Pakistan court orders ruling on Muslim NGO Jamaat-ud-Dawa's illegal shariah courts

[Dubious]

LAHORE, PAKISTAN | BY MEHREEN ZAHRA-MALIK AND MUBASHER BUKHARI

A Pakistani judge directed Punjab province on Wednesday to decide a complaint against an Islamic charity that has been accused of running unauthorised sharia courts in the eastern city of Lahore.

The charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) is listed as a "foreign terrorist organisation" by the United States. Western officials regard it as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the militant group behind an attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people in 2008.

Pakistani real estate agent Khalid Saeed filed the complaint against JuD, saying it had summoned him in January to appear at one of its courts to resolve a property dispute.

Court documents show the group is accused of holding parallel sharia courts where Islamic law experts decide family, civil and criminal law cases without official supervision.

It is based in Lahore, the capital of Punjab, the country's richest province and power base of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

The Lahore High Court directed the Punjab interior ministry to decide the matter "in accordance with the law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned."

Saeed told Reuters the JuD letter warned him that if he failed to attend, "no excuse would be accepted and action will be taken according to sharia".

JuD officials deny having links to LeT or running a parallel court system. Instead, they said it holds "arbitration councils" chaired by religious scholars who mediate disputes and provide guidance in light of Islamic teachings.



FRUSTRATION WITH FORMAL JUSTICE

JuD operates openly in Pakistan and its leader Hafiz Saeed, who also founded LeT, holds public rallies and gives interviews despite a $10 million bounty placed on him by the United States.

JuD officials said last year the group had 30,000 volunteers and hundreds of workers across Pakistan.

JuD representatives said Saeed's summons was forged and the group did not issue threats or summonses.

"If we had been summoning people or coercing them to attend the council or abide by the council's decisions, then there would be thousands of complaints against us," JuD representative Nadeem Awan said. "Yet, all you have is this one complaint."

Pakistan has a Federal Shariat Court separate from the civil courts and has the power to examine if laws comply with Islam.

Many Pakistanis are frustrated with the formal judicial system, regarding it as flawed and slow, and instead look for justice from village councils or unauthorised sharia courts for a quick decision on a dispute.

Inside the JuD headquarters in Lahore, a large banner announcing the group's "Mediatory Sharia Court" was set up in 1992. The group said it has as decided "thousands of family, civil and murder disputes according to Islamic law" since its inception

The banner was taken down on Monday.



(Writing by Kay Johnson; Editing by Tom Heneghan)


http://in.reuters.com/article/pakistan-charity-jamaat-ud-dawa-idINKCN0XO17Z


If the country's justice system is fixed none of this BS would EVER be supported!

 

[somebozo]

Time for this nonsense to go out of society and whole sale neutralization of mullahs..firing squad and some trenches in dessert will be good.

 

[That Guy]

What did I say? This so called "court" is not going to last, as the judiciary is fiercely independent.

 

[Norwegian]

All Muslim sects have their own sharia courts in one form or another. It's normal in a society where the idea of justice is based on religion and not common sense

 

[Apprentice]

What did I say? This so called "court" is not going to last, as the judiciary is fiercely independent.

Then fix up the normal, slow, lazy and inefficient courts.

 

[Musafir117]

Then fix up the normal, slow, lazy and inefficient courts.

That's need to be fix but it's not mean every molvi of street open his own THOUGHTS of courts and threaten people to appear there.

 

[That Guy]

Then fix up the normal, slow, lazy and inefficient courts.

You don't replace a dentist with a construction worker with a jackhammer. And solutions don't take a second to implement.

 

[Salik]

What did I say? This so called "court" is not going to last, as the judiciary is fiercely independent.

Nevertheless idea was not bad. I mean we can register as many lower courts to share burden of judiciary. Like we have private clinics alongwith govt hospitals. All we need is RMP (Registered Medical Practitioner). Same registered legal practitioner. What you spend in ten years on a case you'll spend half of it in few months and meet the result.

Every year thousands of law graduates come in the field, there'll be good compition as well. As i used the word lower courts, there will always be option to appeal in higher courts.

 

[Nefarious]

Good move but the normal courts in Pakistan need sorting out, they're annoying, useless, inefficient and full of corrupt idiots who won't do anything unless you grease their palms and take someone with you with clout. Good luck finding someone sitting at their desk and actually doing some work. I hope I never have to visit one ever again.

 

[That Guy]

Nevertheless idea was not bad. I mean we can register as many lower courts to share burden of judiciary. Like we have private clinics alongwith govt hospitals. All we need is RMP (Registered Medical Practitioner). Same registered legal practitioner. What you spend in ten years on a case you'll spend half of it in few months and meet the result.

Every year thousands of law graduates come in the field, there'll be good compition as well. As i used the word lower courts, there will always be option to appeal in higher courts.

Except it's actually a terrible idea, and prone to corruption. The idea of privatizing is to maximize profit, the idea of the judiciary is to maximize justice; the two are mutually exclusive.

Besides, these so called "courts" are a farce. They don't take evidence into account, and only appeal to emotion. They're against the law and the constitution.

 

[Spring Onion]

who gave right to JuD to run illegal private courts? NS need to be banned from politics if he can't run the country despite being elected thousand times as PM

 

[Salik]

Except it's actually a terrible idea, and prone to corruption. The idea of privatizing is to maximize profit, the idea of the judiciary is to maximize justice; the two are mutually exclusive.

Besides, these so called "courts" are a farce. They don't take evidence into account, and only appeal to emotion. They're against the law and the constitution.

As if there is no corruption in govt departments. You have to lubricate hands to make a file slip through. In private registered courts you will spend eventually the same amount and solve the case swiftly. They'll be law graduates and decide case after both sides hearing. One wrong decision and your registration is cancelled. So there'll be adequate checks and balances.

If you ever saw payment of utility bills was very hard of a job. But now you can pay the bills at any retail outlet of companies very easily and conveniently.

There are several examples where private public partnership has produced good results.

 

[That Guy]

As if there is no corruption in govt departments. You have to lubricate hands to make a file slip through. In private registered courts you will spend eventually the same amount and solve the case swiftly. They'll be law graduates and decide case after both sides hearing. One wrong decision and your registration is cancelled. So there'll be adequate checks and balances.

Except, that's not how it would pan out. Private judiciaries would probably be paid per convictions, as such the more convictions, the higher the pay; so you can kick "innocent until proven guilty" right out of the door.

Your argument is nothing more than strawman. Of course there is corruption in government and the judiciary, but privatizing it may actually spread that corruption, not decrease it.

There is also no evidence to suggest that private courts would be faster at passing judgement, unless they're ignoring key rule and regulations. These courts would literally have to skip a lot of steps, in order to have a much faster decision rate, which means that safe guards put in place would be completely worthless and ignored.

Swift decisions don't mean correct decisions.

If you ever saw payment of utility bills was very hard of a job. But now you can pay the bills at any retail outlet of companies very easily and conveniently.

False equivalence. Comparing the two is like saying 'A doctor is the same thing as a mechanic'. By your logic, we should privatize everything. Police work? Sure. Military? I'm sure mercenaries would never break the rules of war.

Privatization doesn't always have the affects that proponents keep claiming.

There are several examples where private public partnership has produced good results.

Except for in the judicial system.

 

[Salik]

Except, that's not how it would pan out. Private judiciaries would probably be paid per convictions, as such the more convictions, the higher the pay; so you can kick "innocent until proven guilty" right out of the door.

Your argument is nothing more than strawman. Of course there is corruption in government and the judiciary, but privatizing it may actually spread that corruption, not decrease it.

There is also no evidence to suggest that private courts would be faster at passing judgement, unless they're ignoring key rule and regulations. These courts would literally have to skip a lot of steps, in order to have a much faster decision rate, which means that safe guards put in place would be completely worthless and ignored.

Swift decisions don't mean correct decisions.


False equivalence. Comparing the two is like saying 'A doctor is the same thing as a mechanic'. By your logic, we should privatize everything. Police work? Sure. Military? I'm sure mercenaries would never break the rules of war.

Privatization doesn't always have the affects that proponents keep claiming.


Except for in the judicial system.

Ok, i don't want to talk anymore. What is more important than human life but you allow doctors to do medical pratice. Doctors could delay the treatment to earn more and more but we know they don't do that.

Why and how would a private registered judge skip a procedure when lawers of concerned parties are monitoring and leading the case. Its simpler than you are trying to perceive sir.

 

[That Guy]

Ok, i don't want to talk anymore. What is more important than human life but you allow doctors to do medical pratice. Doctors could delay the treatment to earn more and more but we know they don't do that.

Because that's not how this works. You're comparing apples to chairs, the two aren't the same.

Why and how would a private registered judge skip a procedure when lawers of concerned parties are monitoring and leading the case. Its simpler than you are trying to perceive sir.

If that's your argument, why even have private courts? Why not just increase the number of courts in the current system?

Your argument is flawed.