Editor's Choice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, 16 February 2009

Text of "Talibani" Shariat Agreement between the NWFP Government and Taliban's TNSM

Whose Pakistan?

M A Jinnah

His? (Muhammad Ali Jinnah)


Or his? (Maulana Soofi Muhammad)


معاہدے کا متن مندرجہ ذیل ہے۔

’مولانا صوفی محمد بن الحضرت حسن اور صوبائی حکومت کے کامیاب مذاکرات کے بعد صوبائی حکومت نے فیصلہ کیا ہے کہ آج سے ملاکنڈ ڈویژن بشمول ضلع کوہستان ہزارہ کے نظام عدالت کے تعلق میں جتنے بھی غیر شرعی قوانین یعنی قرآن اور حدیث کے خلاف ہیں وہ موقوف اور کالعدم تصور ہونگے یعنی ختم ہونگے۔




اسی نظام عدالت میں شریعت محمدی جس کی تفصیل اسلامی فقہ کی کتابوں میں موجود ہے اور اس کے مآخذ چار دلائل ہیں کتاب اللہ، سنت رسول، اجماع، قیاس وجوباً نافذالعمل ہونگے اس کے خلاف کوئی فیصلہ قبول نہیں ہو گا۔ اور اس کی نظر ثانی یعنی اپیل کی صورت میں ڈویژن کی سطح پر دارالقضاء یعنی شرعی عدالت بنچ قائم کردیا جائے گا جس کا فیصلہ حتمی ہو گا۔

حضرت صوفی محمد بن الحضرت حسن کے باہمی مشورے سے عدالتی شرعی نظام کے ہر نقطے پر تفصیلی غور کرنے کے بعد اس کا مکمل اطلاق مالاکنڈ ڈویژن بشمول ضلع کوہستان ہزارہ میں امن قائم کرنے کے بعد باہمی مشورے سے کیا جائے گا۔ ہماری حضرت صوفی محمد بن الحضرت حسن سے درخواست ہے کہ وہ اپنا پرامن احتجاج ختم کر کے مالاکنڈ ڈویژن کے تمام علاقوں میں امن قائم کرنے میں حکومت کا ساتھ دیں۔‘

swat-agreement




http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2009/02/090216_shariah_nwfp_agree_rh.shtml

....

Shariah in Swat
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
We are all accustomed to strange political events. But some events are stranger than others. Amongst these is the agreement reached to once more enforce Shariah rule in Swat. Still odder is the fact that the ANP, which still describes itself as a secular party, and the 'liberal' PPP should be behind the latest deal. We can only wish them luck and hope the move does not backfire, as has happened in the past, allowing militants time to regroup and wreak still further havoc on a valley they have terrorized for months. The desperation of the ANP, a delegation from which met Sufi Mohammad at Timergara for talks that led to this latest accord, is understandable. The horrendous situation in a region where people have suffered tremendous brutality, where girls have been driven out of schools and where people have been beheaded in public for defying the militants is one that no elected government can stand by and calmly endure. The perceptions in Swat that the military was not committed to quashing the wild band of militants it confronted added to the helplessness of the Peshawar government. Tens of thousands have fled Swat. Estimates as to numbers vary, but it is believed by human rights monitors that up to 800,000 of the valley's 1.8 million people may have left. In the sense that the ten-day truce announced by militants and a longer-term deal with the government may bring peace to the lives of devastated people, it must be welcomed. Seen from other perspectives, there is plenty of room for trepidation.

In 1995, the first attempt was made at striking a deal involving the imposition of Shariah rule with the wily Sufi Mohammad of the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariah-e-Mohammadi (TNSM). The accord did not last. Today things are still more complicated. The elderly Sufi Mohammad, who remained in jail from 2002 to 2008 after being returned from Afghanistan where he had led an army of fighters from tribal areas to stage 'jihad', has been overtaken in terms of influence and power by his son-in-law, Maulana Fazlullah. Indeed, compared to the wild-eyed Fazlullah, Sufi Muhammad comes out as a moderate. Early in 2008, when the ANP reached a deal similar to the one now agreed upon with Sufi Muhammad Khan, Fazlullah violated it. The two men have, at best, an uneasy relationship. This time too, the warning from Fazlullah's militants that the 'intentions' of the government will be watched is ominous. As has happened in the past, when a deal is not backed by true intention, it can be broken on any pretext. Perhaps the only positive that can be seen in the accord is that it may create a defection among Fazlullah's ranks and move some of his supporters to the now-state-certified Sufi Mohammad. Possibly this is what the government may be banking on -- but it is hardly going to lead to lasting peace in the region.

We are told the people of Swat wanted Shariah; that rallies demanding this had been staged. It is hard to believe, given the environment prevailing in Swat, that there was no element of coercion behind these rallies. It is also true that what people want is an efficient, reliable system of justice. The failure to offer them this with the judicial system in disarray everywhere in the country is a key factor in the demand for Shariah law and Qazi courts. While the militants have capitalized on these feelings of people, the fact too is that the frenzied men who have laid siege to Swat can, under no circumstances, be described as being motivated by religion. Their numerous acts of violence, their attempts to stifle learning and the way in which they have targeted the most vulnerable citizens shows that they indeed care nothing for Islam – a religion that advocates kindness for the oppressed, emphasizes the significance of learning and lays down rules of respect for women, for minorities and even for enemies. It seems obvious the ignorant forces of Fazlullah seek only power and are willing to use any means to obtain this. In the past Fazlullah has been accused by the people of Swat of extorting money, jewellery and other valuables from them. Today these people are too terrified to speak out. It is a shame Swat has been lost to such forces. The fact is that this deal shows that the Pakistan military has in fact been defeated by the militants; that we are now incapable of retaining control of vast tracts of our own territory. This has implications for other parts of the country, where militants hold sway. The day may come when a decision is made to strike deals there too – and by doing so allow the militants to seize control of a people whose government no longer seems able to protect them or safeguard their rights as citizens. (The News, 17 Feb 2009)


...

Swat sharia and Taliban

Some developments after the announcement that the governments in Peshawar and Islamabad had agreed to sharia in the Malakand region are worth noting. The NWFP government representatives insist that the agreement over the content of sharia laws has been reached with Sufi Muhammad of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi (TNSM) and, pointedly, not with the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) whose chapter in Swat is headed by warlord Fazlullah. They say this was to show adherence to their pledge that they will not parley with anyone who bears arms.

Mr Fazlullah says he has announced a 10-day ceasefire. (He said this while destroying another school on the day the accord was reached.)
He also says that in the coming ten days he will watch closely the implementation of the sharia law called Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, and if he doesn’t like what he sees he will go back to his pastime of killing and demolishing. Clearly, he is indicating his de facto authority over the area and has not completely accepted the authority of his father-in-law Sufi Muhammad, which implicitly is spiritual in nature now. In a way he has the veto over whether the sharia law will finally be accepted. He in fact is the executive authority in the region and not the NWFP government.

Most of the reliable pro-sharia commentators who came on TV Sunday night stated that the popular acceptance of the sharia was based on the people’s desire for peace. The desire for the sharia was thus not propelled by the need for justice but the need for peace. In other words, it was not inspired by the divinity of Sufi Muhammad but by the power to kill of warlord Fazlullah who will clearly not submit to sharia justice if cases are brought against him in the sharia courts for killing innocent people. The flaw in the agreement reached between the NWFP government and Sufi Muhammad of the TNSM lies in it not being negotiated with the man who has ousted the writ of the state in Swat. The problem with Fazlullah, on the other hand, is that he holds Swat at the pleasure of Baitullah Mehsud and can only offer ceasefires if the “caliph” of the TTP in South Waziristan agrees.

We fervently hope that sharia in Swat brings peace as well as justice to the benighted population of the valley. But the bottom line, which no student of political science in the world will deny, is that a state of justice cannot exist without a proper writ of the state. It is the obligation of the state of Pakistan to re-establish its writ in the region before people can taste the fruit of justice. (Daily Times, 17 Feb 2009)
...

Some relevant comments:

fanaticmulla said:

about Swat Shariat Adalats:

would the law of these courts will be implemented on taliban as well or it is only for ordinray people and taliban will be there to slaughter the people..Shariat say

Aankh kay Badlay Aankh and Kaan kay Badlay Kaan

say, if someone file a compalinet to qazi in Swat against some Taliban Criminal that he has destroyed my barber shop and he should pay now 100,000 Rs. ..what will happen then?

or if some one file a case against Mullah fazal Ullah fro killing his brother then will that qazi be able to summon that criminal in court….

its all drama ….shariat and all laws are for ordinray people, for criminals (MQM; Taliban; JI ; lashkars; etc etc etc etc)..there is no law…

Ok if they would be real shariat courts then they should hang these Taliban Criminals who have destroyed 200 schools and destroyed peoples businesses and killed 100s in Swat…

all drama…….

MalangBaba said:

This is not an agreement but a simple BS. Situation will not get better unless Talban surrender their arms and accept the authority of government. If this vague document can achieve peace then there is no harm. If not then government is still a winner for showing the nation that the purpose of Sawat insurgency is not Shria but something else.

I think it is a good move by government but hopefuly they will keep a close eye on Talban activities during ceasefire.

Kashif said:

Its hard to believe all this bloodshed in swat was for few qazi courts. Many such deals are celeberated and broken in past. It merely gives extremists chances to re-group. I am sure people like IK and Qazi will again blame gov and military for breaching the deal as they have done in the past. The best case scenario for our Army and gov is make some inroads in Taliban network and gradually overcome them. But these sort of deals usually gives much need breathing room to insurgents and they come back stronger than before. Idon’t have a reason but I still hope this time result ‘d be different.

shamwariz said:

Good work done by Government this time is that they have made Mullahs of Swat to agree on implementing Shariah on precondition that first peace is achieved in Swat. All the responsibility of achieving peace in the region has been put on the shoulders of Mullahs who taken hostage the People of Swat in the name of Islam. There is another interesting equation between Sufi Mohd and His Son in law Fazlullah. Sufi is the pioneer of this movement but in his absence Fazlullah hijacked it . Fazlullah apparently has also divorced Sufis daughter and married another woman

rebhos said:

What is Sharia law? Are those the laws as ordered by ALLAH or the man made laws made by the tribes and the Arab Sheikhs, who instead of getting a life adopted religion as profession? The beauty of Islam is that it does not allow adopting religion as profession. Those Sheikhs and Mollas who does that and lie after the name of our beloved Prophet PBUH, then call that a Sharia law, should get a life instead of bluffing the people.

But surprisingly 180 million sheeps of Pakistan accept them and do not have the guts to stand and challenge these Mollas, just as they do not have the guts to stand against the corrupt Pakistan Army and the Politicians. Instead those sheep are ready to die for the corrupt Pirs, Makdooms, Imams , the corrupt Army and the Politicians, BUT NOT READY TO LAY THEIR LIFE FOR JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN “CHILDREN”.

Whenever one challenges these Mollas as to why the so called Islamic countries adopted laws which ALLAH did not allow, their only explanation is that our Prophet PBUH did it. Big question! Could our Prophet PBUH go against the orders of ALLAH?

bho said:

@agrana75
Nobody is afraid of sharia/’sharia laws’ but my interpretation of sharia is definitely very different than yours. The idea that somehow you can implement your idea of sharia on me just gets under my skin. There is no concept of an ‘Islamic Republic’ in the Quran. I haven’t seen a single Hadith where my beloved Prophet (PBUH) has told me that I need to create an Islamic Republic. Sudan, Palestine, Somalia and Afghanistan are your examples of where ’sharia laws’ were/are to be implemented? I am sorry to see that your idea of an ideal state is somewhere between Sudan (where there are so called ’sharia laws’ apparently) and the non-existent state of Palestine.

I have a simple statement for you: The idea of an Islamic State or Republic is an edifice created and nurtured by mullahs and religious and related beneficial entities that have an economic and political interest in having one (in Pakistan, it’s the related beneficial entity that runs the show!).

The only two states that i know that have complete ’sharia laws’ in them are Saudi Arabia (wholly owned subsidiary of the USA) and Iran (a complete opposite of Saudi Arabia). So if you are really against the western designs, wouldn’t you want ’sharia laws’ that are currently in effect in Iran? I assume that Swat ’sharia laws’ will not be allowing ‘mu’tah’ and concepts of ‘viliyat-e-fiqh’ to show up anywhere in the ’sharia laws’ that will be implemented. I believe you get the point here, both governmental dispensations in Iran and Saudi Arabia are not what the Prophet (PBUH) or God wants. Any laws have to protect the right of the minorities, which are not even protected even in the current Pakistani constitution.

Btw, this agreement is a farce. You will know within 5 years!

7 comments:

Shaheryar Ali said...

Mark this day. Generations to come will mourn this day. Beginning of the end.

Abdul said...

Sherry: You are right; its a sad day. However, personally I think this agreement has more to it than what eyes see; political expediency on 'more than one' sides. purdah uthnay ki muntazir hay nigah...

Shaheryar Ali said...

I hope Abdul you are right. The point is not a genuine Islamic fascism.The problem is we know Sufi or "Hazrat Sufi sb" as our secular leaders called him is an ISI man. They are taking over . They want to disengage from Afghan border.They are building the pressure so that Army moves to Indian border. Strategic depth is restored. This "duality" in policy esp Afghan policy will stretch Pakistan's post colonial structure to limits it can no longer sustain. Their controlled militancy which they do for strategic gains can take a a nasty sectarian and nationalist turn esp when Sufi sb made sure ANP minister said on "Sharia" based on Koran,Sunnah,Qiyas and Ijama. This was a message to Shia who have a vehement opposition to concept of "Qiyas" as source of Sheria
Thus Sufi gave message an "Ati Shia" sheria is to be implement. With Hangu and Parachinar, this can blow out of state's control. and with militancy in Baluchistan, State can not longer play these games any more

Abdul said...

Sherry, I completely agree with your analysis. I suspect the creed we are dealing with here will be very pleased to (be deemed to) represent all Sunnis. The fact is they don't. It is an ISI-JI-JUI-LeT made hotch-potch of an extremist (mostly Deobandi and Salafi) group, which is as intolerant to Barelvis and mystics as it is to Shias.

Shaheryar Ali said...

yes Abdul you are right, they dont represent the Pakistani Sunnis. But if you have noticed, the pre-partition anti-clerical mystic Sunni identity esp that of a Punjabi is gone. Replaced by a modern Sunni who is "not sunni" actually but a mixture "Liberal-wahabi" of the sort. Just note a country with 90% or more population is Baralvi+Shia, the text books call "Ibn e Abarbi" a "heretic". Sunni rituals are called "bidet" by every one. All text books written by Wahabis, all state religious authorities are wahabi, Royal Mosque Lahore is given to Dua bandi, Faisal Mosque to Ahel Hadees. Islamic Ideological Council to a modernist who is very liberal but nevertheless modernist hence not Sunni traditionalist , in philosophy closer to wahabi methodology

The result is "sunni" identity is slowly giving in to Wahabi identity.

Abdul said...

Sherry, I agree. At the same time, I guess Barelvi and Shia must also accept ownership in 'facilitating' (or letting) the 'Wahhabi-isation' of Pakistan.

In the meanwhile, here is another perspective on the so called Shariat Accord in Swat:

US officials in Islamabad privately backed the deal as an attempt to drive a wedge between Swat’s Taliban, which is focused on its demand for sharia law, and the Al Qaeda-linked Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud.

“The strategy has to be to divide the two groups. The TNSM and Baitullah’s TTP found some common cause briefly, but a peace deal will separate them,” said one US official. One source suggested it reflected the “smart power” thinking outlined by Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation hearing as secretary of state.

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\02\19\story_19-2-2009_pg1_11

Muhammad Uzair Bhaur said...

"Whose Pakistan? Quaid's of Sufi Muhammad"s?" It is misleading. Nor Quaid's, nor Sufi Muhammad's. Pakistan is of Pakistanis. If Pakistanis want to impliment Sharia, they can reject Quaid's speech of Aug 11, 1947, in which he proposed a secular state. Quaid was not "thaikedaar" of Pakistan. Pakistanis are to decide between secual Pakistan and Islamic Pakistan.

Post a Comment

1. You are very welcome to comment, more so if you do not agree with the opinion expressed through this post.

2. If you wish to hide your identity, post with a pseudonym but don't select the 'anonymous' option.

3. Copying the text of your comment may save you the trouble of re-writing if there is an error in posting.