Failures are not losses, a man only loses when he thinks he has lost otherwise its just a minor setback and a new learning curve.
In freedom of thoughts and equal opportunities to earn and live.
No Justice No Peace!
In struggle for justice by just means because we know peace and prosperity can only prevail with justice and humanity.
We advocate :
No more Fascism in the name of Liberalism!
No more Theocracy in the name of Religion!
No more Sectarianism in the name of Secularism!
No more War in the name of Peace!
No more Slavery in the name of Nationalism!
No more Plutocracy in the name of Democracy!
No more Dictatorship in the name of Security!
No more Exploitation in the name of Slogans!
I came across with points on Theocracy, Liberty and Secularism in relationship with Islamic Social Justice and Concept of State in Islam.
For Islamic societies many wrongly contest that Islam and Islamic social justice require strong state involvement, mostly who are against it spread it but who are in favor have also toed this line without using their brain.
Their assumptions are not based on Quranic beliefs (as far as i understood one may differ).
If we try to understand it we see:
1 ) Equality of all humans is an essential point.There is no concept of sovereign immunity for any individual or group or institution.
2 ) Economy is based on real production and services not on fictitious interest base.
3 ) Social justice means equal social opportunities to grow means no exclusive rights
for any particular class to control the resources.
4 ) State is their not to control the resources but its role is merely to make sure no individual or group takes the control of resources made available by Allah to all.
5 ) Zakat or the minimal taxes are based on extra yearly savings or use of collective natural resources not on Income or Intellectual property. Though one may contest the prohibition is there or not but certainly the concept is not there at all of tax on income.
6 ) Family laws or society laws are only for Muslims who voluntarily accept the system based on Quran or Islam itself . Even in these cases the role is not to regulate to the micro-level or takeaway freedom but it is to ensure that the freedom of one doesn’t become a nightmare for others and doesn’t create social damages to society.
7 ) No force or compulsion on non-Muslims to follow it. Unlike the hypocrite secular govts. which make centralized laws force all the communities and followers of religious beliefs to follow it.
8 ) The dealing with other religions and societies are done through social agreements and
voluntary inclusion in society.
Here is an interesting but a real thought provoking article by Dr. Ron Paul.
Political Power and the Rule of Law
by Ron Paul
With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We’re subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word “power,” or considers its connotations. It’s simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.
The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we’re supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
Remember that one’s relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century’s worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.
Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate – not political victories.
Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.
In a free society, government is restrained – and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.
Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.
PPP and Zardari especially have shown their incapability to run their country and hide their corruption.
In order to overshadow their weaknesses they are trying to go in a clash with institutions and other forces especially judiciary so that they can come out as victims.
The recent notification of President Zardari is also an attempt in this direction.
Supreme Court has rightly suspended the unconstitutional notification of Zardari to appoint the judges against the advice of Chief Justice.
In cases where president or governor or anyone requires consultancy means they need to consult the office whose consent is required for must. And the office being consulted needs to agree with the position otherwise the decision will not be implemented.
However in case of an advice given by the office whose consultancy is required for must, the advice needs to be implemented. It not only happens in SC CJ but also for PM advice to President, CM advice to governor and Provincial HC advice to government.
The office which needs consultancy (here presidency) cannot take the decision on their own on the matters where consultancy is required.
SC also has the duty (not only right) to interpret the wordings of the constitution. This
is not only in case of Pakistan but in most part of the world including so-called mother of
In this case which comes under article 177 the situation is same. Article says:
“177. Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
(1) The Chief Justice of Pakistan shall be appointed by the President, and each of the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.
(2) A person shall not be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of Pakistan and-
(a) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating, not less than five years been a judge of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day); or
(b) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating not less than fifteen years been an advocate of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day). ”
The role of president here again is of just giving Presidential approval.
This is adapted from British system where in issues like these “Royal Assent” is required and even if it is not given due to some reason it is assumed that it is given after some given period but in this case formal approval is required.
According to the interpretation in Judges Case or Al-Jihad Case,in the appointment of the Supreme Court Chief Justice seniority principle will prevail and senior most will be made the Chief Justice (This was done to ensure judicial independence from executive discretion).
The issue currently is of new appointments in Supreme Court as Justice where the
consultation is binding on the president not the seniority principle.
Similarly in appointments of the High Court judges the consultation from CJ is binding on the president according to article 193.
SC once again proved their independence and their will to strengthen the judiciary by stopping the PLUTOCRATS to damage the federation for their evil goals.
Delaying the appointments of judiciary in High Courts is also an attempt by government to not only undermine judiciary but also to frustrate the common man from judiciary.
Another motive is to start a seniority issue between judges to break their strength but this also has failed.
For once we need to go for across the board accountability without becoming a prey of illusions created by the players of National Security Card, Democracy Card, Shaheed Card, Ethnic Card, Sectarian or any other Card.
Anyone who wants strong Pakistan instead of few faces ruling the country cannot afford a weak judiciary.
Also, the commitment for free judiciary shown by Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Khwaja Shareef is appreciable.
Source : http://ftp.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96105&Itemid=2
LONDON, Feb 10 (APP): Describing the conviction of Pakistani neuroscientist Dr.Aafia Siddiqui as “miscarriage of justice”, British Parliamentarians have called for withdrawal of case against her and repatriation to Pakistan. At a function organised at the House of Lords on Tuesday evening to raise support for the incarcerated Dr. Siddiqui, Lord Nazir Ahmed together with other speakers said her trial in New York was full of flaws and not based on facts.
They sought the intervention of the US leadership and demanded a fair trial based on real facts and not assumptions. Lord Ahmed said he would be writing a letter to the US President Barack Obama carrying signatures of other British MPs calling for Dr.Siddiqui’s repatriation to Pakistan and withdrawal of case.
The Labour Peer further said he would also raise this question in the Parliament to ascertain how the British Government could help in this regard.
According to Lord Nazir, the conviction of Dr.Siddiqui has been received with great dismay in Pakistan which would further fuel anti-American feeling in the south Asian country.
“If US wants to create a good impression of itself in Pakistan, it should release Dr.Siddiqui and send her back to Pakistan,” he asserted.
He said no credible independent evidence was presented at the New York court and in the words of defence lawyers the decision of the jury was based on fear rather than facts.
Lord Altaf Sheikh, MP Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Saghir, a representative of Caged Prisoners which represent the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Rabia Zia of UK Chapter of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, journalist Yvonne Ridley, who witnessed the trial and Barrister Abid Hussain also spoke on the occasion.
The thrust of their speeches was to mobilise public opinion against Dr.Siddiqui’s conviction and call on Pakistani authorities to demand her repatriation as well making efforts to find the whereabouts of her two missing children.
Sarwar said Pakistani authorities must hold inquiry at their end to know the circumstances of her disappearance from Karachi in 2003 and her appearance in Kabul five years later.
Ridley said it was now up to the people of Pakistan to organise regular rallies in support of Dr.Siddiqui and send strong message of their resentment to the USA on this trial.
Barrister Abid Hussain urged the British Pakistanis to lobby their respective MPs and sign on-line petition in support of the neuroscientist for exerting maximum pressure on the US Government.
Dr A Q Khan
The duty of a government is to protect the lives and belongings of the public. It is duty-bound to provide justice without discrimination and to ensure the basic necessities of life.
Mahmood of Ghazni was a great king and his empire stretched across a vast area. One day a caravan was looted by dacoits within his kingdom and some travellers, including a young man, were killed. The old mother of that young man went to the court of the king and complained bitterly about it. When Mahmood made the lame excuse that it was a far off place, she became infuriated and reprimanded him for conquering such far off places even though he could not ensure the security of his subjects there. The king immediately ordered a contingent of soldiers to go to the spot and impose the government’s writ.
In the olden days rulers did not hesitate to acknowledge their mistakes and apologise and accepting shortcomings, and advice was not considered something to be ashamed of. Kings and rulers of old were said to be absolute rulers with unquestionable authority, but the common man had access to them. Justice was dispensed promptly and there was no way of escape, even for the rich and powerful.
Caliph Umar (RA) punished his own son through lashing. Hajjaj Bin Yusuf punished the corrupt by lashing, and Sher Shah Suri punished his son in the same way when he was caught sitting on an elephant and teasing the wife of a poor man. Emperor Jehangir had a bell hung at the gate of his palace which any needy or aggrieved person could peal in order to get prompt justice or help. Mirza Ghalib was arrested for allowing gambling in his house and was prosecuted in the court of Mufti Sadruddin Arzu (Ghalib’s own disciple) who convicted him according to the law, but paid the fine from his own pocket.
Hundreds of years before the birth of Prophet Isa (PBUH), there lived an Emperor in India by the name of Vikramajit (Vikamadattya), who had his capital in Ujjani (near Bhopal). The concept of “Nau Ratan” (nine wise people) originated in his court. They were persons famous for their wisdom and knowledge. Famous poet and playwright Kali Das, who wrote Shakuntala and Maghdoot, was one of them. Vikramajit is reported to have had the blessings of Almighty God to extract evidence from stones, trees, birds, and animals. He was famous for dispensing justice.
The Moghul Dynasty flourished just as long as the rulers were honest, God-fearing and just. After the death of Aurangzeb, the dynasty deteriorated and ultimately disintegrated and many local rulers declared themselves autonomous, making it possible for the British to colonise the whole subcontinent. The British cleverly applied the concept of “divide and rule” and regularly paid those who were willing to take up arms against the Indian rulers. Consequently, the Moghul Empire became limited to the Red Fort in Delhi.
The success of the British was due to their intelligence and intrigues and also because of the differences between the local rulers, their cruel and corrupt rule and the absence of justice and rule of law. The uprising of 1857 put the last nail into Indian rulers’ coffin. The British gradually conquered the whole of the subcontinent and also made meticulous plans to keep it under their control for as long as possible. They eliminated those whom they considered to be nationalists, replacing them with stooges to make use of their services as and when required, as was done in both World Wars. They established Fort William College at Calcutta where British colonialists were compulsorily taught Urdu. Some became so fluent that they even became Urdu poets.
The British were wise in that they decided not to disturb local laws and religious traditions. Marriage and inheritance laws were left untouched and Maulvis and Pandits were employed to take care of these matters. They did not force people to learn English, but whoever spoke the language were assured of good jobs. They conferred titles on those who translated the Civil Procedure Code, the Indian Penal Code and other British laws into Urdu, notably Shamsul Ulema Deputy Nazir Ahmed. They did not change the names of the cities and abstained from interference in religious matters.
Hindu and Muslims festivals were declared holidays and loyal Muslim and Hindu officers were given titles such as Khan Bahadur, Rai Bahadur, Sir, etc. In the police force, the constable, head constable, inspector, DSP, SP and DIG were locals. Only the IG Police was British. Similarly, in the Revenue Department, the Patwari, Tehsildar and deputy revenue commissioner were Indians and only the revenue commissioner was British. In the army, the ranks of soldier to colonel were filled by Indians and those of Brigadier General and above by British.
There was no favouritism, nepotism, superseding of officials, corruption in civil work contracts, etc. Consequently, the quality of the work carried out was of such high standard that many roads, bridges and buildings still stand today and are in relatively good condition. People respected the law and fear of punishment kept them from breaking it. Law was the same for everybody. Immediately after Partition, the leaders and law enforcing agencies were honest, but within a few years corruption, nepotism and favouritism became the order of the day. Nowadays people are even committing suicide (or suicide bombings?) and the rulers are least bothered.
The Indians did a much better job. Its independent area was reduced to less than the size of Pakistan because 553 states were sovereign. However, Sardar Patel, the home and deputy prime minister, immediately annexed all the states and also abolished the Jagirdari System, thus saving the country from future intrigues and manipulation by a few rich families. We failed to take similar action. During the rule of Liaquat Ali Khan we had such a good system in place that the editor of Blitz, Mr Karanjia, advised the chief minister of Bombay, Mr Murarji Desai, to visit Pakistan and learn about good governance.
Soon autocracy and dictatorship destroyed the very fabric of the country and we are now known as one of the most corrupt, intriguing and cheating nations of the world. The ruling elite has only one purpose in mind – how to earn money quickly, by whatever means. Courts became corrupt, further facilitating the rulers in their nefarious activities. Stolen money was transferred abroad and property bought. If a case was initiated, it dragged on for years and was ultimately dropped.
Contrary to general expectations, the military rulers turned out to be no better. Dictators, having very little public support, relied on foreign powers and sold the sovereignty of the country in return for personal survival. The result is there for all to see. Loans worth almost Rs200 billion have been written off, foreign debt has increased, submission to foreign dictates is the norm, selling citizens for bounties has become acceptable, and foreign powers have been allowed to operate within the country and kill locals with impunity. Our leaders have not learnt to apply economic austerity. Our only survival lies in a popular public uprising and cleansing of the whole system, once and for all.