Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency Saturday, citing growing militant attacks and interference in government policy by members of the judiciary. But far from a solution to Pakistan's problems, Musharraf's move to consolidate power has plunged the country into a deeper constitutional crisis and is likely to unleash a wave of new attacks by Al Qaeda-inspired militants, further destabilizing a key ally in the U.S.-led war on terror.
The declaration of a state of emergency by Musharraf, who remains head of the army eight years after seizing power in a bloodless coup, suspended the constitution, blacked out independent television news stations and cut some phone lines. Soldiers and police patrolled parts of Islamabad, the capital.
The emergency declaration came as Pakistan's Supreme Court was expected to rule in the next two weeks on the legality of Musharraf's candidacy for another term as president. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, a thorn in Musharraf's side since the President suspended the judge earlier this year only to see him reinstated after massive public protests, was removed from his job and placed under house arrest. Members of the Supreme Court were required to sign a new provisional constitutional order that would mandate the state of emergency. But most of the justices instead signed a declaration calling the state of emergency illegal. "The Supreme Court was going to rule against him," president of the Supreme Court Bar Association Aitzaz Ahsan told TIME by cell phone from jail, where he was taken after being served a month-long detention order. "Constitutionally he [Musharraf] had no right to run as president while staying a general. This is the end of the road for him."
If that prediction is to prove true then much will depend on the reaction of ordinary Pakistanis. Musharraf is deeply unpopular. Hundreds of thousands of people turned out at protests in support of Chaudhry earlier this year. But it's possible that with the ousted chief justice and other anti-Musharraf judicial leaders under arrest popular resentment may not grow sufficiently hot. Another potential rallying point is former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan in October for the first time in eight years as part of a deal with Musharraf that would allow her to run in parliamentary elections early next year. As the leader of the biggest party in Pakistan, it was expected Bhutto would be elected prime minister under Musharraf. But the state of emergency changes that equation again. A London-based spokesman for Bhutto said the former prime minister would lead anti-Musharraf protests. Another former Pakistani leader Nawaz Sharif, who briefly tried to return earlier this year only to be almost immediately forced to leave, urged the Pakistani people to rise up against Musharraf.
The state of emergency puts Washington in an increasingly uncomfortable position. The Bush administration has long backed Musharraf as a key ally in the war on terror, while regularly calling for a return to democracy. Musharraf's latest move makes that balancing act harder to keep up. "The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters soon after the news of the state of emergency broke. "Whatever happens we will be urging a quick return to civilian rule" and a "return to constitutional order and the commitment to free and fair elections."
Lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan says there is no chance of that. "This is the kind of tolerance he has shown for the rule of law in this country," says Ahsan. "Everything he does is illegal. President Musharraf is illegal." But with the independence of Pakistan's highest court now in tatters, it's power, not laws, that matter now.
I thought that his issue was on governance. Then when I replied to all his trash and constant yelling, he asked again why did Muslims rebel against government not imposing Shariah. I had also replied to that. His yelling and crying will continue till the late night.
The Islamic banking is one of it. It is begining to gain worldwide acceptance. Infact when Gordon Brown was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he expressed interest to see the development of Islamic banking and that London could become a center for it. The Philippine government also wanted to see more Islamic banking recently.
And in regards to the Shariah, it isn't necessarily need to be a revolution anywhere. There are other alternatives to it. In some countries in the world, the various Islamic organisations are working with the government to have the Sharia implemented. Of course, then after this next Romesh will yell to me " Which government ". A cry baby's natural reaction of course.
Don't you realize that you are exposing your super-hypocritical and heartless character? At one time you're dwelling on the so-called atrocities of the muslim that has happened eons ago and the next you are championing the massacre of women and children by America and it's team that is happening in front of your very eyes (we are living in the now Romesh.. wake up! ). It's plain obvious that they are the leader in injustice and oppression! If that's your criteria for a civilized and good governance we are witnesssing a case of distorted morality here, no wonder Allah is in the process of replacing this godless ideology with the Islamic morality.
The muslims are flocking to countries like the USA/UK and they are the reason of the rising tide of islam in the west. And at the same time don't forget that non-muslims do also flock to countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and many of others, coz they the after the stability and small crime rate there. Even many of them has found the truth and became muslim. You can even find US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan converting to Islam .
Yes there might be little demonstration by the population... but we cant blame them, because the fact is that their government are so expert in deceiving and lying (in fact those are the only things they good at) most have been kept in the dark... But not for long, a system or an ideology based on falsehood is bound to collapse soon.
Allah said: ""And say: Truth has now arrived, and Falsehood perished. For Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish." Quran 17:81 (The best selling book in America)
Fine. So what is next model developed over 1400 years of Islamic thinking? You answered again "
The overwhelming Islamic model is one based on Quran and Sunnah, with ample room for Ijtihad.
What an Islamic government needs to adhere to is the Quran and Sunnah.".
So what is new? Just follow the Koran and Sunnah. Now one does not need to spend 1400 years of thinking to come up with that kind of answer. And even a child could come with that kind of answer.
And no muslim government wants to follow Koran or Sunnah and impose Shariat. I wonder why? And why don't muslims rise up against their rulers to demand imposition of Islamic law (Shariah)?.
You wrote "So America and it's NATO war team is a model of civilized governance.".
Governance is of their own countries, not the countries they are bombing. Their own populations are well satisfied -- they still paying taxes for the war and very few demonstrations against the war; rather muslims still flocking to UK/US even though US/UK bombing their muslim lands.
Governance is relative, not absolute. Let me give examples.
Is Afghanistan better governed than Pakistan. No.
Is Pakistan better governed than India. No.
Is India better governed than UK. No.
Is UK better governed than Switzerland. No.
Is US better governed than Canada. No.
So, if I had my choice, I will live in Canada or Switzerland. Well, I live in US, which is certainly a better choice than Egypt, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan, Somaili, and even Malyasia, etc.
But that Charter is just one model in which an islamic government should be administered. An Islamic government can be a republican in style, or even constitutional monarch ( not absolute ), or even democrat in ways, as long as it does not offend the principles of the Sharia.
Romesh is confused as usual. That Charter is just one model. That suited and tailored to the needs of that time. Infact Prophet Muhammad ( pbhh ) never mentioned that this is the only Islamic model. The overwhelming Islamic model is one based on Quran and Sunnah, with ample room for Ijtihad.
What an Islamic government needs to adhere to is the Quran and Sunnah.
The Caliphate of Abbasiyah is one shining example. The tolerance and magnanimity of Saladin ( Salahuddin al-Ayubi ) in reassuring a safe passage home for the defeated Crusaders army is another. The times when Muslims ruled Spain, Greece and other parts of Europe are all examples. No Europeans were forced to convert and no modern historian will have any account of that. There were peace and stability, even Christians and Jews found place in the administration of those countries.
And yes, there are many more examples.
This time of peace went down in history as that of Muslim administrations. The region came under Islamic rule with the capture of Palestine by Caliph Umar in 637 AD. This new administration displayed great tolerance towards the Christians and Jews in the country. As a requirement of Islamic values, Muslim administrations allowed the members of different religions to live according to their own beliefs. The Ottomans captured the region in 1517 and displayed the same tolerance and justice as the previous Muslim administrations. They developed a climate of peace and freedom in the region that is still a model today. Thanks to the "nation system," which allowed people with different faiths to live according to their own beliefs, Christians and Jews enjoyed an environment of tolerance, security and freedom in Ottoman lands.
The famous academic Edward Said, himself from a Jerusalem family, makes the following comment on the "nation system":
A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived. ...it worked rather well under the Ottoman Empire, with its millet [i.e., nation] system. What they had then seems a lot more humane than what we have now. (An Interview with Edward Said by the Israeli Newspaper Ha'aretz, Friday, August 18, 2000)
One of the reasons why these Muslim administrations and the Ottoman Empire established such tolerant, just and civilised rule is that they abided by the superior morality God taught in the Qur'an.
To put matters in perspective, not all the caliphs were assasinated. And again I repeat, there are hikmah behind this.
I will delve with this at a different time.
I emphasise here that if anybody embraces Islam, he is equal in status in the eyes of GOD. What differentiate him later in the Day of Judgment is his sense of righteousness and taqwa. But in this world, hev will not be looked down or despise upon on the basis of his birth, race or clanship or even stature in society. Islam accords an equal treatment to all, all Muslims are brothers and sisters to one another, like the Quran which mentions that " O those who believe ( the believer ), We have made you men and women, nation and tribes may that you know one another. And the best of you in the sight of ALLAH is those who are most righteous...."
That explains why more Africans are embracing Islam, and why Islam has become the fastest growing religion in the U.S and the U.K. And in India, the Harijans, ( the lowest caste according to Hindu ) are also finding place in Islam, for then they will be equal to all their Muslim brothers.
Islam, in unlike any ideology in the west or anywhere. Like as it is now, a growing number of western facist or right wingers are propounding the idea of a white Europe with a white culture to the exclusion of all others. For them, anybody not born with the skin of God, ( their misguided belief ) is alien to Europe.
I am not going to argue with an old man in the attitude of a child here. You failed to differentiate between figures and the faith here. And you have not define to me what you meant by being civilized.
And in regards to what you perceived as the Caliph assasination, only Muslims knows the hikmah behind those events and we are not bound to tell to a thick atheist like you. Why should we ?
Look, issues after issues, first you insist on a civilized nation which is not necessarily democratic, second you insist me to name Muslim nations in which people flock to, thirdly you over gerneralize, you mention Musharraf, Mubarak or Abdullah, and I have sufficiently replied to that, then you harped on history of assasination of the caliphs, look, I repeat again, there were blessings behind that event that an obssessed atheist like you wouldn't understand.
Unless you become a Muslim, then you'll be able to appreciate it.
That Madinah Charter was enacted at the time when Dark Europe were lawless, and it's populace lived in the wilderness where " might was right ".
Well, Mr McPherson, so the Islamic world has been ruled by the Madinah Charter for the last 1400 years? or has it been? or was it ever rulked by the Charter? The first 4 rightly-guided Caliphs died in the first 20 years, 3 of them assasinated and one poisoned.
Sorry, Islamic world was never ruled by the Charter. Rather, nobody paid any attention to it after it was written. That is why there were rebellions in Spain/Portugal/Sicly, Balkans, Armenia.
Yes, Europe was lawless at that time. But Europe has become civilized now and all muslims would love to migrate there. Rather it is the muslim world which has become lawless (look at Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Indonesia, Algeria, Iraq, Bosnia, Bangladesh, etc).
People don't live by a piece of paper called Charter; they live by their deeds. And the deeds are obvious from the history.
Why Jews/Christians in protected class? Why should they not have equal status, just like muslims have in Europe/US/Canada. Why not equality in Islam for everybody? Yes, that Charter is outdated.
"Islam Is The Solution" is merely a slogan to be used by islamic politicians to get into power and nothing else.
Sorry, to be brutally blunt.
On the surface it may look like that the muslims are migrating to those countries for economical reason... but if you look deeper with insight and see at the bigger picture. It is actually Allah Almighty's plan to spread Islam to those so-called civilized and morally bankcrupt society. Allah in his infinite wisdom do not make them migrate to Bosnia or Turkey or Pakistan because He knows that the west is indeed in need of Islam. It is a peaceful and civilized onslaught of Islam to the west that in turn has seen them flocking to embrace Islam as we see today and is still going... until the coming of that Golden Age of Islam. It truly shows that Allah is the best of planners and he works in ways so fine that ignorant people can easily comprehend.
And you confuse a lot of people don't you romesh. You said in your earlier post that " a civilsed ( not necessarily democratic ). That's what you had written and don't deny it.
Again I ask, what is your exact definition of civilized ? Your yellow belly character is too obvious here, you are stiff scared of defining something that you are even unsure of. And in one post you said that the problems are with characters like Musharaff, Abdullahs, so what ever. If that's the case, the world at large also had problems with George Bush. But does that make the American people, or the country uncivilized ? Just because of one man. There you go again, failing to differentiate the figure and the people at large.
And you also ask whether Muslims have ever learn any concept of govermanship. Honestly that isn't the right term, it should be " governance ". Well, I wrote back in my post last week, in a different article, that even the King of Spain, Alfonso in the 14th. century wrote a legal encyclopaedia borrowing heavy on Islamic law principles. And the Father of International Law, also wrote the concept and principles based on Islamic writings. Who are you to argue on this matters, you ignorant idiot.
And that principles were the guiding petrimeters in today's teaching on International law. You are on my turf now, so don't argue. Just try spending more time convincing your grandchildren. That's better.
There isn't any country at present that is ruled by the Shariah. And when any country is close to bringing shariah to the rule, even when fairly elected by the majority they will always be suppressed and denied rule as in the case of Algeria, the Taliban and Somalia. Not surprising! This fresh instance of Western double standards is what the ignorant and clueless claimed as CIVILIZED. So I reiterate that there is no such thing as "Islamic misrule".
They are just like you Romesh flocking to the U.S.
You tell me now you do you define " civilised ". Again you didn't outline that as well. If I am to name Malaysia, it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. We have a vibrant democracy and one of the highest GDP in Asia. And a robust economic growth. We have years of peace and stability.
Indonesia is another example of a good democracy even though I have reservations in their foreign policy and other matters. What is wrong with Turkey, tell me, other than the fact that you claim that it is overrated.
So what is your example of a civilized country ? You tell me now. The communists, your atheist comrades, I suppose so. Look, I am not going to delve further with a frustrated old man, whose stories are only good for kids bedtimes fairy tales.
Again, in your most recent post, you did not give me one single example of any muslim country which is being ruled in a civilized way. So, I must assume that no muslim country is rulked well.
It does not make difference to the person of to-day what happended in 7th century; we don't live in 7th century; he has to deal with to-day's government, not with the government of 7th century. When people complain, they complain about to-day's rulers, not rulers of 7th century. To-day we are complaining about Musharaffs and Mubarak and Abdullahs (Saudi & Jordan), etc.
So, let me repeat again, 1400 years of Islamic misrule continues.
Yes, I am proud to submit a point that Muslims have the first modern constitution, not just modern but a fair and just, in the Charter of Madinah during the times of Prophet Muhammad ( s.a.w. ). It outlines not just the laws which an Islamic state is to be govern but it laid out the rights of a " Dhimmi " or non Muslims, which at that time were the Jews. That they have a right of their faith, their laws, and their properties.
That Madinah Charter was enacted at the time when Dark Europe were lawless, and it's populace lived in the wilderness where " might was right ". And not to forget, with plenty of atheist or Godless people living only to recognise that brutal strength and might was the order of the day. Atheists then were living like savages. I highlight the existence of Atheists just to enlighten Romesh Chander on those who were like him before.
Of course ignorant and idiots like Romesh Chander who wouldn't know history would not be able to understand that those studied the Charter, even non Muslim scholars would be able to appreciate the strength of the Charter. That was the begining of a Chapter of an Islamic system of government, which are still being studied until today.
Again, it's tough isn't it, when one tries to explain to an ignorant fool like Romesh. But I'm not bothered at all, and as usual, he'll just continue with his ignorant ways.
You wrote "I can give you examples of good democratically elected Muslim countries and in our own definition, far more civilised that your narrow juvenile mind can ever think.".
Ah, but you did not give me even one example. Why not? Let me guess the countries who ruled in civilized way -- Bosnia, Taliban country (aka Afghanistan), Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Malyasia, Yemen, Somali, Northern NIgeria, Tajikstan, Kazakstan, Uzbekstan, Maladive Islands --- should I go on.
By the way, the only countries I know of who are muslim and governed reasonably in civilized manner are Mali and Senegal; I bet nobody knew they were even mostly muslim; they are not Islamist.
Let me repeat again. 1400 years of Islamic misrule continues.
Remember, when British Empire ended, UK was still intact as a civilized country to which most of the muslims flock to; and same is the case of France, Germany, and now even Spain and Portugal, Belgium, Holland; you don't find muslims flocking to Bosnia or Turkey or Pakistan; do you?.
What do you mean by misrule anyway ? I and the rest just don't get you. If you meant the end of an era of governance, well, every empires in the world were misrule. The British great empire that once never see the setting of the sun, that had ended too. And so do every other empires.
The Dutch, French, Portuguese had seen their lost of empires and colonies as well. Is that a " misrule " according to you.
And Muslim countries ruled in a civilized manner, tell me what exactly do you define civilized. Even democratically elected governments in the west, or even Asia can be bought by cartels.
I can give you examples of good democratically elected Muslim countries and in our own definition, far more civilised that your narrow juvenile mind can ever think.
But first tell me, tell me then an atheist country that claims itself to be civilized. I define atheist country as one in which majority of the populace are as thick atheist as you are. I am now giving you a taste of your own medicine. There you see, there is no such country in this world, which proclaims itself to be atheistic in principle and rule.
And your question on what is civilized, I ask you simply this first, what is your yardstick of civilised ? A democratic country with a corrupt government, or with a poor corporate governance ? Or a free country led by right wingers who despised and oppressed immigrants like you ?
Please, look at yourself in the mirror first, to know who you really are.
Pakistan was created not for Muslim or an independent state; it was created to balance India from becoming a self supporting or super power state from the eyes of the emperor which is us in the west.
The day Musharaff visited White House and speaks the truth refuse the master plan, a plan was draft for his down fall and Pakistan. Bhutto will be use as tool and will be use just like Muusharaff.
Al Qaeda is a ghost that CIA conceal itself from main public with it inhumane characteristic so that Islam will blame for everything it dose.
As long as there are politician that are willing to self enrich them CIA and all its MI5 and secret agent can take a good advantage of the Muslim world.
If I am an Indian President I make unconditional peace with Pakistan and we will see the emperor shaken to the core.
Why I say this, Ask yourself why do you think we allow Pakistan to have nuclear warhead. An Islamic Country!!! Because we want to use it at India one day when the emperor feel threaten. We control the war head in Pakistan.
May the world see beyond news headline and hear the close door meeting with a camera smiling face hand shaking : (((
It is a terrible thing to say that 1400 years of Islamic (mis)rule continues. Even the Ottoman rule was a misrule; finally, the Christian populations rebelled and got independence leading to birth of about 40 nations. Islamic misrule of 1000 years over India was ended by a commericial corporation (East India Company).
Give me one recent example where a muslim country is ruled in a civilized (not necessarily democratic) manner. Even Turkey is overrated.
When are muslims going to learn the rules of governmanship? Do they have any philosophy of government other than the sword?
Please don't blame others for your own problems (misrule); others merely take advantage of your misery.
Shariah in a way is good if implememnted with good Spirit. At the end, one universal law have to govern every soul leaving all private laws.
I would love to see the triumph of Shariah without the defilements of unrepentant sinners....
Musharaff is making a serious mistake if he thinks that by ignoring the " Rule of law ", then his dictatorship will survive. Probably he knew that he is going to lose a case before the Supreme Court that will decides whether of not his running for the Presidency is constitutional.
He wanted to keep on wearing both the uniform and hold executive power. That is certainly not how democracy or a nation of " Rule of Law " works or be governed. Worse still, his service in the army is actually over, but when he passed the retirement age, he issued and pass a law ( also unconstitutional ) extending his period of service.
Believe me, Musharraf end is within sight. Just how long can he hope to have the guns and the goons to rule an entire nation of millions, many of whom detest his rule and his close ties with the U.S. administration. Already Musharraf has committed too many blunders, his raid on the Lal Mosque which left many innocent dead, his unconstitutional suspension of the Chief Justice, and his gerry meandering of the constitution to stay in power and of course to serve his western masters.
These are among the many that will see the demise of him, only political demise I hope.
Bush Must be really jealous of Musharraf now!!!
Bush must be thinking: 'How do I get rid of that silly American constitution thing. It is a thorne in my side to developing that World dictatorship I have always wanted to create'
I think that our great american president can learn a thing or two from Musharraf.
What do you think?
All Musharaff wants is a compliant Supreme Court. Will he get it? If he does not, then he will just abolish courts; after all Constitution has been suspended. You don't need courts if there is no constitution and hence no constitutional requirements for courts.
If Musharaff declares Sharia law, then Supreme Court will be superflous. By proclaiming Sharia law, Musharaff will gain the confidence of all Pakistanis (and I mean all Pakistanis); after all, Pakistani muslims do want Pakistan to be governed in Islamic way.