|
|
Islamic Law and India
by Anwar Shaikh |
INTRODUCTION
| We have been hearing for centuries that
Islam is Allah's code of law, which is the panacea for all social ills
Though no Islamic country ever practiced a legal system which could be
labeled as the Islamic Law, the Muslims of India became so enamored of
this belief that they partitioned their own country to create Pakistan
where they could enforce the Islamic Law and live happily thereafter.
The Pakistanis have been trying this recipe for
the last fifty years but it has not yielded the magical cure: instead it
has produced conditions which are no less horrible than what happened in
the battlefield of Karbala. Perhaps, the more uncanny part of the tragedy
is that, so far, they have not been able to enforce what may be termed as
the Islamic Law. Why? This is a big enigma which only a scholar of Anwar
Shaikh's stature could solve.
His article: "Islamic Law and Indian in the
July edition of the quarterly magazine: "Liberty" is truly an
eye-opener. No wonder, he is considered an Original Thinker. Had someone
come to this conclusion fifty years earlier, India might not have suffered
the fate she did to facilitate introduction of the "Islamic Law"
in Pakistan.
As fervor for the "Islamic Law" is
threatening to cause social upheaval in Bharat, Anwar Shaikh's article has
a special relevance to the current situation. Those who truncated India to
enjoy the blessings of the "Islamic Law"', are once again
marching on the same path of national suicide by obstructing the move
towards a common civil code for the whole country.
Anwar Shaikh's article: Islamic Law and
India" is being presented by us as "Is Islamic Law, A Fact or
Fiction" to all the Indian communities irrespective of their religion
and social philosophies. The purpose is not to offend anyone but start a
national debate for the good of the country. The author will be pleased to
answer all genuine inquiries.
Who is Anwar Shaikh ? He is a scion of the
Kashmiry pundits. Some two hundred years ago, his ancestor embraced Islam
and became a fervent preacher of this religion. Anwar Shaikh was born in
1928 in a village near the City of Gujrat (now in Pakistan). He was raised
to be a scholar of Islam. As a result, he took an enthusiastic part in the
formation of Pakistan. Having realized the effect of Islam on the non-Arab
Muslims, especially those of the Indian origin, he experienced a change of
heart and mind. He is acknowledged an original thinker, philosopher and
theologian. Besides, his essays on economics, taxation, history, law,
psychology and literature are read with profound respect. He is also a
well-;known poet of the Urdu language. |
ISLAMIC LAW and INDIA
One of mans greatest desires is to avoid
molestation by others. From this fact arose the maxim "Do not do to others
what you do not want to be done to yourself
It is usually true that if you do not wrong others,
they will not injure you, but there is no guarantee for its happening because
some people will be hurtful to you, no matter, how helpful you may have been to
them. Therefore, protection of life, property and happiness cannot be left to
morality as the sole regulator of our conduct. We need the discipline of law to
check our behavior.
What is law ?
In view of what I have lust said, I may add that the
law is a set of rules designed to promote right conduct through a system of
reward and punishment operated by the central authority usually called the
State,' which is fully responsible to protect its citizens by maintaining order
within its jurisdiction.
Here the word: bordered describes the true meaning of
law because the rules which fail to assure order become the source of anarchy,
highly injurious to public interest. Thus law is order, and order is law.
That law is order, and order is law, is the truth that
was first revealed by the Vedic seers. Through observations of the moon and
stars, changing seasons, phenomena of day and night, and above all, realization
of the fact that the universe is in motion all the time, they came to the
conclusion that the jagat is controlled
by the law which is eternal. They were convinced of
this truth so strongly that the Rigveda mentions it over one hundred and fifty
times without contradicting it anywhere. For example, the Rigveda states in book
one, hymn one, verse 8:
"Mitra and Varuna, through Law, lovers and
cherishers of Law Have ye obtained your mighty power."
God Mitra is believed to preside over day and God
Varuna over night. As life is usually measured in terms of day and night, a
close connection is believed to exist between these two gods, and therefore,
they are invoked together.
This Vedic verse clearly states:
a. The Law is binding on Gods,
b. Like Mitra and Varuna, they all not only obey the Law but do so very
willingly because they love and Cherish it, and
c. They obtain their mighty powers by obeying the cosmic law.
Again in Book IV, hymn XLII, verse: IV, it is stated that
this universe is the Seat of Order through operation of law and everything is
obeying it in its allotted sphere of function.
The 5th book, hymn one, verse seven, makes it clear
that the Law which creates the Cosmic Order is eternal: it has always existed
and it will always be there.
As it is the Rigveda, which pointed to the Cosmic Law
first, I feel aggrieved to note that all the ancient wisdom that the Vedic seers
discovered has been attributed to other nations. The discovery of the Natural
Law is credited to the Stoics of Greece who existed circa 300 BC whereas the
Rigveda was composed at least 3500 years BC if not earlier. This is the price of
political weakness, and the Hindus have still not stopped paying for it. Until
they learn to be strong, the erosion of their cultural greatness will not only
continue but is likely to accelerate its pace.
Why is the Hindu culture great ? Because it is
originally based on freedom of thought and scientific observations. Let me
explain it with reference to the modern discoveries which back the Vedic view of
the law:
To understand what I am about to say, it ought to be
understood that natural law is a determined quantity which produces definite
result. For example, two plus two equal four, and not three and three quarters.
Similarly, two minus two comes to zero. These are the exact results, making
exactitude the essence of the Natural Law, without which the Cosmic Order cannot
be maintained.
The state law known as the positive law (which is in
contrast with the law that ought to be) does not always work efficiently because
there are too many middlemen such as interpreters and enforcers. These people
lack the natural harmony to apply it with equal zeal. Thus the model for
positive law remains the *Natural Law, which is exact and strictly neutral in
accordance with the Vedic legal approach .
(* Cosmic Law is the supreme example of Natural Law.
which is believed to be the system or justice common to all mankind.)
I may describe a couple of scientific discoveries to
explain the point:
a. The universe is claimed to have been expanding for
the last fifteen billion years. The precision in the rate of expansion is
absolutely stunning. Scientists claim that one second after the Big Bang, if the
rate of expansion had varied by one part in a hundred thousand million, the
universe could not have evolved! This may be termed as the Law of evolution,
which means development.
b. Electric charges which are opposite to each other,
have got to be exactly equal in numbers. To realize the vastness of the opposite
charges in the universe, just take one gram of hydrogen, which contains about
600 billion trillion protons and exactly the same number of electrons. A proton
has a positive charge and an electron has a negative charge. If an ounce of
ordinary matter suffered as little as one percent difference in the numbers of
its positive and negative charges, the said ounce of matter would explode with a
force equal to the entire weight of the earth.
From the above discussion, the following emerge as the
salient features of law:
1. Socially, the law is the supreme force in every
land. Owing to the ever-changing needs of the country, it is made and enforced
by the state.
2. It applies to both low and high with equal
intensity. It must be neutral in make-up and application. The law must not
suffer from any kind of bias.
3. The purpose of the law is to regulate social
relationships between individuals and society through a system of reward and
punishment. Thus law is a binding force which seeks to create social order.
4. The social order is best preserved if the law is
uniform and the same rules apply to all citizens without any reference to color,
creed and religion. Thus, built-in differentiation in the making and application
of law defeats its purpose, that is, promotion of social order
5. Barring emergency, which is rare, law is a social
affair, that's, law concerns the entire society and cannot revolve around one
person.
When we apply these rules to what is called
"Islamic Law", it appears so primitive that it does not qualify as the
law at all. Let us take the issue of legal supremacy. While the Veda and all
advanced countries hold the law as the source of power and order, the Koran
contradicts it. For example, it states: "Allah is able to do anything He
likes." (The Cow: 106)
Again, it says: "Sovereignty belongs to
Allah." (The Family of Imran: 26)
This theme recurs throughout the Koran. As it
contradicts the Veda, which holds that the Law is eternal and even the gods obey
it, we are entitled to examine the Koranic claim to see if Allah can really make
or change the Natural Law which holds this cosmos together. Honesty demands that
I must not make up statements about Allah but quote from the Koran to establish
what Allah really is. Just ponder over the following verses to see what the
Koran says about Allah who claims to be the Creator and Master of the universe.
In verse 18 of Jonah, the Koran says that all praise is
due to Allah the Most High, and then in verse 21 adds:
1. "Allah is more swift in pretending than
humans."
2. In Repentance: 29, Allah resorts to swearing: The
unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell.
3. The hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is
Allah who beguiles them. (Women: 142)
4. The unbelievers schemed against Allah, and Allah
schemed against them; and Allah is the best schemer. (The Family of Imran: 54)
5. Allah seeks loan from the believers and promises
to return it ten-fold, or twice the amount borrowed. (The Cow: 245 - The Iron
11 )
6. On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. (The Cow:
161 )
7. Allah complains that most people do not thank Him.
(The Cow: 243 - The Heights: 165 - Jonah: 60)
8. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (The Cow: 98)
9. Allah mocks the unbelievers (The Cow: 15)
10. Allah is afraid of being reviled at. (The Cattle:
109) 11. The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not
believe. (Spoils of War: 55)
12. Allah swears by His name. (The Bee: 63)
13. Allah plots against unbelievers. (The Morning
Star: 15)
14. Allah takes revenge. (The Romans: 47)
15. Unbelievers are the enemies of Allah, and they
will roast in hell (Fusilat: 19)
16. In "Saba: 1", Allah claims that
everything in the universe belongs to Him, but in "Mohammed: 7," He
says:
"O ye who believe! if ye help Allah, He will
help you and make your foothold firm."
Making a Claim is one thing but proving it is quite
another. From the above Koranic quotations it IS quite clear that Allah lacks
consistency in Himself; neither He is All-powerful, nor are His laws impartial
to all human-beings. He is the champion of the Muslims and dreadful enemy of
those who do not believe in Him. In fact, He is a man pretending to be the
Almighty Creator and claiming to be the law-giver who is above law.
It is obvious who this man is. Therefore I need not go
into details here, and explain the Islamic Lawn with reference to the previously
mentioned rule: 5, which states that law concerns the entire society and cannot
revolve around one person.
When we apply this test to judge the validity of the
Islamic Law", it fails to qualify as law because it is founded on the
personal needs of Mohammed. Though stunning this claim may sound, false it is
not.
Why is Islamic Law personal to Mohammed ? it is because
the Koran lays it down for all times that Mohammed is the Behavioral Model for
the believers under all circumstances:
"You have a good example in God's Messenger for
whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day." (The Confederates: 20)
It means, those who hope for salvation and want to
enter paradise, must treat Mohammed as the Model of Action. This is the reason
that Muslims all over the world think it a duty to walk, talk, eat, drink and
even think like Mohammed. In fact, whatever Mohammed said and did, has become
the Islamic way of life, and ranks as the Islamic Law for his followers, and
those who do not accept it as such, are sure to rot in hell. Those who obey it,
not only get a preferential treatment in an Islamic state during their
life-time, but will have plenty of beautiful women and pretty boys in the next
world, which is a major defect and cannot be approved by the jurisprudential
rules.
Now, I may quote some examples to show why the
so-called Islamic Law revolves around the personal convenience of Mohammed, and
thus disqualifies itself as law:
1. ".....marry such women as seem good to you,
two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only
one..." (Women: 1 )
It means that the Koran allows a believer to have up to
four wives at the same time.
It is universally accepted that the laws of a law-giver
are binding on himself. and this is especially true about Mohammed, who claimed
to have been made the Model of Behavior by Allah. The hadith-books testify to
the fact that he had at least nine wives at the same time is it not a Violation
of the laws of God ? What is even mere surprising Is that Allah does not show
His disapproval of Mohammed's transgression of the Divine Law!
There is one further point which ought to he remembered
those Arabs who had more than four wives. were ordered by the Prophet to divorce
their extra wives for limiting the number to four. For example, Ghilan Bin Salam
had ten wives before embracing Islam. He had to divorce six wives and keep four.
(Ibn-e-Majah, vol. 1, Ch. 628 p. 545)
a. In the said verse, it is made abundantly clear that
a Muslim can have up to four wives at the same time provided he treats them all
equally; if he cannot, then he must have only one wife.
As it happened, the Prophet himself could not treat all
his wives equitably; it led to a terrible friction in his household. Allah
himself frightened them with double punishment if they did net stop aggravating
him, He even tried the remedy of increasing their reward if they surrendered to
him. yet they kept demanding their right of equity. For subduing them, the
Prophet even threatened to divorce them. Eventually, Allah gave the Prophet
dispensation from this law:
"You can suspend any of your wives as you will and
receive any one of them as you will and whomsoever you desire of those whom you
have set aside, it is no sin for you ......" (The Confederates: 50)
To observe the Law of Equity, the Prophet had fixed a
certain night for each of his wives to be with her on a rota system. This verse
gave hint dispensation from the Law of Equity stating that he could treat his
wives the way he thought fit!
Fancy God giving dispensation from His own laws to a
man who is the Behavioral Model! It is unthinkable, and it is especially so when
there is no good reason involved in it except the personal Convenience of
Mohammed.
2. Here is the decisive proof to show that the
so-called family laws were designed for the convenience of Mohammed. Allah, who
is supposed to be God of entire mankind, could not have ignored the needs of
them just to please Mohammed. Just look at the following: "And any woman
believer, if she gave herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet desires to take
her in marriage, for thee exclusively, apart from the believers." (The
Confederates: 45)
For understanding this verse, the reader ought to know
that it is addressed by Allah to the Prophet Mohammed. Allah makes it abundantly
clear that this particular law exclusively applies to Mohammed, and other
Muslims are not allowed its benefits. And the law as stated in this verse is,
that any believing woman can offer herself to Mohammed in marriage, and if he
desires, he can have her as a wife irrespective of the number of wives he
already has!
This type of law-making which is exclusive to one
person is not known in the civilized world. Of course, despots have been above
the laws but despotism is an antithesis of legality. Law is not law unless it
applies to all and sundry with equal force.
3. Here is another instance which shows the personal
nature of the Islamic Law:
According to the rota system that the Prophet had fixed
as a rule fog spending certain nights with his spouses, he should have been with
his wife called Hafza (the daughter of Umar), who to her utter amazement found
him in bed with Marya his beautiful Coptic concubine, who became the mother of
his son Ibrahim. Hafza was a hot-tempered woman. Seeing what was happening, she
shouted: "In my room, on my day and in my bed!"
This Incident seemed less than honorable to Hafza. The
Prophet realizing the delicacy of tile matter wanted her to keep quiet about the
matter. In an attempt to appease her he promised her never to visit Marya again.
This amounted to an oath which should have been kept by the Prophet. But what
happened is stunning. Allah sent down the following verse to absolve the Prophet
from his oath:
"O Prophet why forbiddest thou what God has made
lawful to thee seeking the good pleasure of thy wives...... God has Ordained for
you the absolution of your oath, God is your protector..." (The Forbidding:
1 )
Here is another case which is personal to Mohammed but
ranks as the family law to the entire Muslim world.
After defeating Banu Mustalique, as Mohammed resumed
the return journey, Aisha, his youngest wife lost the way while searching for
her necklace. A young soldier, Safwan b. Mu'Attal Sulami Zakwani recognized her
and gave her a lift back home. Though it was an innocent journey, the Prophet's
enemies created a nasty scandal out of it, subjecting him and Aisha to a great
deal of distress.
Though Aisha was faultless, Allah found it necessary to
devise an impossible law of evidence to protect the Prophet and punish the
accusers. See for yourself: "And these who cast it up on women in wedlock
and then bring not four witnesses, scourge them with eighty stripes and do not
accept any testimony of theirs ever.." (Light: 1-4)
This law pertains to fornication and rape. To prove
that such an act has taken place. the calumniator must produce four eye-
witnesses to this effect. If he does not, he is liable to receive eighty lashes.
In the case of Aisha, both Mistah (a relative of Abu Bakr) and Hamma (Zainab's
sister) suffered this punishment.
As a result of this law, a raped woman has to produce
tour eye- witnesses to the act. which is more or less an impossibility. Its
devastating effect can be clearly seen in Pakistan where several thousand good,
honest women are imprisoned for suffering rape. When they report their cases to
the police, they are required to produce four eye-witnesses. As they cannot do
so, they are held as false accusers, and put behind the bars.
5. I may also quote the case of Zainab and Zaid to show
that whatever is considered the "Islamic Law" is personal to
Muhammad's life and has been stretched around his followers as the family law of
Islam.
Zaid was the slave of Mohammed who adopted him as a son
publicly and declared that he should be called Zaid bin Mohammed i.e. Zaid son
of Mohammed. As he grew up the Prophet arranged his marriage with his own
cousin, Zainab.
The Koran says: "O believers, do not enter houses
other than your houses until you first ask leave and salute the people
thereof." (Light: 25)
One day the prophet entered their house uninvited. It
created a desire in his heart to have her. There is no room for details in this
article. Zaid, the adopted son of the Prophet divorced Zainab so that she could
marry him. To establish that there is no such thing as adopted children. Islam
does not admit the concept of adoption though it has been a legal doctrine of
the Civilized world since time immemorial .
This discussion of the "Islamic Law" though
short, is penetrating enough to fathom its reality and establish that what is
called Islamic Law cannot qualify as a legal code because it revolves around the
personality and Convenience of one person, namely, the Prophet Mohammed whereas
concept of law applies to a whole community and its basic tenets hold good
internationally.
There are yet another two reasons which disqualify the
"Islamic Law" as an acceptable code of practice:
l. Divine dominance at the expense of human dignity and
need.
2. Islamic contempt of human rights and gross hatred
of non- Muslims culminating in their total destruction.
Let us Consider point one first i.e. Divine dominance:
a. "Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens
and in the earth. He is the Mighty, the Wise." (The Romans: 26)
b. In the "Family of Imran" 26, the Koran
says: "Say: O Allah! Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto
whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. Thou
exaltest whom Thou wilt. and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt, in Thy hand is the
good. Lo! Thou art able to do all things."
The above two verses establish beyond a shadow of doubt
that:
As Allah is the true Ruler, He does not allow man to make
his own laws to become self-governing. We know that every Country has a
Legislative Assembly, which makes and unmakes the law. It is because life is
subject to change and varying conditions require adjustments to make living
easier and profitable. But Allah does not allow man to make his own law because
it erodes His Sovereignty!
Is it really the Will of Allah ? I doubt it because man
is equipped with the power of free will, which enables him to think and act as
he desires. After creating man as a lover of freedom. Allah Cannot deprive him
of the freedom to make law, which is the foundation of humanity. This is
especially true because Allah) hosts man responsible for his actions. The
Islamic concept of hell-and-heaven proves this fact.
It reminds me of the Jewish history. The Jews were very
badly treated in Egypt by the pharaohs. As they were brought out of Egypt by
Moses, he propounded a legal system founded on allegiance to Yahwe (God) who was
the real Sovereign. Since Jewish Law was proclaimed as of divine origin, and
hence most righteous man was required to obey it absolutely. This is exactly the
legal tradition which the Prophet Mohammed copied from the Israelite. This is
how he laid foundation of the Islamic theocracy which is fundamentally opposed
to democracy, requiring man to make his laws to govern himself instead of
hankering after the outdated laws which were cleverly declared as of Divine
origin centuries earlier. Thus the "Islamic Law" being theocratic in
nature does not suit the purpose of a democratic and progressive government.
Now, I may discuss the second reason i.e. Islamic
contempt for human rights and hatred for non-Muslims:
Man is born free trout Islam does not acknowledge the
human right to freedom. The Muslim jurists have laid it down that if a person
who was born as a Muslim gives up Islam, he must be executed. They hold this
opinion on the ground that the renegade (the person who gave up the faith) had a
covenant with Allah to follow His religion.
What a crazy argument it is! Nobody has any control
over his parentage. As a general rule, he adopts his parents' faith without ever
asking for it. He IS a Hindu, Muslim or Christian by the sheer accident of birth
and not as a covenant with God. If we accept this pretext then it follows that
only the Muslim babies had made such an agreement with Allah, and the
non-Muslims did not. The Allah who is so fussy about followers, must make
similar stipulations with other babies as well. why doesn't He ? Again, how can
Allah make such contracts with the people who are not even born as yet ?
It is just a ruse of the theocrats to fool people to
rule them by usurping their liberties. It amounts to gross contempt of human
rights. The God who does not allow man to choose his faith, is the worst type Of
dictator and dreadful enemy of mankind.
Even worse is the Islamic attitude towards the
non-Muslims. It is outrightly based on their hatred and destruction. This is
what makes the Islamic Law an anathema for a multi-cultural or multi- religious
society. I may quote some points to elucidate this point.
1. The Prophet Mohammed declared that, as Islam is the
religion for entire mankind, all other faiths including Judaism and Christianity
have been rescinded by God. This declaration has been made in chapter LXXI of
Sahih Muslim, and the hadith no. 285 asserts that any Jew or Christian who hears
of Mohammed but does not believe in him, shall become "one of the denizens
of hell- fire."
2. Though there are one or two verses in the Koran,
which forbid violence in religious matters, they are an exception, and
contradict the general principle of Islam which liberally sanctions bloodshed
and brutality for securing prevalence of the Islamic dogma. See for yourself:
a. Muslims are the best of all nations (House of Imran:
110). Thus they are superior people, entitled to dominate the rest of mankind.
b. This point is further explained by "Private
Apartments: 28", which states that the prophet Mohammed has been sent by
God with "The religion of truth that he may cause it to prevail over all
religions."
This is why Islam calls itself "Din-E-Ghalib",
the religion of dominance.
With this Islamic theory and purpose in mind, one
should read the following Koranic verses which perpetually set the Muslims
against the non-Muslims to make this world a living arena of hatred and war.
1. "O ye who believe! Murder those of the
disbelievers and let them find harshness in you." (Repentance: 123)
2. "Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent
that they surrender and pay tribute" (Repentance: 29)
3. "O believers, do not treat your fathers and
mothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief (i.e. non-Islam to
Islam); whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil- doers."
(Repentance: 20)
4. "Certainly, Allah is an enemy to the
unbelievers." The Cow: 90)
5. "God has cursed tile unbelievers and prepared
for them a blazing hell." (The Confederates: 60)
6. "O believers, do not make friends with the
Jews and Christians who so of you makes them his friend is one of them."
(The Table: 55)
7. "Muslims are hard against the unbelievers,
merciful to one another." (Victory: 25)
8. "The believers (Muslims) indeed are
brothers." (Apartments: 10)
Since it is one of the major duties of the state to create
harmony among its people, it cannot enforce laws which seek to create
detestation, disharmony and destruction.
One wonders if the people who believe in Islamic Law,
can ever form a part of the Indian society, or even wish it well. Among the
major functions of the state are:
a. Protection of the weak against the strong, and b.
Maximization of individual liberties.
a. This is especially true with reference to a
democratic state like India where an individual's will decides the form of
government, its policies and actions.
Even if one assumes that Islam is a code of practice,
being medieval in spirit, it has no relevance to the modern age where women have
attained social parity with men. Islam does not acknowledge this fact, and
treats woman as a slave who is required to follow man's will, and if she does
not, he is empowered to give her a jolly good hiding but must not break her
bones:
"And those (women) you fear may be rebellious
admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they obey you, look
not for any way against them " (Women: 35)
The Muslim men were pleased with this privilege and
they Certainly made a generous use of it. The hadith Ibn-E-Majah (vol. 2 p 553)
states that "as a result, seventy women during one evening gathered at the
residence of the Prophet to complain ruefully against their husbands, who they
thought, were not good people."
The Indian state by allowing Islamic Law will fail in
its duty to protect Muslim women from the tyrannical powers which Islam bestows
on their men as a religious right.
b. From feminine point of view, the Koranic command to
observe purdah (mask) is even more ruinous. It gives her the status of a
"bird-in-a-cage," depriving her of human status. This fact becomes
evident by looking upon any Muslim household in the Indian community. The draped
windows and door of a house tell the story of women incarcerated behind the
curtained walls.
The Koran treats woman as a born-prisoner. See for
yourself: "And say to the believing woman, that they cast down their eyes
and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is
outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their
adornment save to their husband" (Light: 30)
Again: "O Prophet. say to the wives and daughters
and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them." (The
Confederates: 434)
The Koran goes even further and stops women from
participating in public life altogether: "And stay in your houses."
(The Clan: 33)
This is the reason that the world of Islam has produced
no great woman over the last 1400 years. The rise of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan,
Khalida Zia in Bangladesh and Tansu Cillar in Turkey is therefore, a revolt
against Islam because it defies its fundamental principles. How can a secular
democracy allow the introduction of so-called Muslim family law ?
Never mind India, which to Muslims is the land of
Kafirs, the Islamic Law has failed to flourish even in countries traditionally
associated with Islam since its inception. Let me quote two countries - Syria
and Tunisia.
Regarding polygamy, the classical jurists believed that
if a Muslim husband had financial ability to provide for four wives
simultaneously, he could do so without requiring anybody's consent, they
stressed that it was a matter for the husband's conscience. And they were
certainly right. But the modern Syrian reformers realizing the evils of polygamy
concluded that it was not a matter for the husband's conscience but a positive
legal condition before one could register second marriage. The man must seek
permission of the court before he can indulge in such an action. It is certainly
violation of the law as stated in the Koran.
The Tunisian Law went even further. It held that in
addition to husbands financial ability to support a polygamous household, he
must also demonstrate that he was capable of fulfilling the Koranic command of
impartiality, which requires of him to be equitable to all his wives. It held
that such a state of affair could not be maintained under modern social and
economic conditions, polygamy was abolished legally. Yet the Muslims believe
that the Koranic laws are eternal !
Again, a Muslim husband is authorized by the Koran to
divorce his wife at will. The reason for repudiation can be very flimsy indeed.
For example. a hadith says that if a man does not like his daughter-in-law, and
tells his son to divorce her without giving a reason for it he must do so (Tirmzi
vol. 1, p 440).
Man's absolute discretion to divorce his wife is a
fundamental principle of the Islamic family law, yet we find that the Tunisian
law forbids man to exercise this right and declares: "divorce outside a
court of law is without legal effect."
I think that I have given sufficiently detailed
description of the Islamic Law to show that it lacks substantives and is like
fluid which assumes the shape of its container.
In India, the so-called Islamic Law is of much greater
concern to the Hindus than it is to the Muslims. It is because the Muslims have
demanded it owing to their belief in its righteousness but the Hindus are being
Victimized.
The two-nation theory which proved lethal to the unity
of India, is the product of the Muslim belief in the virtues of the Islamic Law.
As it can be seen from the above discussion, they are totally misguided in this
field yet their faith is kept alive in it by the most beguiling Muhammadan
promises of paradise, which abounds in free women, wine and boys. It is high
time that these people came down to earth Instead of alluring themselves with
the imaginary delights of heaven. They have only to look at Pakistan to realize
the truth. Members of every Civilized society have always treated the country of
their birth as the Motherland and proved their love and loyalty for her with
their sweat and blood. However, the Indian Muslims. are the only people who
suffer from the religious mania that goads them to treat India as Dar-ul-Harb
i.e. the battlefield, which is not a home but the place of mischief, mutiny and
mutilation.
To practice the so-called Islamic Law, the Muslims of
India brought this country to the brink of a civil war. The Hindus who had got
used to ahimsa, failed to defend the honor of their Motherland and agreed to its
partition. To an impartial assessor of history, their failure to resist the
Muslims, makes them every bit as guilty as it condemns those who broke up their
own Motherland to satisfy their religious dogmas. They wanted to create Pakistan
to live under the Islamic Law, which has no validity.
This statement is true because half a century has
passed but the Islamic Law has still not been enforced in Pakistan. If there was
such a thing as Islamic Law, it would have been introduced long ago. What has
been introduced as the Islamic Law is nothing more than a legal mirage because
it does not conform to the spirit of law for revolving around the person of
Mohammed. Take, for example, the Law of Blasphemy devised by Pakistan in 1986,
and amended in 1991. It says:
"Whosoever by words, either spoken or written or
by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation,
directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed,
shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine."
No law is ever valid unless it is applied through the
recognized procedures. In disputed cases, Islamic Law requires evidence of four
eye-witnesses, whose integrity cannot be impeached. But when it comes to
applying this law, commonly known as Qanoon-E-Namoos- E-Risalat, the Islamic
procedures are not followed because they concern the person of Mohammed, whose
honor is considered higher than that of Allah. The result is a chaos in the
judicial system of Pakistan, giving it the lowest prestige in the community of
nations.
This article clearly demonstrates that the Islamic Law
does not qualify as law. Therefore, it cannot solve social problems.
The verdict of the Indian Supreme Court is correct and
must be enforced at all costs. This is an auspicious step towards building a
harmonious nation.
Again, the judicial system of India has another very
good reason not to implement Islamic Law" because of its nature: a hadith
says, "Time will come when Islam will exist in name only and the Koran will
be just a collection of words. The mosques will be full but completely unguided.
During that period, the mullah shall be the worst of creatures under the sky;
they will be the source of mischief." (Mishkat, Vol. 1; Kitab-ul-llm, ch.
3, p.76)
It clearly states the following:
1. Islam has come to exist in name only. Therefore what
is being held as Islam is not Islam at all.
2. The Koran having become just a collection of
words, is not capable of giving guidance. It is no longer a code of law, even
if it held such a position in the distant past.
3. Though the mosques are thronged with people, they
are not guided. Therefore, they are fake Muslims.
4. These mullahs are a source of mischief and the
worst people under the sky.
In view of the contents of this hadith, the government of
India will fail in its duty if it does not enforce the directive of the Supreme
Court of the land.
| 
Previous
Essay
