State versus fatwa
 

[B][SIZE="4"]State versus fatwa
[/SIZE][/B][B]By Durdana Najam
[/B]
[I]The question is that is it appropriate or for that matter ‘democratic’ for a religious organisation or body to represent the ‘will’ of the people through law-making.
[/I]
Maulana Tahir Ashrafi, a secular and liberal scholar of Islam, using his influence as chairman All Pakistan Ulema Council (APUC), has issued a Fatwa (edict) through a consensus among 27 different religious organisations in Pakistan on the ‘right’ to vote. He has been hailed internationally for this effort. In the 40-page booklet philosophising the importance of democracy and elections, he has proved ‘voting’ to be a compulsory act enjoined by Islam on the Muslims, both man and woman. In other words, he has backed democracy and rejected militarism or dictatorship. However, he does believe that Pervez Musharraf has been a good dictator, who should have been given an opportunity to prove his innocence either by allowing him to contest the polls or putting a neutral judiciary overlooking his cases.

The question is that is it appropriate or for that matter ‘democratic’ for a religious organisation or body to represent the ‘will’ of the people through law-making. If they were to define laws, independently, than how the role of parliament, and the entire judicial system is explained in a constitutional democracy that Pakistan claims to embrace. Unless subordinated to parliament, an edict unequivocally is an attempt to add power to the militants already at war with the state. The edict issued by the APUC, broadly speaking, is being viewed as a legal position to facilitate polling in the face of the militants’ resistance to elections. That explains the power the religious organisations hold in the national polity and indicates the direction to which the country is headed.

Being a constitutional democracy where parliament is held supreme and constitution is taken as a contract between the people and state any resolution, law or policy should flow from the parliament represented by the people of Pakistan. Especially in the presence of Pakistan Ideological Council, of which now Maulana Tahir is one of the 20th member the issue of voting as considered un-Islamic by the militants could have been debated, vetted and declared legal and Islamic by this able body. The effort of the APUC to give a befitting response to the militants’ propaganda against the right to vote, especially for women and generally for Muslims, is appreciable, however, it can best be taken as a recommendation and not as a verdict. But the way the edict is issued through elaborative conferences in nearly every large city of Pakistan, followed by celebrations, including the media hype, smacks some deliberate attempt to add volume to the militants’ narrative of Islam.

By responding to militants’ inhuman demands through ‘edict’ we are actually strengthening their narrative of having a government in Pakistan that follows Shirah-based governance system operated by clergies and jurists drawn from the religious class. Exactly the same line of action was adopted in the case of polio workers. An edict, again from the APUC was issued, declaring polio drops Islamic. Yet the killing of polio workers goes unabated. Polio drops are refused to be administered in FATA and in a major part of KP, largely because of the fear of militants’ backlash.

The treatment to the problem that is militancy through every other way except the right one is causing Pakistan to wither in the hands of its enemies within. Though the previous government has been critical in upholding the supremacy of parliament and after the enactment of the 18th amendment the body did become diverse, its ability to assert on terrorism in spite of passing several resolutions remained insipid. Then the cabinet responsible for policy-making and implementation of government’s decisions, other than making several committees and commitments, ended its term without posting any result. And here we are facing coordinated and well rehearsed attacks on the state of Pakistan by the militants.

It is time perhaps to come out of the conundrum. We need to decide who we are? Is it the clergy (the mullahs) that eventually will guide us through the patchy path of political journey or is it the parliament that will decide how the people of Pakistan will live and respond to the crises confronting them? Already the mess created by the army is way beyond us to lift and get rid of now with mullahs making direct inroads through their edicts, camouflaging the latter as some final word of God we may unknowingly end up in their laps.

Either the Council for Islamic Ideology of Pakistan (CIIP) is revitalised, since each member of the council enjoys the perks of a senator, or it should be shut down. The idea behind the creation of CIIP has been to vet legislations for Islamic principles. Therefore, it could be an ideal place to regulate edicts through maybe a special committee within the council enthused with this particular job. Pakistan is one of the few Muslim countries where fatwa or edicts are issued by unauthorised, non-state actors unlike, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and UAE. The APUC could best be described an NGO. It has no legal binding, so to say. Yet its edicts are received as a code of law.

We have seen many legal and moral complications arising from the loosely constructed, hence the controversial fatwa system in Pakistan. A mindset that believes every word uttered by a maulvi (cleric) a way to earn brownie points in the world hereafter prevails in majority especially where illiteracy is high. Then we find people like Mumtaz Qadri killing Salmaan Taseer, only because there was an edict on his killing, broadcast on a live TV talk show that was later picked by clerics of every genre in the country. Neither the anchor was held responsible for literally asking the scholar to interpret Taseer’s statement about blasphemy on national TV nor was the scholar who gave the edict rounded up. On the contrary, the fatwa or edict machine is allowed to work fulltime.

A recent research held by Pew International on the awareness of an ordinary Muslims about Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence) is an eye-opener. Not only many Muslims in the countries researched had no idea what Shariah actually meant, it was interpreted differently by every respondent. A large number of respondents (all Muslims) disagreed with a system policing morality.

Unless we codify Shariah and develop a consensual interpretation of it, there will be no peace in countries like Pakistan. Though many first steps have been identified by now to fight militancy in Pakistan, the paramount being establishing the writ of the state by clipping off the power of non-state actors, and barring them strictly from issuing edicts and that includes the APUC as well.

[I]The writer is an Assistant Editor at Daily Times and can be reached at[/I] [email]durdananajam1@gmail.com[/email]

[url]http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\05\03\story_3-5-2013_pg3_5[/url]