FOR a brief moment last month, it seemed as if there might be the stirrings of a progressive wind blowing through the musty corridors of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII). But that proved to be a false hope.

The outcome of its latest session offered further insights into the thinking of the CII that do not bode well for the cause of justice.

DNA evidence, it stated, could only serve as supplementary evidence in rape cases, meaning it would have to be buttressed by other evidence if a conviction is to be secured.

By taking such a stand, that too at a time when a number of rape cases with young victims have been in the headlines, the CII has shown itself to be resistant to the march of time and the technological development it brings.

Forensic DNA analysis is being used the world over as an invaluable tool in criminal trials to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In fact, eyewitness testimony, that in the eyes of the CII chairman, Maulana Sheerani, is the most Sharia-compliant method of going about the latter, is increasingly seen as being unreliable in technologically advanced countries.

In the US, the Innocence Project re-examines evidence in closed cases with DNA technology so that wrongful convictions can be overturned (there have been more than 300 exonerations through this method). According to the Project, “Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75pc of convictions overturned through DNA testing.”

The CII’s stance against DNA evidence goes against a Supreme Court judgement in October 2012 that unequivocally established the admissibility of DNA as evidence in cases of rape.

Its insistence on four witnesses as primary evidence (contrary to the law dealing with rape as it stands today) has created confusion in the courts.

This may well have had a bearing on the shocking outcome of the Quaid’s mausoleum rape case in which the alleged perpetrators — despite DNA evidence — were recently acquitted due to the lack of eyewitnesses.

The reality is that even though this constitutional body has only advisory powers whereby it can apprise parliament of the conformity or otherwise of laws and procedures with Islamic precepts, in an increasingly conservative environment, with a right-leaning government in power, its recommendations can be used as a rationale to bring in regressive laws or roll back progressive legislation.

For example, the body has repeatedly censured the Women’s Protection Act 2006 as being ‘un-Islamic’.

One of its objections to this law is that it removed rape from the purview of the Hudood Ordinance — which earlier made no distinction between rape and fornication/adultery — and placed it in the Pakistan Penal Code thereby doing away with the patently illogical requirement of four witnesses to prove rape.

A number of religious scholars acknowledge that rape is not mentioned in the Quran and the requirement of four witnesses applies to ‘unlawful sexual relations’, a measure that in fact is meant to protect women from false allegations of adultery.

(In a travesty of justice, the inability of rape victims to bring witnesses, coupled with their admission of sexual activity — albeit without consent — resulted in hundreds of them being charged with adultery and thrown into prison.)

Established as a constitutional body called the Islamic Advisory Council in 1962, the forum was renamed the Council of Islamic Ideology in 1973.

While its work during Gen Zia’s time served to further his use of ‘Islamisation’ as a political tool, the outgoing ‘secular’ PPP government was no less guilty of politicising the body by appointing Maulana Sheerani of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl as its chairman in total disregard of objections from women’s rights activists.

It was a quid pro quo to secure Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s support in the Assembly, and women’s rights be damned.

The tenure of the previous chairman, the enlightened academic Dr Khalid Masud, who actually managed to antagonise some religious parties for seeking to expand women’s right of divorce, was not renewed.

Far from an academic institution giving independent advice to parliament, the CII serves as a platform for unrepresentative members of the religious right to further a conservative agenda.

It was the vociferous objections from members of religious parties and the CII that prevented the Domestic Violence Bill from being enacted into law in 2009.

One could also question the relevance of the CII in a parliamentary democracy. Parliament, which alone has the power to legislate, is already bound by the constitutional stipulation that no law will be passed contrary to the Quran and Sunnah.

The adult men and women in this representative body must be trusted to legislate independently within the limits of the Constitution, if need be with the assistance of standing committees set up for the purpose.

The CII, in its latest session, also ruled out amendments to the blasphemy law. In doing so, it has backtracked on its own recommendation made a few years ago that a false accusation of blasphemy should be punishable by death as is the crime itself.

While capital punishment is undesirable, in this instance some other almost equally strong punitive measure would have served as a deterrent to those making blasphemy accusations on flimsy grounds, to settle personal scores or for pecuniary benefit.

However, the CII decided that such an amendment to the law would create “hurdles” in the way of filing complaints of blasphemy. It could be argued that such “hurdles” are precisely what is needed in the current atmosphere of moral vigilantism.

Perhaps it is better to let one ‘blasphemer’ be given the benefit of the doubt than one innocent individual be wrongly accused with its attendant, often horrific, consequences.

The CII’s recent pronouncements have once again reinforced the redundancy of this body and highlighted the need to review its constitutional validity. It is time to consider legislating this partisan pressure group with its outmoded, hidebound ideas out of existence.

The writer is a member of staff.

naziha@gmail.com