What's new

Pakistan's Political Will "wavering" In Pakistan

6. That dialogue must now be the highest priority, as a principal instrument of conflict management and resolution. Dialogue will be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the Constitution of Pakistan and rule of law.

What about those elements who are "not" willing to abide by the Constitution of Pakistan like TTP?

11. That the state shall establish its writ in the troubled zones, and confidence building mechanisms by using customary and local communities (jirga) and that the military will be replaced as early as possible by civilian law enforcement agencies with enhanced capacity and a sustainable political system achieved through a consultative process.

Civilian law enforcement agencies were there before operation was started. This Parliament should answer how effective they were, are and will be ?
 
Last edited:
I think it is totally drama by parliment.This rubber stamp parliment can not take its own decision against their god father america will

Definitly america has instructed them to stop action in NWFP,because america wants to resolve this issue through talks and they want to include talaban in power sharing in afghanistan.

But talaban definatly ask for implementation of shariat law .

Now where is rit of government ????

Shame on Pakistan government.If they agreed earlier to establish shariat law , thausand of precious lifes can be saved.
 
We should not establish shariat law because guys with guns say so, if we do then we should do it for the right reasons; that is if people demand it and that too through the proper channels. And certainly NOT by blowing up police stations and girls schools and hanging the be-headed bodies of para-military soldiers on top of poles...will you be getting Sharia Law. Tell them as long as there is terrorism, there will be no Sharia otherwise it will send the wrong message to the militants and the people...that reckless hate and violence works or is in anyway part of Islamic traditions.
 
Agreed that Sariah law sould be forced through peoples will.

May be you know, previous NWFP assembly passed sharia law in assembly and submitted in superiem court but superieme court rejected the case.

Justice delayed is justice denied.
 
Agreed that Sariah law sould be forced through peoples will.

May be you know, previous NWFP assembly passed sharia law in assembly and submitted in superiem court but superieme court rejected the case.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

The supreme court struck down the bill because of clauses in it that were unconstitutional. Remember that one Mullah's version of Shariah is not the same as another. You cannot just pick and choose what decisions of the Supreme Court should be implemented, and if I remember correctly, this was the Justice Iftikhar Supreme Court, who is being lionized as an 'independent and honest CJ'.

Quite frankly, unless a party can get a majority in the National Assembly, there will not be any major changes such as "Shariah", and that is the way it should be. The entire nation should follow one system, though exceptions can be made for the Tribal areas in the short to medium term because of their special status in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
6. That dialogue must now be the highest priority, as a principal instrument of conflict management and resolution. Dialogue will be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the Constitution of Pakistan and rule of law.

I don't think the TTP will fit the bill unless it disarms/disavows violence. Even with the semi-autonomous status of FATA, the FCR applies there. This means the 'constitutional' authority lies with the Tribal Maliks and Political agents (both have been targeted by the Taliban), whose authority shall have to be recognized by the Taliban factions in order for the condition of 'abiding by the constitution' to be met.

So this is indeed good language in the resolution.
11. That the state shall establish its writ in the troubled zones, and confidence building mechanisms by using customary and local communities (jirga) and that the military will be replaced as early as possible by civilian law enforcement agencies with enhanced capacity and a sustainable political system achieved through a consultative process.

I can see some confusion arising out of this, with pro-Taliban parties claiming that the second underlined portion (withdrawal of the military) is the most important one, and highlighting that in their opposition to the Governments use of the military to quell the insurgency.

The Government would argue that the withdrawal of the military is conditional to both 'establishing its writ' (first underlined part) and civilian LEA's achieving 'enhanced capacity' as well as implementing a 'sustainable political system'. (third underlined section).

My own opinion is that the withdrawal is clearly linked to the conditions mentioned, though it will be interesting to hear what the various political parties have to say in the coming days.
 
Last edited:
I think even if sharia supporters gain a majority in parliament, its implementation should never be allowed. It would be folly and a mistake to impose sharia on a country like Pakistan. And I am saying this as a self-professes fundamentalist.

Unless a population in a country whole heartidly accepts an ideological, political, judicial shift in the direction of sharia, its implementation can never be successful. Sharia is not just a judicial system, it is about the attitudes of the people who it is supposed to govern.

And a country like Pakistan can never accept it, as to accept something you must have knowledge of it. Pakistanis do not know the first thing about sharia, except that is supposed to be the islamic way of governing, and that it has certain proscribed punishments. The essence and spirit of the sharia, people are unaware of.

If teh sharia was imposed in Pakistan, you would see a rebellion among the people, and may in fact be detrimental to islamic values. It can only be implemented if there is a natural societal and cultural shift, which doesn not look like its going to happen any time soon.
 
I believe once the conflict in FATA, PATA, subsides, there should be a complete overhaul of the political structures there. First would be to disentangle ourselves from the colonial vestements bequeathed to us. The system of rule by proxy, political agents and tribal elders(many of whom are dead, and their role defunct) should stop.

These areas should be incorporated into NWFP, and the same system of district, tehsil level governance should be applied, with seats in the PA and NA.

It's about tiem we ended this farce of tribal lands ruled by tribal customs. There should be assimilation with the body politik.
 
Dark Star,

While I agree with you on not implementing Shariah (how ironic, a self professed 'fundamentalist, though I would never have guessed it, and agnostic liberal agree!), I do think that the the lack of education about what Shariah entails may possibly result in a backlash along the lines of Algeria, if a pro-Shariah government obtains a large enough majority in parliament to pass such a constitutional change.

We just have way too many people who are in poverty and susceptible to Mullah brainwashing, and institutions that are too weak and ineffective to keep a lid on simple crime, let alone a potential terrorist threat and nationwide insurgency in the aftermath of such a move.

Here is to hoping that Pakistanis continue to reject the extreme right at the ballot box.
 
I think most Islamic politicians in Pakisan have long given up the dream/hope of winning an election outright. Jamate islami, arguably the most organised political party in Pakistan, also seems to have given up on this cherished goal.

I do not think there will be a violent backlash along the lines of the one seen in Algeria (unless such violence is sponsored from someone outside), but I think there will be a social blacklash, and resentment.

At the moment the Mullah's have the advantage of not having been tried at the National governance level, and it seems to me that as long as they do not have that experience, they will still has some credibility left.

If they do gain power, I think that will be the last "mental" citadel to fall, and people will realise that Mullahs are not especially gifted or skilled to govern at all. Then their remaining "izzat", such as they still have left, will be eroded.

It would be a shot in the foot for the Mullahs to govern Pakistan, as they will be found out, so to speak.

As for sharia, I think there has been too much emphasis in the past century upon coercion (Iran, Saudi, Taliban), wheras the real power of the sharia, IMO, is suggestive. Social change and engineering cannever be enforced. It is an evolutary process, not one of coercion.
 
Last edited:
Those were a couple of powerful and eloquently expressed posts. I'm appreciative of the thought, sir, behind them.

Well said.
 
The political crisis we are going through I know we can make it out of it. This belief of mine is like my belief in God. If we look back at history, we have in my opinion weather even more dangerous storms. But each time we had unchallenged and professional leadership, which we lack this time, but we will make it. May Allah guide our politicians.
 
Nation united against terrorism: parliament
* Dialogue will be primary instrument of conflict resolution
* Redistribution of resources to resolve Balochistan violence
* Civil agencies will replace military in troubled areas
* Compensation for violence victims, rehabilitation for the displaced

By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal

ISLAMABAD: In a historic resolution on Wednesday, the parliament said the Pakistani nation was united against terrorism and sectarian violence and would tackle the problem by addressing its root causes.

The 14-point resolution, drafted after two days of rigorous negotiations, was passed unanimously. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani moved the resolution, which he said would serve as policy guideline to the government in framing a national security strategy.

“Extremism, militancy and terrorism in all forms and manifestations pose a grave danger to the stability and integrity of the country,” the resolution said. “Dictatorial regimes in the past pursued policies aimed at perpetuating their own power at the cost of national interest. “We need an urgent review of our national security strategy and revisiting the methodology of combating terrorism in order to restore peace and stability to Pakistan and the region through an independent foreign policy.”

Dialogue: The parliament decided that “dialogue must now be the highest priority, as a principal instrument of conflict management and resolution”, but also said talks would only “be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the constitution of Pakistan and rule of law”.

The legislators decided that all foreign fighters, “if found, shall be expelled from Pakistan’s soil”.

The parliament vowed that Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be safeguarded. “The nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively,” the resolution said, but added: “Pakistan’s territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries.”

They also decided that “the development of troubled zones, particularly the Tribal Areas, and the NWFP must also be pursued through all possible ways and legitimate means to create genuine stakeholders in peace. New economic opportunities shall be created in order to bring the less privileged areas at par with the rest of Pakistan”.

Balochistan: On the problem in Balochistan, the resolution called for “a political dialogue with the people, addressing of their grievances and redistribution of resources shall be enhanced and accelerated”.

It said the federation must be strengthened “through the process of democratic pluralism, social justice, religious values and tolerance, and equitable resource sharing between the provinces as enshrined in the Constitution of 1973”.

Military: The state must ensure rule of law, the unanimous resolution said, and “when it has to intervene to protect the lives of its citizens, caution must be exercised to avoid casualties of non-combatants in conflict zones”. The legislators demanded that military be replaced with civilian law enforcement agencies in the conflict zones as early as possible, “with enhanced capacity and a sustainable political system achieved through a consultative process”.

The state must establish its writ, they demanded, but through “confidence building mechanisms by using customary and local [jirgas]”. Pakistan’s strategic interests must be protected “by developing stakes in regional peace and trade, both on the western and eastern borders”.

Compensation and rehabilitation: The parliament decided that the “mechanisms for internal security be institutionalised by paying compensation to victims of violence; and rehabilitate those displaced”.

The parliament also decided to form a committee to periodically review “the implementation of the principles framed and roadmap given in the resolution”. The committee will frame its own rules when it meets.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
If they do gain power, I think that will be the last "mental" citadel to fall, and people will realise that Mullahs are not especially gifted or skilled to govern at all. Then their remaining "izzat", such as they still have left, will be eroded.

Just so that you know my friend, that the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt (it can be argued that our JI is a simple inspiration of the original Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt) is mature enough to accept that Sharia is NOT compatible with Egyptian society in the foreseeable future. That there is a lot of ground work to be done, if ever Sharia is to be considered for the Egyptian nation.

This in contrast to our bloody friends in the JI would think they will implement Sharia 100% in this nation of 170 million as soon as they get in power and everyone will immediately have 100% contentment. Reality actually points to the contrary, these guys ruled NWFP and Balochistan, and the whole region is up in flames. These guys don’t have balls enough to take the responsibility even for encouraging militant takeover but instead everything is the Army’s fault. JI was most happy in times of Zia-ul-Haq, they made many of his ‘religious laws’ for him, now they sit and curse him like everyone else like they were not 100% involved in the Afghan Jihad.

These guys will never come to power, because they just dont have the votes or the appeal. JI is well organized and is always at the epicenter of all revolution, but thats it. If they rely on Anti-Americanism alone to get popularity, they will lose.
 
The supreme court struck down the bill because of clauses in it that were unconstitutional. Remember that one Mullah's version of Shariah is not the same as another. You cannot just pick and choose what decisions of the Supreme Court should be implemented, and if I remember correctly, this was the Justice Iftikhar Supreme Court, who is being lionized as an 'independent and honest CJ'.

Quite frankly, unless a party can get a majority in the National Assembly, there will not be any major changes such as "Shariah", and that is the way it should be. The entire nation should follow one system, though exceptions can be made for the Tribal areas in the short to medium term because of their special status in the constitution.

Sharia law can be implement in any country.It has flexibility that law can be implemented for sector of society .

There is will there is way

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Dr Williams says Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes


Dr Williams interview
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

'Sensational reporting'

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.

At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger

Dr Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury


Religious courts in the UK

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

'Other loyalties'

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."


HAVE YOUR SAY
There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights
Patricia London, UK
Send us your comments
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.

"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.

"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

'Custom and community'

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Dr Williams's comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".




See the
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom