Read A book mentioned below to know as to what kind of Filthy Language Mawlana Mawdudiand his brother Khomeini used against Prophets [PBUT] and against the Companions [May Allah be pleased with everyone of them] of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. The book has provided the original quotes from Mawdudi’s book with the editions and page number. Mudodi Khumeni do bhai, Moudoodi and Khumeni(shia) two Brothers http://www.scribd.com/doc/15702018/Mudodi-Khumeni-do-bhai-Moudoodi-and-Khumenishia-two-Brothers-a-deep-researc-book-by-Deoband-Ahlesunnat-wal-jamat
For example Khomeini once made a statement which was published in the Tehran times (Kitaab be Noujawanaan - P8) that if he conquers Madina Munawwarah, he will remove the two idols (Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) besides Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him). I am certain that no believer will accept such a statement against the great luminaries of Islam. Brother Amin, are we then to condemn only Khomeini and condone Mawdudi knowing well that Mawdudi was a close friend of Khomeini and was sympathetic to his course. In a book titled, 'Two brothers - Maududi and Khomeini' page 129, the following statement of Dr Ahmad Farouk Maududi (son of Abul-A'ala Maududi) was published in Roz Naame, Lahore - 29 September 1979, "Allama Khomeini had a very old and close relationship with Abba Jaan (father). Aayaatullah Khomeini translated his (fathers) books in Farsi and included it as a subject in Qum. Allama Khomeini met my father in 1963 during Hajj and my father's wish was to create a revolutionary in Pakistan similar to Iran. He was concerned about the success of the Iranian revolution till his last breath.'
The greatest contribution made to political life by Moududi was his constant demand for a constitution. General Azam Khan was Martial Law administrator. He got Moududi arrested and tried before Martial law court and sentenced to death. But the Martial Law court said that Moududi can file an appeal against the sentence. Syed Moududi, on hearing, the sentence, requested that no appeal should be filed on his behalf and said that if God wants to take his life, no one can stop it and if God wants to give him life, no one can take it. A BRAVE JESTURE.
Let us move on and see what is happening in Pakistan. Remember Choudhry Iftikhar [Chief Justice] He also said NO when he was asked to resign by General Musharraf. and the rest we all know. Today, we are seeing the beginning of the end of Military rule in Pakistan. Thanks to one man and that is the Chief Justice.
Dear Shaikh Sahab,
Your love for Mawdoodi and Deviant Jamat-e-Islami is commendable but what happened to Mawdoodi and Jamat-e-Islami's love for Law and Constitution during the Pure Pakistan Army Martial Law of General Ziaul Haq [1977-1988]? Why Mawdoodi gave his top most leader i.e. Professor Ghafoor to serve under a Martial Law Government as a Federal Minister [the same Ghafoor now objects on NRO, why this double standard?] and Mawdoodi, Professor Ghafoor helped Martial Law Regime of General Zia through the help of Judiciary to murder Bhutto.
I wonder what is sacred for you Islam or the Constitution of Pakistan [it is same principle of Mawdoodi and Jamat-e-Islami because they used to love Islam more than Pakistan rather they hated and still hate Pakistan]. These Rascal Mullahs have no character similarly Defunct Chief Justice carry the same trait. Read the double standards of Jamat-e-Islami Mullahs and Judges, they sell Islam [their own Hasba Bill at the altar of Military Dictator Musharraf who ordered the CJ to scrap the Hasba Bill and Iftikhar did as he was told, I wonder where the hell gone the love for Shariah Bill? If the Hasba Bill was wrong it means Jamat-e-Islami and Deobandi Mullahs have no knowledge of Islam. And if the Hasba Bill was Islamic then CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary [he is not at all a Religious Scholar] must have a weak faith [call him Secular], and if Hasba Bill was Islamic then Pakistan's Constitution is Non-Islamic. You decide I rest my case. Background is as under:
Daily Newspapers not the State Secret
Hasba clauses ruled contrary to constitution: NWFP governor may not assent to law: SC By Nasir Iqbal
August 5, 2005 Friday Jumadi-us-Sani 28, 1426
ISLAMABAD, Aug 4: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled several clauses of the Hasba bill relating to the powers of an ombudsman, who is to be appointed under the controversial law, contrary to the Constitution. The court advised the NWFP governor not to assent to the law recently passed by the provincial assembly.
“For Reasons to be recorded later, we are of the considered view that Section 10 (b-c-d), 12 (1) (a-b-c), 23 (1-2-3-5-6-7-12-14-27, 25 (1-2) and 28 of the Hasba bill passed by NWFP assembly are ultra vires of the constitution, therefore governor of the province may not assent the bill in its present form,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry said in a unanimous order after four days of hearing of the reference filed by President General Pervez Musharraf against the bill under the advisory jurisdiction of the court.
A five-member bench of the apex court had earlier served notices on the NWFP government and the four advocates-general to appear before the court. On Thursday, advocates-general of three provinces supported the arguments of Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan while NWFP’s law officer endorsed the arguments of advocate Khalid Anwar who represented the Frontier government.
“The provincial government will present the amended bill before the NWFP assembly in the light of the detailed order of the Supreme Court,” NWFP Law Minister Malik Zafar Azam said soon after the court had announced its short order.
Malik Azam described the SC order as ‘partial victory’ and announced a one-month remission to prisoners in the NWFP jails. He said the NWFP government had shown other provinces how to move forward to attain autonomy.
In his arguments, Mr Anwar urged the court to decline to answer the seven questions raised in the reference, saying that its advisory opinion would create a constitutional impasse and in future people would compare this decision with the judgment in the Maulvi Tamizuddin case in which challenge to the dismissal of the constituent assembly had been rejected.
After the court’s decision, he said, the governor would decline to sign the bill although under the constitution he could withhold his assent only on the advice of the chief minister.
He said the arguments of the federal government were based on hypothetical as they were opposing a bill which had not yet become an act. Besides, he pointed out, neither the mohtasib nor the person who would be prosecuted by the mohtasib was before the court.
Referring to the attorney-general’s arguments that the Hasba bill was poorly drafted and vague, Mr Anwar stated that the seven questions raised in the reference were also vague and overlapped each other.
He denied that the mohtasib to be appointed under the law would create new offences or penalize in accordance to his own understanding of the religion.
Justice Javed Iqbal observed that apparently the enforcement of the bill would not bring about any ‘positive change’ in the lives of ordinary citizens. Rather, he said, Section 23 of the proposed law would shake people’s belief in Islamic values and encourage confrontation.
Justice Javed Iqbal said that the Holy Quran, on 227 occasions, had dealt with different legal obligations but not on one occasion it gave any hint about the creation of the institution of Hasba. Had it been so important it must have been mentioned in the Quran, he added.
The sections declared ultra vires by the court relate to powers and duties of the mohtasib under which he has to protect and watch the Islamic values and etiquettes and can monitor adherence to moral values of Islam at public places, discourage extravagance, particularly at the time of marriages and other family functions, follow the code of Islam in giving dowry, monitor adherence of Islamic values, its respect and regard at the times of iftar and taraveeh, discourage entertainment shows and business transactions at the times of Eid and Friday prayers around mosques, etc.
Reference against Hasba bill moved By Shujaat Ali Khan
July 16, 2005 Saturday Jumadi-us-Sani 8, 1426
KARACHI, July 15: A five-member Supreme Court bench will commence hearing of a presidential reference, questioning the constitutional validity of the NWFP Hasba bill, in Islamabad on July 25.
Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan moved the reference on behalf of President Pervez Musharraf at the Supreme Court registry here on Friday.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry constituted a bench, headed by himself and comprising Justices Hamid Ali Mirza, Faqir Mohammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, to hear the reference.
The bench decided to issue notices to the NWFP government and the advocates-general of the four provinces for July 25.
The Hasba Bill, moved by the NWFP’s Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal government, was adopted by the provincial assembly on Thursday by 68 votes to 34 against, despite warnings by the provincial governor and the federal authorities against its constitutionality and vociferous protests by opposition MPAs terming it as repugnant to basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution. The bill requires the governor’s assent to become an act of the assembly.
The reference has been filed under article 186 of the constitution, which empowers the president to refer to the Supreme Court any question of law of public importance.
The court is to consider the question so referred under its advisory jurisdiction and report its opinion to the president.
The reference raises the following questions about the Hasba Bill:
1. Whether the bill or any of its provisions will be constitutionally valid if enacted?
2. Whether the bill or any of its provisions will, if enacted, be violative the fundamental rights guaranteed in part II, chapter 1, of the constitution, including but not confined to articles 9, 14,16, 17, 18, 19,20, 22 and 25?
3. Whether the bill or any of its provisions will, if enacted, also be violative of articles 2A, 4, 203G, 212, 229 and 230 of the constitution?
4. Whether the enactment of the bill will encroach upon an occupied field and violate the constitution by creating a parallel judicial system, undermine independence of judiciary and deny citizens the right of access to justice.
5. Whether the enactment of the bill will violate the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the constitution?
6. Whether the bill, and in particular its sections 10 and 23, are unconstitutionally wide and vague and suffer from excessive delegation of powers?
7. If the answer to any one or more of the above questions is in affirmative, whether the NWFP governor is obliged to sign the bill into law?
The articles referred to in question two ensure guarantee of person, inviolability of dignity of man, freedom of assembly, association, trade, business or profession, freedom of speech, freedom to profess religion and manage religious institutions, safeguards as to educational institutions in respect of religion and equality of citizens and prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender.
The articles mentioned in question three make the Objectives Resolution a substantive part of the constitution, guarantee the right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law and to enjoy equal protection of law, confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal Shariat Court and administrative courts and tribunals in respect of matters falling within their purview, provide for reference to the Islamic Ideology Council of laws to ascertain their repugnance or otherwise to Islamic injunctions and deal with the functions of the council.
SC to form opinion on acceptability: CJ; Interpretation of Shariah By Nasir Iqbal
August 4, 2005 Thursday Jumadi-us-Sani 27, 1426
ISLAMABAD, Aug 3: Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry said on Wednesday that in the presence of 72 sects, the apex court has to give its opinion as to which interpretation of Shariah was acceptable to all. Justice Chaudhry made the observation during the hearing of the president’s reference regarding NWFP’s Hasba bill by a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court. He recalled that in his report on the Qadiani issue, Justice Munir had concluded that Islamic scholars were not unanimous on the definition of a Muslim.
The CJ also clarified that the Supreme Court was not hearing the reference to strike down the Hasba bill but to form an opinion on the questions raised by the president in the reference.
The counsel of NWFP government, Khalid Anwar, argued that the federal government had deliberately dragged the highest court of the country to shift adverse public response to its opposition to the bill away from it.
“This is sad, tragic and should not have happened,” Khalid Anwar observed, adding this was not the intention of the provincial legislators to create an office (mohtasib) to interpret what is Islam and then take action in accordance with that interpretation.
He said the advisory jurisdiction of the apex court had not been invoked by the president on his own, rather on the decision of the federal government, and the questions raised in the reference were not the president’s own views, Khalid Anwar contended.
“The NWFP government has pursued a noble cause by at least endeavouring to listen to the poor to redress their grievances, for which it should be encouraged, especially when it is difficult for them to get justice in this country,” he argued.
Citing his own experience as federal law minister, Khalid Anwar deplored that even widows failed to get timely justice merely because the federal government appealed against orders only to delay matters.
Describing the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII)’s report against the Hasba bill as manipulative, Khalid Anwar said the council subjected every feature of the bill to criticism but not once it declared the bill against the injunctions of Islam.
The council appointed a single member to prepare his findings on the bill after which it discussed and approved the report when they should have discussed and then prepared the report.
He also referred to a 1992 recommendation and a 1996 final report of the council, the text of which was exactly copied in the instant Hasba bill except that the suggestion of the council to introduce punishment of whipping was deleted.
Similarly, powers to be vested in the mohtasib under the Hasba bill were far less than what the council had suggested in its recommendations, he argued. During the course of hearing, the CJ inquired from the NWFP counsel, in how many Muslim countries, out of a total 54, the institution of Hasba was functioning.
About the qualification of an Aalim (scholar) to be appointed mohtasib, who will be holding a certificate of ‘Shahadat-i-Aalmia’ from an institution recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan inquired whether famous scholars, namely, Maulana Maududi, Allama Inayatullah Mashriqi and Abul Kalam Azad, who had no such credentials, fell within the definition of Aalim under the bill.
Khalid Anwar, however, stressed that the Shahadat-i-Aalmia was a recognized qualification and cited the example of former UK Prime Minister John Major who was not even an undergraduate and Winston Churchill who did not go to any university.
In fact, the provincial assembly had hinted at appointing such a person as mohtasib who should have religious background, adding that the duty of the mohtasib would be to inquire into the problems of the people and not to take actions.
The court also cited reports stating that a congregation after Friday prayers destroyed television sets in Charsadda sometime back at which Khalid Anwar regretted that it had become a normal practice in our society to damage private property to vent anger against government policies.
Hasba bill against constitution, says AG By Nasir Iqbal
August 2, 2005 Tuesday Jumadi-us-Sani 25, 1426
ISLAMABAD, Aug 1: Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan on Monday told the Supreme Court that the Hasba bill recently passed by the NWFP Assembly was unconstitutional that sought to vest open-ended and vague powers in an executive authority and infringe upon fundamental rights of citizens.
“The real question to ask is whether the provincial assembly can pass a law which gives wide powers to an executive authority (mohtasib) to interfere in the private lives of citizens,” Makhdoom Ali Khan argued before a nine-member SC bench which commenced hearing on the reference filed by President Pervez Musharraf against the Hasba bill.
Earlier in Karachi, the Supreme Court had served notices on the NWFP government and Advocates General of all the four provinces to appear before the court on Monday. Eminent lawyers Khalid Anwar and Dr Farooq Hassan are representing the NWFP government and the provincial assembly, respectively.
Cabinet ministers of the NWFP government were present to witness the proceedings in the packed-to-capacity courtroom. Elaborate security arrangements had been made to avoid any untoward incident.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who is leading the bench, observed during the hearing that the concept of the Hasba has come from Islamic history and not from the Holy Quran.
Justice Javed Iqbal, a member on the bench, observed that the framers of the Hasba bill could have avoided ambiguities in the law had they thoroughly studied the real meaning and concept of Amer-Bil-Maroof and Nahi-Anil-Munkir (fulfilling obligations for good deeds as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah). It seems the bill overlaps with many existing laws and has coercive tendencies towards its implementation, the judge said.
Amer-Bil-Maroof has been emphasized in the Holy Quran 160 times, to encourage, inspire and educate people towards good deeds but there is no concept of the institution of Hasba in the Holy Quran and Sunnah as it was first introduced during the period of Caliph Haroon Rashid who had formed a committee to check measurements, Justice Javed Iqbal said.
A distinction has to be made between Islamic laws and the Islamic history and whatever Umvis, Abbasis and Moghals practised during their period “does not bind us to follow”, the AG argued.
Lawmakers all over the world make laws to promote good deeds by forbidding bad or evil things, the AG said, adding that the only distinction Islam made was that it binds individuals to endeavour for improvement in society but avoid ‘Fitna’ (chaos) or ‘Fassad’ (disorder), without disturbing privacy of the people.
The AG also asked whether a bill with a tag of Arabic language could escape constitutional scrutiny when every legislation must conform to the constitutional norms. “Ours is a constitution of an Islamic state which lays down parameters keeping in view all Islamic norms,” he contended.
“When a vague law is created with penal consequences, it is bound to be abused as it gives extraordinary powers to executive authority to interfere in the lives of citizens and thus infringe upon their fundamental rights,” he argued, adding that the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence required that a citizen must not be made liable to an offence unless it was clearly spelt out as to what conduct would make him culpable.
He also cited the example of a force created by the former Taliban government in Afghanistan, which even shaved heads of the Pakistani football team merely because they were wearing shorts.
The Hasba law also impedes the right of access to justice, as under the bill, mohtasib, who does not enjoy security of tenure, exercises powers of judicial nature, which binds the executing agency to implement its orders when the ombudsman also gives recommendations.
He also cited the opinion of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) where the bill was referred for its opinion. In its present shape, the CII had suggested, the law would create more ambiguity about Islamic injunctions than solving problems. Besides, it also militates against the concept of independence of judiciary and Article 2A (Objectives Resolution) of the Constitution. The CII had also suggested strengthening the existing institutions instead of creating new ones. Besides, the Local Government Ordinance already contains the provisions of creating office of the mohtasib in the province.
The AG will conclude his arguments on Tuesday after which Advocate Khalid Anwar will defend the provincial government.