An indispensable tool

MUSLIMS proudly assert that Islam is a system of life valid, and compatible with, for all times and climes. But the question is how, when the whole universe is constantly in transition, can centuries-old commandments provide answers to the multitude of modern-day issues requiring new and unprecedented solutions? Well, this is accomplished by way of Ijtehad — an indispensable tool that enables Islamic law to keep pace with the march of time.

The laws of Islam comprise rules of conduct revealed by God to His Prophet, whereby people are directed to lead their lives. Thus, revelation is the source of Islamic law. Revelation consists of: (1) communications made by Gabriel, under the directions of God, to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) either in the very words of God or by hints; or (2) such knowledge as occurred in the mind of the Prophet through inspiration from God; and (3) opinion of the Prophet, embodied in the form of ratiocination, delivered, from time to time, on issues that happened to be raised before him.

Revelation is available to us in the form of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. The Quran comprises only those revelations that were made in the very words of God; the rest form the corpus of the Sunnah.

The rules of conduct provided by revelation consist of: (1) laws that regulate men’s relations to and dealings as among themselves; (2) laws that are concerned only with the spiritual aspect of individual life; and (3) laws that not only concern the spiritual aspect of individual life, but also affect the Muslim society as a whole.

Another unique aspect of Islamic law is that it attributes the authority of making laws to God only. According to Islam, no man or body of men can ever be capable of or allowed to make laws for other men. Now, as mentioned above, it can be validly asked that as the last set of laws made by God was bestowed upon mankind centuries ago, and that much has changed in the world since then, so in the absence of new laws for the new circumstances, how does Islam manage to survive?

To put it differently, as men cannot make new laws and as God has also not given any further laws, how can Islam cope and deal with the latest problems that confront the human society? It is an accepted fact that a legal system has to continuously adapt to the needs of changing times; otherwise, it loses its applicability and fades away.

To begin with, as the laws available in the form of revelation are concerned, in them God has explained the fundamental principles of behaviour pertaining to all the essential human transactions, dealings, and matters. He says: “.... We have bestowed from on high upon thee, step by step, this divine writ, to make everything clear, and to provide guidance ....” (Al-Quran: 16; 89); “Thus, indeed, have We propounded unto men all kinds of parables in this Quran ....” (Al-Quran: 39; 27); “.... And if you are at variance over any matter, refer it unto God (i.e. the Quran and the Apostle (i.e. the Sunnah), if you (truly) believe in God and the Last Day ....” (Al-Quran: 4; 59).

The above-narrated verses tell us that: (1) revelation is a complete set of guiding principles; and (2) revelation is well capable of settling and dealing with all controversies, conflicts, and problems.

However, where there is no room for the making of new laws, there is also no prohibition on the innovation, extension, and re-interpretation of the existing laws. This very process of innovation, extension, and re-interpretation of laws given in the Quran and the Sunnah, in order to explain and analyse the legality of latest issues, is denoted by Ijtehad. It is the method of Ijtehad by which God has enabled Muslim jurists to: (1) make provisions for the developing circumstances; and (2) prove Islam as a system of life practical for all times.

Ijtehad has two main kinds: Qiyas is an Ijtehad conducted by a single jurist; Ijma is an Ijtehad conducted by a body of jurists. If a Qiyas and an Ijma, both conducted at the same time regarding the same thing, come into conflict with each other, then Ijma prevails. This is done due to the presumption that jurists acting in a body are less likely to err than a jurist acting alone.

Let us see some examples of how the law is innovated and developed by way of Ijtehad. The Quran (5; 90, 91) has forbidden the drinking of alcohol. The ban has been put due to its being an intoxicant. By using Ijtehad this prohibition on the non-medical use of alcohol is applied to the non-medical use of all substances that have the property of intoxication. Heroin, cocaine etc, which are recent discoveries, are also prohibited due to the same reason.

The Quran enjoins honouring of commitments and honesty in dealings. These centuries old commandments also apply to the contracts and transactions made over the Internet. Similarly, whether a person steals money by using conventional methods, or by using a stolen credit card or ATM card, he will remain a thief and will be dealt with in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran and the Sunnah.

The law developed by way of Ijtehad may or may not be good for all times. A rule that is suitable for a certain matter, under the present circumstances, may not remain so in future, if the facts governing the matter undergo a change. Thus, an Ijtehad, made a thousand years ago, may not be held valid in today’s world, in view of considerable change in facts and widening of knowledge in the past thousand years. Also, as no jurist can claim infallibility, no Ijtehad can be treated as infallible. All these factors give rise to the necessity for continuous exercise of Ijtehad. In other words, the law obtained by practising Ijtehad can be and must be modified, replaced, or cancelled according to the state of affairs and developments in society.

At this point, having studied the concept and significance of Ijtehad, it must be mentioned that certain Muslim jurists claim that Ijtehad cannot be practised anymore. According to them, people can look back to Ijtehads conducted in the past for seeking guidance for all their present and future needs, but it is not lawful for them to make any new Ijtehad. This stance is not only based on ignorance, but it has also immensely harmed the cause of Islam by arresting the intellectual growth of a large section of Muslims by making them blind followers of outdated judgments and interpretations.

The claim that Ijtehad can no more be practised is an antithesis to a Muslim’s duty of thinking and reflecting, which is so abundantly and clearly stressed in the Quran. Also, it is an established fact that the practice of Ijtehad was started in the time of the Prophet. There is not the slightest evidence of the Prophet’s ever having stated that the judgments of any of his Companions based on Ijtehad would or could be forever binding on people. Thus, any restriction on the exercise of Ijtehad is against the spirit of the Quran and the Sunnah.

Back to the future

SEVERAL big Middle Eastern moments have coincided over the last few days — the first anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death, a decade since Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, the shock replacement of the octogenarian Shimon Peres as leader of Israel’s Labour party by a younger man who is now threatening to bring down Ariel Sharon’s coalition government.

In the minefield of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there are always reminders of how past follies led to present disaster. So Bill Clinton’s speech commemorating Rabin was not only a eulogy to the general who dared negotiate with his worst enemy, but also an attack on the late Palestinian president for his “colossal blunder” in failing to seize the rare opportunity of peace.

Clinton’s version of this story is not new or incontrovertible, as other participants have argued that Israel’s offer at Camp David in 2000 was neither as generous nor final as has been painted. But then there is Arafat’s response to Sharon’s subsequent provocation: a second intifada that destroyed Oslo in a bloody welter of Palestinian suicide bombings and “targeted killings” by Israel.

Yet this blame game works both ways: why does the US refuse to pressure Israel, even for its own good? Does Israel really expect to be able to maintain its biggest settlements in the West Bank, isolate Jerusalem and reduce a future Palestinian state to unviable and disconnected Bantustans? As ever, the biggest problem of this small land is that it has too much history and not enough geography.

So instead of dwelling on the past, it would be more constructive to see what lessons it holds for the present and future. One is that Rabin, Arafat and Peres all failed to deliver because the Oslo left the peace process hostage to extremists on both sides. Another is that the core conflict cannot be avoided: Israel’s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt will never move beyond cold formality if Palestinian aspirations are not satisfied.

And just as Rabin broke the taboo of dealing with the PLO (though the PLO had changed by accepting a two-state solution), future Israeli leaders may have to talk to the Islamists of Hamas. Dismissing them as irredeemable enemies on the wrong side of a global “war on terror” will not do.

And Hamas, seeking legitimacy by participating in Palestinian elections, will have to convince Israelis that it can accept the existence of their state. Linking disarmament to a genuine freeze on settlement activity is the right way to proceed, as laid down by the road map to peace. Israel must build on its Gaza withdrawal by easing border controls to allow desperately needed economic development.

— The Guardian, London

National security vs natural calamity

THE international support secured by Pakistan’s post-9/11 change of course might have been spontaneous but the internal management of that policy has been far from easy. The economic recovery of the past five years has been an even more difficult process, despite global support.

The country’s remarkable passage through these crises could now be eroded by the consequences of the October 8 earthquake in Azad Kashmir and the NWFP.

During the five years of economic recovery, and for a decade before that, Pakistan’s defence budget had remained at virtually zero growth. Efforts to redress at least the most important imbalances in our defence capability were held back, in anticipation of improved fiscal conditions. Our defence and development challenge has now an added complexity: the nation’s obligation and pledge to rebuild the devastated lives and environment of the earthquake victims.

Pakistan’s unexpected predicament would be greatly eased if its defence needs could be placed on hold for another decade. This would enable us to rebuild the earthquake-affected areas more quickly. Unfortunately, just as no country can choose its neighbours, none can persuade its adversaries to desist from taking advantage of its internal and external weaknesses.

In contrast to Pakistan, India’s defence spending has been spiralling at unprecedented rates and it is listed among the top arms buyers in the world. New Delhi has launched very large expansion and modernization programmes for the Indian army, navy and air force. The Indian leaders have publicly advocated preemptive military action against adversary nations.

In any future war against us, the Indian strategic enclave assumes that the conflict would somehow be controlled to keep it sub-nuclear, enabling India’s numerically superior conventional forces to overwhelm those of Pakistan. To avoid being forced up the nuclear rung in such an eventuality, Pakistan needs to build and maintain minimum deterrent levels of conventional forces. That process has already fallen behind by 15 years.

In the context of our post-earthquake needs, a few commentators have suggested that the purchase of Pakistan’s F-16s should be postponed or even cancelled. Some others have questioned the recently announced contract for the Swedish Erieye Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft for the PAF.

Regrettably, India’s purchase of the Israeli Phalcon AWACS radar last year seriously escalated the intensity of all future land-sea-air conflict scenarios between Pakistan and India. By accurately tracking from standoff distances the movements of our army units within Pakistani territory, the Indian AWACS could compel our land forces to fight from a position of extraordinary vulnerability.

Similarly, the protection by our naval ships of Pakistan’s logistic lines in the Arabian Sea would be seriously hampered by the Indian AWACS. The PAF’s wartime task of protecting industrial and military infrastructures could be seriously disrupted by the Phalcon-directed interceptors arriving undetected by Pakistan’s surface-based radars. The overriding implication of the Indian AWACS is that it would place the already outnumbered conventional forces of Pakistan at an even greater handicap. Undoubtedly, this scenario persuaded Pakistan’s government and the three services to agree to acquire an adequate air surveillance capability on an urgent basis.

Only a few countries possess mature technology for long-range, look-down airborne radars and fewer still produce operationally proven surveillance planes that are actually in service. Some advanced AWACS, like those made in the United States, are beyond Pakistan’s reach for reasons of technology and cost. The PAF’s five-year evaluation of all AWACS became urgent when India signed the Phalcon contract with Israel. Of all the candidate systems that offered adequate performance for the least cost, the Swedish Erieye made by SAAB was professionally judged to carry the most value.

It is further reassuring to know that the government has contracted to acquire the SAAB-Erieye system on credit financing entailing least real-expenditure burden on a yearly basis for the national exchequer with payments spread over a 10-year period. In the first five years of the contract, only 20 per cent of the national exposure in real terms is made while the nation receives the entire lot of six missionized AEW & C aircraft.

Credit payments for the remaining 80 per cent from the national funds then begin to be made in the remaining five years. This is a financially attractive proposition, giving the government the required fiscal space for pursuing other development programmes including the earthquake rehabilitation effort.

The 20-year delay in acquiring Pakistan’s additional F-16s has now rendered the correlation between the Indian and Pakistani air forces critically mismatched. The PAF’s only high-tech combat aircraft (the F-16) arrived in Pakistan 23 years ago. The Indian Air Force (IAF) now possesses three kinds of high-tech aircraft and the number of each type continues to grow.

While Pakistan-India talks that have taken place at several levels this year have shown promise and good intentions on both sides, there has been a noticeable absence of a turning point on Kashmir, and Pakistanis, who have seen ‘talk-to-death’ tactics being played out in the past, cannot be blamed for feeling cynical and weary.

Similarly, Pakistan can hardly make India’s assumed good intentions the basis for measuring the threat to its security. Instead, the nation’s security experts have to evaluate India’s unceasing quest for offensive military power to determine the threats that Pakistan might face unexpectedly, as it did during 10 months in 2002.

The PAF has reportedly taken the initiative to propose a review of the F-16 programme, preferring in the interim to get some used F-16s and updating its 1980 model F-16s. The deliveries of the new F-16s have apparently been pushed three to five years forward and are spread over a longer time span, to enable the government to manage the decade-long rehabilitation and reconstruction planned for the earthquake-hit regions more easily.

As it was on September 11, 2001, Pakistan’s best option in the present adversity is once again the most difficult one to implement. The country’s resources must be carefully apportioned for earthquake-related expenditures, major national development projects and social sector investments. Pakistan’s guard against unexpected military confrontations must not, however, be lowered to such an extent that it invites aggression. Of course, our citizens expect, as they must, that expenditures in all these endeavours remain in the hands of those who will maintain and meet the most stringent standards of transparency and accountability.

The most traumatic lesson that Pakistan has learned in its neighbourhood is never to assume that respect for international law can hold back a neighbour’s aggressive impulses. Should there be any military reverses on our borders, those who are now claiming that the government had failed to prepare for our worst earthquake would, with far greater justification, blame the rulers for basing our national defence on false threat assumptions and for their lack of readiness.

Great calamities invariably put nations through agonizing dilemmas. It is not wise to allow Pakistan’s defence preparations to be degraded to such an extent that the country is unable to protect its frontiers. It is also illogical to advocate that Pakistan cannot simultaneously deal with the difficult challenges of the earthquake and meet, at the same time, the minimum essential requirements of national security.

The writer is a retired air chief marshal of the Pakistan Air Force.