutually hostile sectarian groups and to divert their attention from basic social and economic problems. [12] The myth of popular support for religious parties has repeatedly been exploded by the electorate. Yet, sectarian and religious hate mongers have proliferated.[13]  Major parties are courting leaders of religious parties, while latter's militias continue fanning the flames of sectarianism. [14] The only all-Pakistan force that seems to be growing uniformly is sectarianism.

15^TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR SHARIAT BILL

The government of Nawaz Sharif introduced the 15th Constitutional Amendment Bill in the National Assembly, on August 28, 1998,  that was immediately passed by the NA body concerned. The original version that was placed before the parliament in August was a virtual outline for establishment of theocratic fascism. It would have given the prime minister powers, first, to enforce what he thought was right and to prohibit what he considered was wrong in Islam and Shariat, irrespective of what the constitution or any judgment of the courts said; secondly, to make future amendments to the constitution with unprecedented ease, by a simple parliamentary majority of those present and voting; and, thirdly, to punish any state official (which obviously included any member of the judiciary or the armed forces) for what he regarded as dereliction of duty in that respect.  A revised draft, since passed by the Lower House by the requisite two-thirds majority, dropped the latter two provisions. But even the first one that it retains provisions that would give the prime minister all the powers he needs to do his will.

The CA-15 adds a new Article 2B in the constitution: (1) The Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBH) shall be the supreme law of Pakistan. Explanation: In the application of this clause to the personal law of any Muslim set, the expression "Quran and Sunnah" shall mean the Quran and Sunnah as interpreted by that sect. (2) The Federal Government shall be under an obligation to take steps to enforce the Shariat, to establish Salat, to administer Zakat, to promote amr bil ma'roof and nahi anil munkar (to prescribe what is right and to forbid what is wrong), to eradicate corruption at all levels and to provide substantial socio-economic justice, in accordance with the principles of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. (3) Nothing contained in the Article shall affect the personal law, religious freedom, traditions or customs of non-Muslims and their status as citizens. (4) The provisions of this Article shall be effective notwithstanding anything contained in the constitution, any law or judgment of any court.

The addition of Article 2B in the constitution which says that Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBH) shall be the "supreme law" of Pakistan, overrides all law. The clause (2) will give the federal government wide executive powers. Under clause (4) whatever the government wants to do, it will do in the grab of Shariat which cannot be challenged. What alarmed wide sections of public opinion was the fear that with no consensus amongst even the religious parties as to what the supremacy of the Shariat implied, the government was opening a Pandora's box which would lead to further schisms in a society already reeling under the pressure of sectarian strife.

The National Assembly, on Oct. 9, 1998,  passed the 15^th Constitutional Amendment bill with 151 votes. 16 votes were cast against it while the main ally of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), remained absent from the session. Though the government managed to scuttle the dissent from within the ruling party by brining an amended draft, it could not win over the support of independents, Jamiat-I-Ulema Islam and five minority members. The house voted a revised draft, delivered to the opposition parties only one day before the vote, hence it was not properly debated neither by the National Assembly nor by the people at large. The concession offered by the government, by deleting the proposal to rewrite Article 239, regarding constitutional amendments through simple majority, was seen an eyewash.

With its overwhelming majority in the National Assembly, it was not a problem for the government to have the amendment passed there but it was another matter in the Senate where the ruling party lacked the requisite majority. The Senate resolved not to accord to the bill when presented for vote. The prime minister responded by going about castigating that body, urging people to force the hands of the senators, and calling on mullahs to run all critics of the bill to earth. Nawaz Sharif called at public forums that it was the duty of the public to force the erring members of the Senate to pass the so-called Shariat Bill. He argued that the Senate, an indirectly elected house, had no justification for opposing the Shariat bill and that the passage of the bill by the National Assembly, elected directly, reflected the national aspirations.