Dr Samiullah Koreshi
So it is not peace with the militants in Swat which the US likes but to continue their blood shedding , if the media reports are to be believed that Richard Halbrooke conveyed this message to President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday, before his flying to China where “coincidentally” Hillary Clinton the new Secretary of State will be present in the same capital. It was believed that the blood shedding was a plank of Bush policy, which won several Noble Deeds Awards of Abu Gharib and Gauntanamo Bay torture house . This story confirms the suspicions that as far as Pakistan is concerned Obama will follow the Bush line. One hopes against hope that the seemingly decent person Obama will not go that way but he is President of USA which overpowers his decency or wish to change US for the better.
This means that our objectives in this situation are different from America’s. We want peace to prevail and hope that all negotiations would be on a give-and-take basis , and the use of force would be only a means and not an end, the desired end is to establish peace and seek terms which can establish durable peace Swat deal with the militants was in accordance with universally accepted formulas of eliminating violence by offer of what would establish durable peace. As any expert of human geography of the tribal/ northern areas knows, this region is staunchly orthodox and attached to the principles of Islam without any change. Sharia is their demand, has been since long, and continues to be still now. The spontaneous joy felt by overwhelming majority of people of Swat on this agreement on the promise of introduction of Sharia in return for peace will show that this was the key to a durable agreement. Of course only immediate future will tell whether these expectations were true or not, and it is hoped that these expectations were rightly entertained.
As against this, US wants the annihilation of the militants once for all. Kill, kill and kill They want Pakistani Northern areas/Swat inhabitants to be butchered This has been the attitude of great killers in the past like Genghiz Khan and Huns. Civilized people had not practiced this “total destruction” approach. It was a Pharonic practice towards the other side which rose against them Such a policy will not be acceptable to the people of Pakistan even those who are strongly against the militants. Such ‘root ‘em out’ is not agreeable to any Muslim people. The Holy Prophet SAWS always forgave even his most dedicated enemies after his victories..
Nor US had practiced such ‘root ‘em out” policy in Vietnam. And interestingly US says that a Swat like deal is acceptable in Afghanistan. That is Pakistan is not to be included in humane approach towards the militants . This contradiction is highly illogical and brutal. Which regime can lasts or last without finishing turbulence in Pakistan. People of Pakistan will not buy such total blood thirsty approach, except to that tiny minority which need not be described or named..
It may be said that there is no surrender in seeking peace with one’s own people when it is in the interest of the people of Pakistan. It is in fact in the interest of peace in the region. Even not only Pakistan. Let it be known that the demand for Sharia is such a universal trend that it has been introduced in Northern Nigeria where Qazi Courts are dispensing speedy inexpensive and humane judgments, although because of presence of a sizeable Christian community in Nigeria- in West and South, it has been left to the citizens to chose whether they would like to go to Sharia courts or the Western style courts. The western system of justice is becoming too expensive, too cumbersome, too slow and depends on witnesses produced by any side. Western Courts are courts of law and not courts of Justice. Qazi courts are Courts of Justice. The Qazi has to worry that justice is being done not that he has decided the case on the basis of number of witnesses presented, whether they were reliable persons as witnesses or not. In Sharia Courts one has to ascertain the antecedents of a witmess.
Some people have raised the question about which Sharia law will be applied by these courts? The reply is simple. In South Asia , during Muslim rule from 715 AD to 1859 AD, wherever the Muslim Rule existed, both Hindus and Muslims were tried by the Sharia Courts. One can find out the answer to the question from history books as to which sharia law was applied by the Qazi Courts during one thousand years of Muslim rule. Because there is a strong Christian-Muslim divde on the question of application of Sharia they have given the choice to the citizens to decide to which courts they go, Shria or Western courts. It would be agreed that a law can be implemented only if it is supported by the people.
For example, in 1947 in the Hindu-Muslim riots killing of Muslims in India or burning of their property was not counted as a crime just as killing a Hindu and burning his house in Pak
istan was not considered a crime. But touch a Hindu in India or a Muslim in Pakistan and law came in action., Further, in a democratic approach if Sharia is what people want Sharia they will get. It is neither a victory of one over the other nor surrender but establishing peace, in establishing which use of force had failed. Peace is in the good of the county as much as for the regions.
It may be recalled that even in the US itself, it was mentioned that implementation of Sharia in Pakistan is in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan. Therefore foreign policy people in US should not think it in their competent to try to stop implementation of Constitutional provisions. In Pakistan , or interfere to this extent. There are many Pakistanis who do not think that cutting of the hands or stoning to death should form Sharia laws and suggest ijma’a or ijtehad to change the laws in this regard, but this is not what the Northern Areas or Tribes in the North would accept. So there can be asa theory two types of Sharia Courts in Pakistan . In some areas what they interpret is Sharia and n the other what experts in law agree has to be Sharia In US also practically each state has its own laws, so it can be in Pakistan It may be stated that from 715 AD when the Arabs conquered Sindh and spread upto Multan and Mansoora, to 1859 the criminal law in Muslim ruled India was Sharia for both Muslims and Hindus, It was only in Ottoman Khilafat that the minorities were given their laws under millat system to considerable extent.
It is against wisdom to try to teach Pakistanis about their Constitution, or be so arrogant as to try to temper with the Constitution of a country. This is difficult for people to tolerate. It is necessary that US takes a consistent logical line towards all the cases in this region. Duality of approach will fail. If peace with militants is good for US –after seeing what it did in Swat- then it is good for Swat also.
This may be an appropriate occasion to say that a Mujahid is a very sacred person and is bound by the laws of Islam, and not free to do whatever he likes with foreigners who fell in his hands. It is in this context that I feel for the Human Rights Worker kidnapped from Quetta John Solaki whose mother has appealed for mercy and release of her son, . I may refer to Hazrat Abu Baker’s ( RAU) instructions to Muslim troops about treatment of non-Muslim civilians.
I join her mother’s appeal for the release of Solaki . Mao’s Ten Principles for the Guerrillas are almost on the lines of the instructions of the First Caliph of Islam. A Mujahid is bound by the instructions of the First Caliph (RAU), if he is a mujahid, but if he is not, even then he should keep in view the human feelings particularly of a mother, for his innocent son who had come to Pakistan on a laudable mission..
So it is not peace with the militants in Swat which the US likes but to continue their blood shedding , if the media reports are to be believed that Richard Halbrooke conveyed this message to President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday, before his flying to China where “coincidentally” Hillary Clinton the new Secretary of State will be present in the same capital. It was believed that the blood shedding was a plank of Bush policy, which won several Noble Deeds Awards of Abu Gharib and Gauntanamo Bay torture house . This story confirms the suspicions that as far as Pakistan is concerned Obama will follow the Bush line. One hopes against hope that the seemingly decent person Obama will not go that way but he is President of USA which overpowers his decency or wish to change US for the better.
This means that our objectives in this situation are different from America’s. We want peace to prevail and hope that all negotiations would be on a give-and-take basis , and the use of force would be only a means and not an end, the desired end is to establish peace and seek terms which can establish durable peace Swat deal with the militants was in accordance with universally accepted formulas of eliminating violence by offer of what would establish durable peace. As any expert of human geography of the tribal/ northern areas knows, this region is staunchly orthodox and attached to the principles of Islam without any change. Sharia is their demand, has been since long, and continues to be still now. The spontaneous joy felt by overwhelming majority of people of Swat on this agreement on the promise of introduction of Sharia in return for peace will show that this was the key to a durable agreement. Of course only immediate future will tell whether these expectations were true or not, and it is hoped that these expectations were rightly entertained.
As against this, US wants the annihilation of the militants once for all. Kill, kill and kill They want Pakistani Northern areas/Swat inhabitants to be butchered This has been the attitude of great killers in the past like Genghiz Khan and Huns. Civilized people had not practiced this “total destruction” approach. It was a Pharonic practice towards the other side which rose against them Such a policy will not be acceptable to the people of Pakistan even those who are strongly against the militants. Such ‘root ‘em out’ is not agreeable to any Muslim people. The Holy Prophet SAWS always forgave even his most dedicated enemies after his victories..
Nor US had practiced such ‘root ‘em out” policy in Vietnam. And interestingly US says that a Swat like deal is acceptable in Afghanistan. That is Pakistan is not to be included in humane approach towards the militants . This contradiction is highly illogical and brutal. Which regime can lasts or last without finishing turbulence in Pakistan. People of Pakistan will not buy such total blood thirsty approach, except to that tiny minority which need not be described or named..
It may be said that there is no surrender in seeking peace with one’s own people when it is in the interest of the people of Pakistan. It is in fact in the interest of peace in the region. Even not only Pakistan. Let it be known that the demand for Sharia is such a universal trend that it has been introduced in Northern Nigeria where Qazi Courts are dispensing speedy inexpensive and humane judgments, although because of presence of a sizeable Christian community in Nigeria- in West and South, it has been left to the citizens to chose whether they would like to go to Sharia courts or the Western style courts. The western system of justice is becoming too expensive, too cumbersome, too slow and depends on witnesses produced by any side. Western Courts are courts of law and not courts of Justice. Qazi courts are Courts of Justice. The Qazi has to worry that justice is being done not that he has decided the case on the basis of number of witnesses presented, whether they were reliable persons as witnesses or not. In Sharia Courts one has to ascertain the antecedents of a witmess.
Some people have raised the question about which Sharia law will be applied by these courts? The reply is simple. In South Asia , during Muslim rule from 715 AD to 1859 AD, wherever the Muslim Rule existed, both Hindus and Muslims were tried by the Sharia Courts. One can find out the answer to the question from history books as to which sharia law was applied by the Qazi Courts during one thousand years of Muslim rule. Because there is a strong Christian-Muslim divde on the question of application of Sharia they have given the choice to the citizens to decide to which courts they go, Shria or Western courts. It would be agreed that a law can be implemented only if it is supported by the people.
For example, in 1947 in the Hindu-Muslim riots killing of Muslims in India or burning of their property was not counted as a crime just as killing a Hindu and burning his house in Pak
istan was not considered a crime. But touch a Hindu in India or a Muslim in Pakistan and law came in action., Further, in a democratic approach if Sharia is what people want Sharia they will get. It is neither a victory of one over the other nor surrender but establishing peace, in establishing which use of force had failed. Peace is in the good of the county as much as for the regions.
It may be recalled that even in the US itself, it was mentioned that implementation of Sharia in Pakistan is in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan. Therefore foreign policy people in US should not think it in their competent to try to stop implementation of Constitutional provisions. In Pakistan , or interfere to this extent. There are many Pakistanis who do not think that cutting of the hands or stoning to death should form Sharia laws and suggest ijma’a or ijtehad to change the laws in this regard, but this is not what the Northern Areas or Tribes in the North would accept. So there can be asa theory two types of Sharia Courts in Pakistan . In some areas what they interpret is Sharia and n the other what experts in law agree has to be Sharia In US also practically each state has its own laws, so it can be in Pakistan It may be stated that from 715 AD when the Arabs conquered Sindh and spread upto Multan and Mansoora, to 1859 the criminal law in Muslim ruled India was Sharia for both Muslims and Hindus, It was only in Ottoman Khilafat that the minorities were given their laws under millat system to considerable extent.
It is against wisdom to try to teach Pakistanis about their Constitution, or be so arrogant as to try to temper with the Constitution of a country. This is difficult for people to tolerate. It is necessary that US takes a consistent logical line towards all the cases in this region. Duality of approach will fail. If peace with militants is good for US –after seeing what it did in Swat- then it is good for Swat also.
This may be an appropriate occasion to say that a Mujahid is a very sacred person and is bound by the laws of Islam, and not free to do whatever he likes with foreigners who fell in his hands. It is in this context that I feel for the Human Rights Worker kidnapped from Quetta John Solaki whose mother has appealed for mercy and release of her son, . I may refer to Hazrat Abu Baker’s ( RAU) instructions to Muslim troops about treatment of non-Muslim civilians.
I join her mother’s appeal for the release of Solaki . Mao’s Ten Principles for the Guerrillas are almost on the lines of the instructions of the First Caliph of Islam. A Mujahid is bound by the instructions of the First Caliph (RAU), if he is a mujahid, but if he is not, even then he should keep in view the human feelings particularly of a mother, for his innocent son who had come to Pakistan on a laudable mission..
No comments:
Post a Comment