What's up with all those Indians and Pakistani's trolling here?
Nice article from a lawyer in Pakistan on why such a law is logically deficient, but also incompatible with Islam in his view.
The Unconstitutional and UnIslamic Ehteram-e-Ramzan Ordinance
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
The United States of America had till a few decades ago a curious legal creature called the Sunday Closing Law also known as the Blue law on statute books of many of its constituent states. On Sunday, that day being the Christian Sabbath, it was forbidden to carry out any business or for grocers to sell anything except necessities. The law applied across the board and was thus an instance of a religious law. Ultimately most states were forced to repeal this law for being ultra-vires to the US constitution which promises freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Enshrined in the US constitution is the first amendment which forbids the state to either establish religion or forbid the practice of it. Thus freedom of religion was a fundamental constitutional right and the basis of the repeal of the Blue Law in most states.
One of the promises expressly made by the founding fathers of Pakistan was religious freedom for all. Jinnah promised in about two dozen speeches before and after partition that there would be no discrimination based on faith in Pakistan. His was a vision of a secular democratic state informed by Muslim cultural life the same way US is influenced by Christian values and secular India embodies the ethos of its Hindu majority on a civic level. The constitution of 1973 however sought to establish Islam as the state religion within the framework of a federal democratic republic. Nonetheless this constitution gives Pakistanis the right to the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion (Article 20) and further ensures that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law (Article 25) and in respect of access to places of public entertainment or resort not intended for religious purposes only, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth (Article 26).
Pakistan, despite being officially christened as the Islamic Republic, did not have any such blue or green law for the first 30 odd years of its existence. This was probably because Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, did not allocate one day for worship and rest. In fact Islam encourages its followers to seek business after the weekly Friday prayer. 1980s under General Zia-ul-Haq were marked hypocritical Islamization. Amongst the many things introduced was the Ehteram-e-Ramzan Ordinance of 1981 which made it a crime to eat in public during fasting hours for all eligible Muslims in Pakistan as well as forcing restaurants and eateries to remain close during these times. Of course the fact that no one has their faith written on their forehead- so some can grow it on their chin- makes every Pakistani- Muslim or Non-Muslim- susceptible to this law. The questions that may be asked are a- whether such a situation is consistent with the right of freedom of religion as provided for in our constitution? and b- does Islam envisage such a forcible imposition on the common man?
While on the face of it the Ordinance does not contravene at the very least the rights of Non-Muslim minorities, the ground reality is completely different. The closure of restaurants and other eating places means that anyone who is not fasting be it a Muslim or Non-Muslim, man or woman- really has no choice but to go hungry. The term religious freedom implies not just the freedom to practise your faith but also freedom from imposition of faith on an individual. For example a Muslim who chooses not to fast cannot be forced to fast anymore than he can be forced to pray. Prayer and fasting being acts of worship are therefore of a highly personal nature. Therefore the right of religious freedom as given by Article 20 through any legal interpretation is violated by this Ordinance. Similarly if public restaurants and eateries were opened up to Non-Muslims alone as some might argue- it would still stand in violation of Article 26 as it would violate the rights of those citizens who happen to be Muslims but are denied entry into restaurants and eateries on account of their faith. Therefore a straightforward legal application of the constitution renders the Ehteram-e-Ramzan Ordinance of 1981 ultra vires to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Finally from an Islamic angle, the Ordinance seems to violate more Islamic injunctions than it protects. Consider for example the case of a pregnant woman or a new mother who is unable to provide nourishment to her unborn child or baby because she couldnt find any food. Would this be Islamic? Similarly would Islam- which almost every scholar agrees is sensitive to minorities and which promises freedom of religion- force Non-Muslims to refrain from eating on account of its adherents? This would amount to a clear negation of the Quranic verse La Ikrah fid deen there is no compulsion in religion. Compulsion is not just physical coercion. If you create conditions that force someone to choose a particular path in our case for unwilling parties to go hungry in Ramzan- that is compulsion.
It is therefore important that the constitutional institution of the Council of Islamic Ideology reviews the Ehteram-e-Ramzan Ordinance in line with Islamic teachings as well as the Constitution to determine whether this is a fair or just law. I am sure that once they do, this blue law will also meet the same fate previous blue laws have in other countries.
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer in Islamabad
The Unconstitutional and UnIslamic Ehteram-e-Ramzan Ordinance | Pak Tea House
,,, apna PC clean rakhte ho ya nahi...
