Sharia law is the price of peace in Pakistan
Drastic move to buy off religious extremists in restive Swat valley / Human rights campaigners attack 'illegal, unconstitutional' action
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Pakistani civil society activists stage a peace rally for the troubled Swat valley in Lahore
enlarge
In a desperate attempt to staunch a raging insurgency, the Pakistani government announced that it would impose Islamic law in a part of its wild North-west as it suspended its faltering military campaign against Taliban militants in the area.
Faced with the prospect of the scenic Swat valley falling to Taliban militants loyal to Maulana Fazlullah, the government has yielded to what it says are old local demands for sharia law in the hope of achieving two aims: isolating the militants and restoring peace.
The controversial and highly risky move is likely to invite anger from Washington, a key ally and the source of billions in aid. Hours earlier, a US-operated drone fired four missiles at a suspected militant hideout in the tribal areas along the Afghan border, killing 31 in the third such strike since President Barack Obama was sworn in.
In India, Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, did not directly criticise the sharia move, but merely said the unrest in Swat was a reminder that the United States, Pakistan and India face an "an enemy which poses direct threats to our leadership, our capitals and our people". The Pakistani army and its American sponsors have been fiercely critical of the last peace deal in Swat that failed within two months and allowed militants to regroup and seize more than four-fifths of the once-favoured holiday destination in a brutal campaign of beheadings, kidnappings, and burning schools.
Amir Haider Khan Hoti, the chief minister of the North West Frontier Province, said sharia law would be introduced throughout the Malakand division, which includes the Swat Valley, but only when the valley is peaceful. The Taliban has tentatively welcomed the decision, announcing a 10-day ceasefire on Sunday.
There was jubilation in Swat and nearby areas. Local television showed people cheering in the streets, filled with hope that a conflict that has cost 1,500 lives and left more than 100,000 people homeless was coming to an end. Under the agreement, "all non-sharia laws" have been abrogated in Malakand. The security forces "will only act if fired upon by militants". And if the "writ of the state is restored", the army's 12,000 troops will withdraw from the valley.
The signatories of the agreement are the provincial government headed by the Awami National Party, a Gandhi-inspired secular Pashtun nationalist group, and Sufi Mohammed, a militant leader who is said to have renounced violence and agreed to wrest control of Swat from his estranged son-in-law and rival, Mr Fazlullah.
Analysts are sceptical. "It is an attempt on the part of the government to win over a section of religious extremists," said Hasan Askari-Rizvi, a military analyst. "The idea is that if they are pulled out of the struggle, they will co-operate with the government and help isolate the militants. It may have been a good idea if the Taliban were on the run, but they're well entrenched."
It is also unclear what Sufi Mohammed's precise role will be. The militant leader emerged as a force in the mid-1990s, when his loyalists seized control of government buildings before the government of then prime minister Benazir Bhutto tamed the revolt and signed a truce. In 2001, Sufi Moham-med led thousands of young men to Afghanistan to fight western forces. On their return, he was arrested and imprisoned. His release last year was contingent on his disavowal of militancy and agreement to co-operate with the government.
Government officials say the new legal code means the ban on women's education would be lifted and measures would be less austere than those in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Supporters say it would deliver swift justice to the people of Swat, a rallying cry that the Taliban used to gather support for their campaign, winning over people disgruntled by what they see as Pakistan's venal police and court system.
Critics say it is a capitulation that endangers the rule of law and women's rights. "We condemn it," said Iqbal Haider, chairman of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission and a former law minister. "It is an illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory act to further promote religious fanaticism in Pakistan. The constitution does not allow a parallel legal system. And there is no guarantee of peace: the militants are not party to it."
Muslim Khan, Mr Fazlullah's spokesman, told a Pakistani news channel on Sunday that it remains his group's ambition to impose sharia law across the world.
In-laws at war: Power in Swat valley
First they were teacher and disciple. Then they became relatives. Now they are rivals. When Sufi Mohammed first tried to impose sharia law in Swat in the mid-1990s, a young Maulana Fazlullah hastened from his village to learn at his feet. The two remained close after that abortive campaign, and eventually Fazlullah married Sufi Mohammed's daughter, some say against the older man's wishes.
Fazlullah was among the several thousand young men of Swat whom Sufi Mohammed enlisted to fight in Afghanistan against Western forces in late 2001. When they returned to Pakistan, the pair were arrested, and taken to separate prisons.
After Fazlullah's release, he operated a ferry across the Swat River, until his ambitions mushroomed. Seizing a pirate radio transmitter, the young cleric began emitting sulphurous sermons, and winning a following that fast outgrew that of his father-in-law.
Now free, and government-backed, Sufi Mohammed is ready to confront the son-in-law he has denounced for brutality. Some say he will persuade Fazlullah, others predict a fight.
By imposing sharia law, the government believes it has stolen a march on Fazlullah. Now, government officials claim, Sufi Mohammed can expose his deeds as a disservice to Islam and isolate him.
Some observers counsel caution. "Fazlullah is the younger generation; Sufi Mohammed is from the older," says Iqbal Khattak, Peshawar editor of the Daily Times. "Fazlullah is better trained and more fierce. His militants will be in a better position to dictate terms."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
"Muslim Khan, Mr Fazlullah's spokesman, told a Pakistani news channel on Sunday that it remains his group's ambition to impose sharia law across the world."
The danger continues to grow, and giving in to these militants will not appease them, rather it will encourage them to expand their activities further into Pakistan and beyond.
In the UK we simply must take every measure to root out this madness. Political correctness and insipid liberalism must be replaced by a willingness to confront and effectively deal with purveyors of hate messages. The rule of law (British law) must be maintained and no attempt to replace it with Sharia, in full or in part, anywhere in the UK must be stopped.
Islam sets itself no boundaries. Its mission is to bring every country, every nation into "submission", and to those who think this is not true might I suggest that they seriously research the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation, which began in the 7th century AD and which has continued in one form or another to this present day. The reports in our media are often sanitised versions of the reality, and Islamic apologists are masters at portraying themselves as victims. Are we not all sick and tired of hearing the threats of violence coming from Muslims whenever they perceive some sort of insult has been aimed at their religion, yet they are allowed to vilify Christians and followers of other religions with hardly a voice being raised in protest.
Our response should be firm and unequivocal. If you wish to live in this country then you must abide by its laws, and not attempt in any way to subvert those laws or replace them with something else, even at a local level. If you wish to live under Sharia law then go to places such as the Swat valley or Saudi Arabia. This is not the place for you.
It is true that Shria was the law in Swat which was under hereditary princely rule till its absorption in Pakistan.It is also true that a Shria law was first enacted when Benazir Bhutto was the prime minister of Pakistan but never implemented.However,it is also a reality that the people of Swat returned mot of the candidates nominated by the secular Awami National Party and none under the slogan of Sharia.
The reign of terror let loose on the peaceful but absolutely helpless and terrified people of Swat is a testimony to the political bankruptcy of Pakistani rulers and a result of self defeating strategy dictated by America.In the kind of assymetric war now being waged in the North West of Pakistan even the USA and Pakistan treat the Geneva Conventions with contempt.The illetrate jihadists intoxicated by the power of their successes could not care less.If they are hit at one place they hit back at another, of their own choosing.It is tragic that decent people are rejoicing over the deal worked out by their incompetent government with the jihadists.They see the threat of death and desruction removed,at least for now.
But perhaps this is the best the government could have done.They were not able to prevent the reign of terror which was destroying all signs of a civilized society.Not only that they were unable to defeat the terrorists in half hearted military action,they lost most of the beautiful valley to the terrorists.
THe people of Swat deserve security of life and property as people anywhere else do.Let us hope against hope that peace will prevail again,normal economic activities revived and,in course of time,even terrorists of today will rejoin peaceful society.
Such severe laws only tend to dehumanize & demoralize instead of uplifting & encouraging respect between the sexes. It is a bondage of the worst kind .In effect it is akin to slavery of both the mind & body & the free world must raise their voices to stop this form of imprisonment.
What say you ?
Respectfully---Jerald.
Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
This situation is very much like trying to treat cancer while you are having cancer implanted into your body.
In the west, how would people react if Islamics arrived and demanded that we reverse all the progress in womens rights of the last 100 years? We would be outraged. Its what has happened in NWFP.
Anyway this is not the Taliban. This is just the voice of the people finally being heard and in such a society Sharia law makes good sense. Well done George; your War on Terror is paying off!
In 1998 the Turkish Constitutional Court banned and dissolved Turkey's Refah Party on the grounds that the "rules of sharia", which Refah sought to introduce, "were incompatible with the democratic regime," stating that "Democracy is the antithesis of sharia." On appeal by Refah the European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" Refah's sharia based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy". Qadi ?Iyad ibn Musa al-Yahsubi argues that Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of Muhammad and that such criticism is considered blasphemy against Muhammad. He writes:
"The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The Judgment of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgment against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe ? the death penalty."
In Egypt, public authorities annulled, without his consent, the marriage of Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd when he got in conflict with an orthodox Islamic cleric from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo.[clarification needed] The cleric had condemned Abu Zayd's reading of the Qur'an as being against the orthodox interpretation and labeled him an apostate (seen as a non-believer and consequently not permitted to marry or stay married to a Muslim woman). Abu Zayd fled to the Netherlands, where he is now a professor at the University of Leiden
In practice Sharia law has sometimes resulted in women living in fear or disadvantage. In instances of rape some authorities of Sharia law require for an allegation to be validated, victims must have four Muslim-Male witnesses to the crime or else the victims risk being charged with fornication or adultery. In Yemen Sharia law required compensation to be paid to the husband in the case of a 10 year old child bride who requested a divorce after rape and abuse (the minimum age of marriage under Sharia law is sexual maturation).
You may have Sharia--but you will never be free.
Your comments in respect of the barbaric treatment of women as a result of Sharia was sadly spot on.
Why do these men hate women so much? Is it because they are jealous of women's reproductive role and its importance. Women are necessary for the survival of the species, one or two men would be enough to keep the population going, so these men elevate their importance to the point where women are massacred because they are 'inferior'. Baby girls are unwanted and often destroyed; baby boys are given better nourishment, healthcare and education, merely because they are male and more 'important' whereas in truth, biologically, it is women who are absolutely necessary to our survival.
All this horror is sanctioned by males through male written 'religions' to reinforce their jealousies and inadeqacies. They get away with treating women like garbage due to physical strength. They state that this superior strength means they have a 'degree of advantage' over women and base their ludicrous laws regarding beating women and honour killings on this. It doesn't enter their heads that a gorilla is phsysically stronger than a man but this does not make the beast superior. Surely we judge superiority on many things including morality and intelligence, in this men and women are equals, we are all individuals. My husband has more in common with any woman in this country than he has with a religious fanatic.
Thank God for men like yourself who sees it as it is and says so.
The infamous fatwas of the ayatollahs (archbishops) were adopted from the Christian churches bishops after the 6th century when the warrior-bishops (among the most blood-thirsty butchers in history) rampaged against the Arians, Manicheans, Sabellians, and other far more true to the original church [the Trinity was an invention of the later Christian church, having its roots in ancient Egypt--a nation that first used the term Mother of God to refer to Isis] that rejected the Gospels and most of the Epistles (especially by the various writers who used the common name of Paul in their misogynistic compositions) which led the pagan Emperor Constantine to call for a council of the warrior-bishops to meet at Nicea and settle their dispute (most did so by plunging a daggar in a fellow-bishop's heart). The emperor demanded that the church pose a united front and banned all "pagan" religions--especially those who worshipped females or any number of "crucified" saviours as none would agree to being a part of his state institution.
Muslims today are so threatened by women that they require them to wear full body clothing (burka) and to walk behind men (they are referred to as "lesser beings" because of their male counterparts insistent that only a man has a right to stand before the old tribal god of camel riders: Allah--only one of many gods of the past--much as Yahweh was an angricultural god from India that the Habiru (Hebrews) carried in their baggage when they invaded and sacked Canaan and forcibly married Yahweh to Asherah so that they could steal Philistine (Palestinian) lands as when the mass murderer Joshua crept like a common thief into Jericho with the whore Rehab.
Islam would cease to exist if women threw off their veils and confronted men on equal terms. The tragedy is that Islamic women are forbidden education and the right to think for themselves.