Apostasy Major and Minor | |||||||||||
 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Facing Apostasy: The Role of Muslims The greatest kind of danger that faces Muslims is that which threatens their moral aspect of existence, i.e., their belief. That is why apostasy from Islam is regarded as one of the most dangerous threats to the Muslim community. The ugliest intrigue the enemies of Islam have plotted against Islam has been to try to lure its followers away from it; they have even used force for this purpose. In this regard, Almighty Allah says, [And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217) In the contemporary age, the Muslim community has been exposed to horrendous invasions and aggressive attacks, one of which is the missionary invasion that aims at uprooting the Muslim community altogether. This invasion began its missions with the Western colonialism (of the Muslim world), and it still exercises its activities in the Muslim world and among the Muslim communities and minorities (in non-Muslim countries). One of its goals is to entice Muslims to convert to Christianity. This goal was made clear in the North American Conference on Muslim Evangelization (that was held in Colorado in 1978). Forty studies about Islam and Muslims and how to spread Christianity among them were submitted to that conference, and US$1 billion was allocated for this purpose. In addition, the Zwemer Institute (in South Carolina) was established to train missionaries to preach Christianity to Muslims. Another example is the communist invasion that spread through many Muslim countries in Asia and Europe and made every effort to put an end to Islam and grow generations who know nothing about Islam at all. The third and most dangerous and cunning kind is the secular invasion, which still plays its role in the Muslim world, sometimes openly, and sometimes in disguise. It seeks to undermine true Islam and approves of the superstitious manifestations that are falsely claimed to belong to Islam. The duty of the Muslim community - in order to preserve its identity - is to combat apostasy in all its forms and wherefrom it comes, giving it no chance to pervade in the Muslim world. That was what Abu Bakr and the Prophet's Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did when they fought against the apostates who followed Musailemah the Liar, Sijah, and Al-Aswad Al-`Ansi, who falsely claimed to be Allah's prophets after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Those apostates had been about to nip the Islamic call in the bud. It is extremely dangerous to see apostasy prevailing in the Muslim community without facing it. A contemporary scholar described the apostasy prevailing in this age saying, "What an apostasy; yet no Abu Bakr is there to (deal with) it."1 Muslims are to seriously resist individual apostasy before it seriously intensifies and develops into a collective one. That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed. In this regard, many hadiths were reported in different wordings on the authority of a number of Companions, such as Ibn `Abbas, Abu Musa, Mu`adh, `Ali, `Uthman, Ibn Mas`ud, `A'ishah, Anas, Abu Hurairah, and Mu`awiyah ibn Haidah. For example, Ibn `Abbas quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as having said, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." A similar wording of the hadith was reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah and Mu`awiyah ibn Haidah with a sound chain of transmission. Also, Ibn Mas`ud reported the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as having said, "The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community." Another version of this hadith was reported by `Uthman, "The blood of a Muslim is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three, a person that turned apostate after (embracing) Islam or committed adultery after having married, or killed a person without just cause." The eminent scholar Ibn Rajab said, "Punishing a person by death for committing any of these sins is agreed upon among Muslims."2 `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) punished some people who apostatized from Islam and claimed that he was a god by putting them to fire after having reprimanded them and asked them to return to Islam but to no avail. He put them to fire saying these following lines of poetry:
Ibn `Abbas did not agree with `Ali about burning the apostates, quoting, as evidence for his opinion, the Prophet's hadith, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (of fire)." According to Ibn `Abbas, the apostates should have been killed by a means other than burning. Thus, Ibn `Abbas was not against killing the apostates in principle, but against killing them by fire. Abu Musa and Mu`adh also punished a Jew by death, as he had embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu`adh said about that: "It is the verdict of Allah and His Messenger." `Abdur-Raziq also reported, "Ibn Mas`ud held in custody some Iraqi people who had apostatized from Islam, and then wrote to Caliph `Umar asking him what to do with them. `Umar wrote him back, saying, 'Ask them to return to the true religion (of Islam) and the Testimony of Faith. If they are to accept this, set them free, and if they are to reject it, then kill them.' When Ibn Mas`ud did so, some of the apostates repented and some refused, and thus, he set free the repentant and killed those who renounced Islam after being believers."4
It is also reported on the authority of Abu `Umar Ash-Shaybani that when Al-Mustawrad Al-`Ajli converted to Christianity after having embraced Islam, `Utbah ibn Farqad sent him to `Ali, who asked him to return to Islam, but he refused, and thus `Ali killed him.5 Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted the repentance of a group of apostates, and he ordered that another group of apostates, who had committed other harmful acts to Islam and the Muslims, be killed. For instance, on the day of the conquest (fath) of Makkah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that Maqis ibn Subabah be killed, as he had not only apostatized from Islam but also insulted and killed a Muslim person. He (peace and blessings be upon him) also ordered that Ibn Abi Sarh be killed, as he had apostatized from Islam and also sought to spread falsehood and slander. In this respect, Ibn Taymiyah differentiated between two kinds of apostasy, an apostasy which does not cause harm to the Muslim society and an apostasy in which apostates wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land. The repentance of the apostates in the first kind is accepted; while in the second kind, it is not if it occurs after the apostates have fallen into the power of the Muslim authority.6
`Abdur-Raziq, Al-Baihaqi, and Ibn Hazm reported that Anas returned from a mission for jihad and went to `Umar, who asked him, "What has been done with the six people from (the tribe) of Bakr ibn Wa'il who have apostatized from Islam?" Anas said, "O Commander of the Believers, they are people who turned apostate and joined the polytheists, and thus they were killed in the battle." `Umar commented, "We belong to Allah and to Him we will return." Anas wondered, "Had their penalty been but death?" `Umar replied, "Yes. I would have asked them to return to Islam, and had they refused, I would have imprisoned them."7 This attitude of `Umar was also held by Ibrahim An-Nakh`I, and Ath-Thawri, who said, "This is the viewpoint that we follow."8 Ath-Thawri also said, "The punishment of the apostate is to be deferred so long as there is a hope that he may return to Islam."9 In my point of view, as the scholars have differentiated between major and minor innovations in religion and between mere innovators and those who spread and call for their innovations in religion, we can also differentiate between major and minor apostasy, and between apostates who do not wage war against Islam and Muslims and those who proclaim their apostasy and call for it. Major apostasy, which the apostate proclaims and openly calls for in speech or writing, is to be, with all the more reason, severely punished by the death penalty, according to the majority of scholars and the apparent meaning of the Prophet's hadiths. Otherwise, An-Nakh`i and Ath-Thawri's view which was built on `Umar's attitude may be followed. Apostates who call for apostasy from Islam have not only become disbelievers in Islam but have also become enemies of Islam and the Muslim nation. They, by doing so, fall under the category of those who wage war against Almighty Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land. According to Ibn Taymiyah, waging war against something may be done by already attacking it or by speaking against it. The latter may be far more dangerous than the former with regard to religions. So is also the case with spreading mischief: it may be through causing physical damage or through causing moral harm, and the latter is, likewise, far more hazardous than the former with regard to religions. This proves how much more harmful it is to wage war against Allah and His Messenger by speaking against them and seeking to spread mischief in the land.10 In Arab culture, we say that the pen is mightier than the tongue. Writing about something may be far more effective than merely speaking about it, especially in this day and age, as writings can be widely published. On another hand, the apostate is deprived of its love, loyalty, and cooperation according to Almighty Allah's words, [And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them] (Al-Ma'idah 5:51). This far exceeds the punishment of execution in the view of the people of common sense. Why Is Apostasy Severely Punished in Islam? The Muslim community is based on belief and faith. Belief is the basic foundation of its identity, pivot, and spirit of its life. That is why it does not allow anyone to harm this identity. Hence, proclaiming apostasy is considered the most flagrant crime in the eyes of Islam as it poses a danger to the identity of the Muslim community and its moral being. In other words, it jeopardizes the first five main objectives of the Shari`ah, which Islam with its moral and legislative systems seeks to preserve - religion, life, offspring, the intellect, and property. Religion occupies the very first place here as believers may sacrifice themselves, their country, and their wealth for the sake of their religion. Islam does not compel people to join it nor does it force anybody to accept or to leave any other religion, but it places great importance upon conviction for those who embrace it. Almighty Allah says, [Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe?] (Yunus 10:99)
He Almighty also says, [Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error.] (Al-Baqarah 2:256) However, Almighty Allah does not accept that religion be taken lightly: a person joining it one day and forsaking it another day, in the like manner of the group of Jews about whom the Qur'an says, [A section of the People of the Book say: believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back.] (Aal `Imran 3:72) Besides, Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it. Rather, it leaves the punishment for the hereafter if they die in the state of apostasy, as Almighty Allah says, [And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217). However, this type of apostate may receive a discretionary punishment in this world.
The death penalty with regard to apostasy is to be applied only to those who proclaim their apostasy and call for others to do the same. Islam lays down this severe punishment in order to protect its unity and the identity of its community. Every community in this world has basic foundations that are to be kept inviolable, such as identity, loyalty, and allegiance. Accordingly, no community accepts that a member thereof changes its identity or turns his or her loyalty to its enemies. They consider betrayal of one's country a serious crime, and no one has ever called for giving people a right to change their loyalty from a country to another whenever they like. Apostasy is not only an intellectual situation whose handling is confined to discussing the principle of freedom of belief; it also involves a change of loyalty and identity. People who apostatize from Islam give up their loyalty to the Muslim nation and pay allegiance, heart and soul, to its enemies. This is denoted in the agreed-upon hadith that clarifies the kinds of people whose blood is lawful to shed and describes among those people the apostate, by saying, "Or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community" (Ibn Mas`ud).
The phrase, "And the Muslim community," is part of the description of an apostate; this entails that every apostate from Islam by implication abandons the Muslim community. Although apostasy is a criminal act, apostates' rights are not to be violated, nor are they punished except for the things they do or proclaim, verbally or in writing (against Islam and the Muslims); as speaking or acting against Islam openly is a clear-cut disbelief and cannot be interpreted otherwise. Should there be any doubt in this regard, the person accused of apostasy would be given the benefit of the doubt. Negligence in punishing apostates who proclaim and call for their apostasy jeopardizes the whole community and exposes it to afflictions whose consequences Almighty Allah only knows. This may lead to apostates' enticing other people, especially the gullible and those of weak faith, to join them. This, in turn, may lead to those apostates forming a group hostile to the Muslim nation and seeking the help of its enemies against it. In this way, the Muslim nation will fall into intellectual, social, and political disputes and disintegration, which may develop into bloody ones or even into a civil war that could destroy everything. One scenario took place in Afghanistan when a group of people gave up their religion and adopted communist beliefs after they had studied in Russia. They were recruited by the Communist party. The Afghani people were heedless of this danger, which gave the chance for this group to hold power in Afghanistan; and by virtue of their authority, they set to wholly change the identity of the Muslim community there. But the Muslim Afghans did not give in; they resisted as much as they could and formed the valiant Afghani jihad against the communist apostates, who even dared to request Russian military help against their people and country. The Russian troops attacked Afghanistan with tanks and artillery and heavily bombarded it. That was the scenario of the ten-year-long civil war that destroyed Afghanistan and caused the death and injury of millions of people there. All that was a result of ignoring the issue of the apostates and remaining silent about their crime of apostasy from the beginning. Had those renegades been punished before the situation became serious, the Afghani people would have been saved from the evils of this aggressive war and its destructive results. I would like to lay down the following guidelines that are relevant to judging apostates:
Some jurists say that an apostate should be given a 3 day respite to repent; some say it is less than this, some say it is more, and some others say he is to be asked for this for as long as he lives. Some scholars, however, made exception of the hypocrite (zendiq), who pretends to be a Muslim never actually was. According to certain scholars, repentance cannot be accepted from hypocrites. This applies also to those who insult the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The purpose of the respite given to apostates here is to give them a chance to review their situation, as they may overcome their state of confusion and become convinced of Islam as the true religion; if they are really seekers of the truth. But if their apostasy is based on desires or an activity in the interest of the enemies of Islam, may Almighty Allah severely punish them. Some contemporary intellectuals say that it is Almighty Allah, not man, who accepts (or refuses) repentance. But this has to do with the rulings of the hereafter. As with those of this world, the apparent repentance (of sinners), and declaring their Islam, is to be accepted by the concerned authorities. Almighty Allah orders us to judge people according to their apparent states, and their intentions are up to Him to decide upon. In this regard, an authentic hadith is reported to the effect that the blood and property of those who bear witness that there is no god but Allah will be inviolable and that their reckoning will be with Allah (concerning their intentions and what they harbor in their hearts). Therefore, if individuals were to take it upon themselves to label people as apostates and judge them accordingly as deserving the death penalty, and, moreover, seek to implement the penalty themselves, it would pose a great danger to people's lives and properties. If this were to happen, it would entail that ordinary unqualified people would possess three authorities simultaneously: the authority of giving fatwas - by accusing certain people of being apostates - the authority of passing judgments, and the authority of carrying out those judgments. In other words, they would be acting as muftis, prosecutors, judges, and police all together. Refuting Objection of Intellectuals Some contemporary writers who are not versed in religious knowledge object to the penalty of proclaimed apostasy being death by saying that this penalty is not mentioned in the Qur'an. It is only mentioned in a hadith ahad (hadith that is narrated by people whose number does not reach that of the mutawatir, which is hadith that is narrated by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together); and hadiths ahad, according to them, are not taken as evidences for the legal punishments prescribed by Shari`ah. But this objection is refutable in many aspects as follows. First, according to the scholarly consensus, the authentic Sunnah is a source for applied rulings in Shari`ah. Almighty Allah says, [Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger.] (An-Nur 24:54). He also says, [Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah.] (An-Nisaa' 4:80) As for the hadiths specifying the death penalty for apostates, they have been proven to be authentic. Besides, they were put into effect by the Companions in the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. In addition, claiming that hadiths ahad are not taken as evidences for the legally prescribed punishments is not tenable, as all the followed schools of jurisprudence have depended in prescribing the penalty for alcohol consumption on the hadiths ahad reporting the punishment thereof. However, the hadiths ahad which were reported about the penalty of apostasy are greater in number and more authentic than those reported about the punishment of alcohol consumption. Had it been true that hadiths ahad were not to be applicable with regard to the legally prescribed penalties, this would have led to disregarding the Sunnah as the second primary source of Shari`ah right after the Qur'an, or at least disregarding 95 percent (if not 99 percent) thereof. This, in turn, would have also undermined the principle of abiding by Allah Almighty's Qur'an and the Sunnah of His Prophet. This is because, scholarly speaking, hadiths ahad constitute the majority of the hadiths tackling the rulings of Shari`ah; and mutawatir hadiths, which are analogous to ahad ones, are of such rarity that some eminent scholars of Hadith, as mentioned by Ibn As-Salah in his distinguished introduction of the Sciences of Hadith, said that they are hardly found. Many of the writers denying hadiths ahad as a source of the rulings of Shari`ah do not know what exactly hadiths ahad refer to. They think that they are those reported only by one transmitter of Hadith, which is wrong, as hadiths ahad are those related by groups of individuals fewer than those said to have related mutawatir hadiths at one or more stages of the transmission of the hadiths, though traced through contiguous, successive narrators back to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). An ahad hadith may have been reported by two, three, four, or more Companions and still a multiple number of successors reported it on their authority. In this respect, the hadith referring to inflicting the death penalty upon apostates was reported by a large number of the Companions, some of whom were referred to above. Hence, it is a clear well-known hadith in this respect. Second, another considerable source of Shari`ah in Islam is scholarly consensus (on the rulings thereof). With regard to apostasy, all Muslim jurists of all schools of jurisprudence, Sunni and Shiite, agree that apostates must be punished. And most jurists, furthermore, agree, with the exception of `Umar, An-Nakh`i, and Ath-Thawri, that their punishment is death. Nevertheless, there is scholarly consensus that apostasy is considered a punishable crime. Third, some early Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the following verse refers to how to deal with apostates, [The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution] (Al-Ma'idah 5:33). Of those scholars are Abu Qulabah and others.12 We have referred to Ibn Taymiyah's opinion to the effect that waging war against Allah and His Messenger by speaking openly against them is more dangerous to Islam than physically attacking its followers and that moral mischief in the land is more hazardous than physical mischief. This is further supported by the fact that among the hadiths that say that the blood of a Muslim is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three persons, there is a hadith reported on the authority of `A'ishah to the same effect, but instead of saying, "Someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community," she reported, "Or someone who goes out waging war against Allah and His Messenger, in which case he is to be killed, crucified, or expelled from the land.'' This proves that the immediately above-mentioned verse includes reference to the apostates. Note also that Almighty Allah says, [O ye who believe! Whoso of you becometh a renegade from his religion, (know that in his stead) Allah will bring a people whom He loveth and who love Him, humble toward believers, stern toward disbelievers, striving in the way of Allah, and fearing not the blame of any blamer. Such is the grace of Allah which He giveth unto whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.] (Al-Ma'idah 5:54) This verse indicates that Almighty Allah has prepared a group of believers, whose characteristics are referred to in the verse, to deal with apostates, by being "stern toward disbelievers," as was the case with Abu Bakr and the believing Companions with him when they protected Islam against apostasy. There are also a number of verses about the hypocrites indicating that they protected themselves against being killed because of their disbelief by way of making false oaths to the contrary to flatter the believers. Among these verses are the following, [They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds)] (Al-Mujadilah 58:16); [They will swear unto you that ye may be pleased with them] (At-Tawbah 9:96); and[They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief] (At-Tawbah 9:74). According to these verses, the hypocrites denied their disbelief and swore to it, which indicates also that had there been clear proofs of their disbelief, their false oaths would not have protected them from being punished.13 The most dangerous kind of apostasy is that of rulers, whom are supposed to protect the Muslim nation's beliefs, resist apostasy, and uproot apostates altogether from the Muslim community. However, we find that many rulers welcome apostasy secretly and openly; proclaim dissoluteness flagrantly and in disguise; and protect apostates and confer titles and decorations upon them. These kinds of rulers favor Allah's enemies and are against Allah's true worshippers. They take religious beliefs lightly, belittle Shari`ah, disrespect divine and prophetic ordinances and prohibitions, and disdain the sacred emblems and symbols of the Muslim nation, namely, the members of the Prophet's household, his pious Companions, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, the eminent religious scholars, and the heroes of Islam. Moreover, they consider adhering to the ordinances of Islam, such as the performing of prayers in mosques for men and the wearing of veils for women, a crime and a manifestation of extremism. Not only this, but they also seek to proclaim and apply the philosophy of "undermining the sources" (from which the true Muslims derive the right courses to follow) in the educational process, the media, and the culture, so as to hinder the construction of a true Muslim mentality. Furthermore, they pursue the true callers for Islam and obstruct every faithful call and movement that aims at reviving religion and upgrading this world on its basis. However, it is strange that this kind of people, in spite of their flagrant apostasy, are interested in preserving the outward appearance of Islam, so that they cunningly use it in demolishing Islam; the Muslim nation thus treats them as Muslims, yet they seek to undermine its basic internal structure (of belief). They may even seek to have a connection with religion by encouraging false manifestations of religion and bringing close to them insincere religious scholars who flatter them and who are described by some as "the scholars of the (political) authority and agents of the police." The situation is thus complicated, for if those people hold in their power the official bodies responsible for issuing fatwas and the judiciary, who may judge them as apostates or punish them for their open disbelief? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) referred to the open disbelief of this kind of people in a hadith that states the following:
Here comes the role of the Muslim public opinion that is to be led by the reputable scholars and people who call people to Islam and unbiased intellectuals. Should it be hindered from exercising its role, its abhorring resistance will certainly lead someday to putting an end to those oppressive apostates; for it is not easy for the Muslim community to lose its identity or make concessions with regard to its beliefs and message. French colonialism in Algeria and Russian colonialism in Muslim majority countries fiercely tried to uproot Muslim identity therein, although they had no effect. Colonialism and tyranny came to an end, while Islam and the Muslims remained. However, the war waged against Islam on the part of some secularist rulers of some Muslim countries, as well as some secularist Muslim immigrants, is proved to be fiercer and more dangerous than that which colonial powers waged against Islam and Muslims. There is another kind of apostasy among people who do not declare their explicit disbelief and openly wage war against everything that is religious. Those apostates are far smarter than that. They wrap their apostasy in various coverings, sneaking in a very cunning manner into the mind, the same way that malignant tumors sneak into the body. These people are not noticed when they invade or begin to disseminate their falsehood, but they are mostly felt when they affect the minds. They do not use guns in their attacks; however, their attacks are fierce and cunning. Reputable scholars and well-versed jurists are aware of this type of apostates, but they cannot take action in the face of such professional criminals, who have firmly established themselves and have not left a chance for law to be enforced on them. They are the hypocrites whose abode will be in the lowest level of Hellfire. This is intellectual apostasy, whose traces are noticed everyday in circulated newspapers and books, in radio and TV programs, and in laws legislated to govern people's affairs. This kind of apostasy is - at least in my point of view - more dangerous than openly announced apostasy; for the former works continuously on a wide scale, at the same time, it cannot be easily resisted in the same manner as the latter, which always makes much fuss, attracts attention, and stirs up public opinion. Hypocrisy is more dangerous than open disbelief. This fact will be clearly discerned when one reflects back to the great danger which the leader of Madinah's hypocrites, `Abdullah ibn Ubayy, posed to Islam. The Madinah's hypocrites were more threatening to Islam than Abu Jahl and the pagans of Makkah. It is for this that the Qur'an specified only two verses for dispraising disbelievers at the beginning of Surat Al-Baqarah, while hypocrites were given a share of thirteen verses in the same surah. Intellectual apostasy is continuously propagated night and day. We feel its relentless and ruthless effects on our society. It needs a wide-scale attack at the same level of power and thought. The positive religious obligation here is for Muslims to launch war against such a hidden enemy; to fight it with the same weapon it uses in waging attacks against the society. Here comes the role of reputable scholars who are well-versed in Islamic Jurisprudence. It is true that the pioneers of this new form of apostasy are well supported on the media level, but the power of truth, the faith reposed in the hearts of believers, and Allah's support are more than enough to vanquish this falsehood and pierce the hearts of those who spread it with their own daggers. Here, we will feel joyful with this Divine victory and will really understand the following verse, [Nay, We hurl the truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! Woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us)] (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:18). In conclusion, we have nothing to say but to recite the verse that reads, [Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth truth and vanity. For the scum disappears like forth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables] (Ar-Ra`d 13:17 | |||||||||||
[1]Title of a treatise by the eminent scholar Abu Al-Hasan An-Nadawi. [2] Majama` Az-Zawa'id, vol. 6, p. 261. [3]See the interpretation of "the fourteenth hadith" in Jami` Al-`Ulum wa Al-Hikam. Revised by Shu`aib Al-Arna'ut. (Dar As-Salam ed). [4]See Nail Al-Awtar, vol. 8, p. 506, (Dar Al-Jil ed). [5] Reported by `Abdur-Raziq in his Musannaf, vol. 10, p. 168. saying no. 18707. [7]Ibn Taymiyah, As-Sarim Al-Maslul, p. 368 (As-Sa`adah ed, verified by Muhey Ad-Din `Abdul-Hamid). [8]`Abdur-Raziq, Al-Musanaf, vol. 10, pp. 165-166, saying no. 18696; Al-Baihaqi, As-Sunan, vol. 8, p. 207; Sa`id ibn Mansur, p.3, saying no. 2573; Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla, vol. 11, p. 221 (Al-Imam ed). This attitude of `Umar indicates that he did not see the death penalty as a regular punishment for apostasy to be applied in each case a person apostatizes from Islam; it might be cancelled or deferred if there was a necessity for this. The necessity in the accident quoted was the state of war and the close distance between those apostates and the disbelievers, which may expose the former to temptation and confusion by the latter. `Umar might have based his judgment on holding analogy between this case and the one in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said, "Hands (of thieves) are not to be cut off during wartime;" this was for fear that the thief whose hand would be cut might get so distressed that he would join the enemy. There might be another reason for `Umar's judgment in that situation. He might have believed that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him" as a leader of the Muslim nation. In other words, it was a decision of the executive authority and a matter of political legislation, not a revelation from Allah. Accordingly, putting the apostate to death is not a binding ruling to be followed in every case. Rather, it is a decision for those in authority in the government to take; if it orders that the apostate be executed, it must be put into effect, and vise versa. This is similar to what the Hanafis and Malikis derived from the hadith that reads, "He (the soldier) who kills an enemy will take the possessions of this enemy;" and to what the Hanafis concluded. from the hadith that says, "He who reclaims a barren land will have it." See my book, The General Characteristics of Islam, p. 217. [9]`Abdur-Raziq, Al-Musanaf, vol. 10, saying no. 18697. [10]Ibn Taimiyah, As-Sarim Al-Maslul, p. 321. [11]Ibn Taymiyah, As-Sarim Al-Maslul, p. 385. [12]The Egyptian judiciary had praiseworthy precedents in separating between spouses on the basis of the apostasy of one of them (having embraced the Bahai faith). There is a verdict issued in this respect by Judge `Ali `Ali Mansur; the verdict is published in a special treatise and supported by a verdict issued by the State's Tribunal on 11/7/1952. The verdict reads, "The rulings pertaining to apostasy [in Shari`ah] must be wholly applied even though the current penal law does not stipulate the capital punishment unto the apostates. Let the apostate (who converted to the Bahai faith) bear the responsibility (for his deeds) at least by annulling his marriage, so long as there are judiciary bodies in the state that have judicial authority by virtue of the court's direct or collateral capacity." [13]Al-Hanbali, Ibn Rajab, Jami` Al-`Ulum wa Al-Hikam, p.320. |
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Apostasy Major and Minor
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Prayer while traveling
| Prayer while traveling Adil Salahi | Arab News |
When we travel by plane or train, we notice some people offering their prayers while seated, facing the direction in which they are seated, or in which their means of transport is moving. They believe that this is a concession like that of shortening prayer when traveling. How correct are they? Jabir ibn Abdullah reports: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to offer prayer riding his mount, facing the direction in which it was moving. However, when he wanted to offer an obligatory prayer he would dismount and face the direction of the Qiblah." (Related by Al-Bukhari). This Hadith makes clear which prayer can be offered while we are in the process of traveling, using a means of transport, and which cannot. The first point the Hadith makes is that only voluntary prayer, i.e. Sunnah, can be offered when our means of transport is moving. There is no need to turn into an uncomfortable direction in order to face the Kaaba in Makkah, which is the Qiblah. By doing so, the Prophet encourages us to offer such voluntary prayer to earn reward from God. When the Prophet wanted to offer one of the five obligatory prayers, he would stop, dismount, face the Qiblah and pray. This is due to the fact that obligatory prayer is the most important duty of Islamic worship. As such, it should be given its due attention. A traveler using a horse or a camel can easily stop to offer his prayers wherever he happens to be. The same applies to traveling by car today. It is when we are using public transport that we cannot choose where and when to stop. We sometimes spend 10 hours on a plane. How should we offer our obligatory prayers? There are simple rules to apply when traveling by plane or train. If we can stand up, face the Qiblah and do our prayer in the normal way, bowing and prostrating, then we must do so. Certain airlines have allocated space on their planes for prayers. We should make use of that arrangement. On other airlines, we may be able to use one side of the catering area to pray. In such cases, the prayer is proper and valid. Offering obligatory prayer in one's seat is acceptable only when we have no other choice. The concessions God has given us in respect of offering prayer during travel, including shortening and combining prayers, make such a necessity unlikely. In order for an obligatory prayer to be valid in this way, we should have boarded the plane before the prayer is due and we are certain that its time range will have lapsed before we can offer it at our destination. In such a case, we should try to offer it normally, next to the catering area, standing up and prostrating. If we are prevented from doing so, we may offer it in our seats. On the other hand, if we begin our travel after Dhuhr or Maghreb prayer becomes due, we should offer Dhuhr and Asr, or Maghreb and Isha before boarding the plane. This means, in most cases, that the next obligatory prayer will not fall due until we have reached our destination. The problem of time range arises when we begin a long flight shortly before Dhuhr prayer is due, and we are traveling eastward. Suppose our flight takes six hours, starting at 11 a.m., with three hours time difference between our starting point and our destination, we arrive at 8 p.m. when Maghreb has already fallen due. In this case we should pray on the plane. We pray in our seats only if we cannot use a proper space to offer our prayer in the normal way. |
Friday, August 7, 2009
Clinton vows new US support for Somalia
Clinton vows new US support for Somalia
NAIROBI, Kenya — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday pledged to expand American support for Somalia's weak interim government and threatened sanctions against neighboring Eritrea for aiding an extremist group she says is trying to launch worldwide terrorist attacks from Somalia.
Clinton said the Obama administration would boost military supplies and other aid to the Somali government and an African peacekeeping force supporting it. She did not detail the new aid.
Clinton warned Eritrea, accused by the U.S. of supporting the extremist Somali militia known as al-Shabab, that it would face penalties if it continues to supply the group with arms and funding.
"It is long past time for Eritrea to cease and desist its support for al-Shabab," she said. "We are making it very clear that their actions are unacceptable. We intend to take action if they do not cease."
At the State Department, spokesman Robert A. Wood added that Eritrea was providing weapons and other support to al-Shabab "and we want them to stop."
Wood described Clinton as "frustrated with what they are doing."
"We do not want to see terrorism spreading," he said.
The spokesman declined to specify what kind of sanctions the administration might impose on Eritrea.
Clinton said that al-Shabab sees "Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism," and noted the recent arrests of four men allegedly linked to the group who are suspected of plotting attacks in Australia.
Clinton said that the U.S. is concerned that "al-Shabab not only uses foreign fighters and foreign money but foreign ideas in its attack on the people of Somalia."
"There is also no doubt that al-Shabab wants to take control of Somalia and use it as a base from which to influence and even infiltrate surrounding countries and launch attacks against countries far and near," Clinton said after meeting beleaguered Somali President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.
Ahmed agreed.
"Their aim is to make Somalia a ground to destabilize the whole world," said Ahmed, who appealed to Clinton for additional resources. "We cannot suffer any longer. The people of Somalia have a right to peace."
Although Clinton did not discuss the new assistance, other U.S. officials have said the administration plans to double an initial provision of 40 tons of arms sent to Somalia through other African nations.
The U.S. also has begun a low-profile mission to help train Somali security forces in nearby Djibouti, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities surrounding U.S. involvement in the program.
Ahmed's government, which holds only a few blocks in Mogadishu with support from the peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi, said Clinton had promised to "redouble" assistance.
Ahmed said Clinton had made promises of assistance on the "security front" and on the "humanitarian front." He would not elaborate.
Clinton said only that she and President Barack Obama "want to expand and extend our support." She also noted that the U.S. had given nearly $150 million to support the peacekeeping operation in Somalia over the past two years and said more money would be coming.
U.S. involvement in Somalia is a sensitive subject because of the 1992-94 American military intervention that began as a humanitarian mission to deliver aid supplies to Somalia.
That ended in a humiliating withdrawal months after the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" incident in which two U.S. helicopters were downed and 18 servicemen killed.
A spokesman for al-Shabab said Wednesday that any U.S. assistance to Ahmed's government or the peacekeepers would not stop its forces from fighting and predicted a repeat of the 1993 experience.
"Any support America gives the government will not deter us from pursuing our path because we believe Allah and we always hope from him to give us the upper hand," Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage told reporters in Mogadishu.
Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991 and the top U.N. envoy for the country has said the country is now at a "turning point" and in desperate need of international support, especially military equipment, training and money.
The United Nations Special Representative for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, welcomed Clinton's meeting with Ahmed, saying, "The Somali people are sick and tired of violence which has destroyed their lives."
"The international community must not let them down now," he said Thursday in a statement.
In addition to its current attacks against the Somali government, the U.S. accuses the al-Shabab of harboring suspects in the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Earlier Thursday, Clinton honored the victims of the 1998 embassy attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
A day before the 11th anniversary of the Aug. 7 bombings, she placed a wreath at the site of the former Nairobi embassy where 218 people died.
Clinton said it was a day "to renew our resolve to do all that we can to ensure that these attacks don't take more innocent lives in the future."
Associated Press writers Barry Schweid in Washington and Elizabeth Kennedy in Nairobi contributed to this report.
Patience and Perseverance
Allah, the Exalted, says: "O you who believe! Endure and be more patient..". (3:200) "And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirun (the patient)". (2:155)
Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "When Allah intends good for His slave, He punishes him in this world, but when He intends an evil for His slave, He does not hasten to take him to task but calls him to account on the Day of Resurrection.'' [At-Tirmidhi].
Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "When Allah intends good for His slave, He punishes him in this world, but when He intends an evil for His slave, He does not hasten to take him to task but calls him to account on the Day of Resurrection.'' [At-Tirmidhi].
What to do when a Muslim dies
What to do when a Muslim dies
What do the relatives of the deceased have to do if their relative dies suddenly? This scenario happens often in every family, and many people do not have the knowledge of what is prescribed in the Islamic sharee'ah concerning this. Please tell us, with the relevant evidence, the correct way to deal with this situation, so that if any of us are faced with this situation, we will not fall into bid'ah or do anything wrong.
Praise be to Allaah.
If the person has died and the soul has departed, then his relatives have to do the following:
- Closing his eyes
- Making du'aa' for him
This is because of the hadeeth of Umm Salamah, who said:
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to see Abu Salamah when his sight had become fixed (he had passed away). So the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him closed his eyes and said: 'When the soul is seized and it leaves the body, the eyes follow it.' Some of Abu Salamah's family wept and wailed, whereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: 'Pray to Allaah only for good for yourselves, because the angels (who are present) say "amen" to whatever you utter.' Then he said: 'O Allah! Forgive Abu Salamah; raise his station among those who are rightly-guided; and take good care of his family that he has left behind. O Lord of the Worlds! Forgive him and us, make his grave spacious, and put light therein for him."
(Narrated by Muslim, Ahmad, al-Bayhaqi and others)
(c) They should cover him with a cloth that will cover all of his body.
This is because of the hadeeth of 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her), according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was shrouded in a striped cloak.
(Narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) in their Saheehs, by al-Bayhaqi and others).
(d) This applies in the case of one who does not die in a state of ihraam; the person who dies in ihraam should not have his head or face covered.
This is because of the hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas who said: "Whilst a man was standing at 'Arafaah, he fell from his mount and broke his neck (or he said, he died). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Wash him with water and lotus leaves, and shroud him in two cloths" (according to another report, "… in his two cloths [which he was wearing for ihraam]") "… and do not perfume his body, and do not cover his head [or his face], for he will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection reciting the Talbiyah."
(Narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) in their Saheehs, and by Abu Na'eem in al-Mustakhraj, and by al-Bayhaqi. The additional material was not narrated by al-Bukhaari).
(e) They should hasten to prepare him and take him out, if it is obvious that he is dead
This is because of the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) which he attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): 'Hasten to bury the deceased, for if he was righteous, then you are taking him to something good, and if he was otherwise, then it is an evil of which you are relieving yourselves."
(Narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) – this version was narrated by Muslim, and the authors of the four Sunans. It was classed as saheeh by al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad and al-Bayhaqi from Abu Hurayrah).
(f) They should bury him in the city or country where he died, and not move him elsewhere, because that would contradict the haste in burying that is enjoined in Islam.
Hence when a brother of 'Aa'ishah died in Wadi al-Habashah, and he was moved from the place where he had died, she said, "The only thing that upset me (or grieved me) was that I wished that he had been buried in the place where he died." (Narrated by al-Bayhaqi with a saheeh isnaad).
Al-Nawawi said in al-Adhkaar: "If he (the dying person) leaves instructions that he be moved to another land [for burial], those instructions should not be carried out, because moving the deceased [to another land for burial] is haraam according to the correct view of the majority, and was clearly stated by those who examined the matter in depth."
(g) Some of them should hasten to pay off his debts from his money, even if that means paying all that is left. If he did not have any wealth, then the state should pay on his behalf, if he had tried his best to pay off his debts. If the state does not do that, and some people volunteer to do that, then that is OK.
It was narrated from Sa'd ibn al-Atwal (may Allaah be pleased with him) that his brother died, leaving three hundred dirhams, and leaving dependents. He said, "I wanted to spend it on his dependents, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, 'Your brother is being detained by his debt, so go and pay it off for him.' So I went and paid it off, then I came and said, 'O Messenger of Allaah, I have paid it off, except for two dirhams which a woman claimed (were owed to her), but she had no proof.' He said, 'Give them to her, because that is her due (or, because she is speaking the truth).'" (Narrated by Ibn Maajah, Ahmad and al-Bayhaqi. One of its isnaads is saheeh and the other is like the isnaad of Ibn Maajah. Al-Boosayri classed it as saheeh in al-Zawaa'id).
It was narrated from Samurah ibn Jundub that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed the funeral prayer (according to one report, he prayed the Fajr prayer), and "when he had finished he said, 'Is there anybody here from the family of So and so?' The people remained silent, because whenever he brought anything up, they would keep quiet at first. He said that three times, and no one answered. Then a man said, 'Here he is.' A man stood up and came, dragging his lower garment, from the back of the assembly. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, 'What kept you from answering me the first two times? I did not mention your name except for a good reason. So-and-so – a man from amongst them – is being kept by his debt from Paradise. If you wish, you may ransom him, or if you wish, you may leave him to the punishment of Allaah.' If only you had seen his family and those who knew of his affairs getting up and praying off his debts, until there was no one left who could make any demands from him.'"
(Narrated by Abu Dawood, al-Nasaa'i, al-Haakim, al-Bayhaqi, al-Tayaalisi in his Musnad and Ahmad. Some of them narrated from al-Shu'bi from Samurah, and some mentioned Sam'aan ibn Mushannij in between them. The former is saheeh according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhaari and Muslim], as al-Haakim said, and al-Dhahabi agreed with him; the latter is saheeh only)
We ask Allaah to forgive the believing men and women. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad
Adapted from Mukhtasar Ahkaam al-Janaa'iz by al-Albaani
Saturday, August 1, 2009
DEMOCRACY in Pakistan: Text of Supreme Court Verdict on Musharraf Case.
01 AUGUST, 2009
Text of Supreme Court Verdict on Musharraf Case.31 July 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction).
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja.
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 09 OF 2009
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its secretary.
PETITIONER
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 08 OF 2009
Nadeem Ahmed Advocate
PETITIONER
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others.
RESPONDENTS
For the petitioner: Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC.
(Const.P.09/2009) Mr. Rashid A. Razvi, ASC.
Mr. MS Khattak, AOR
Assisted by
M/s Waqar Rana, Waheed Khalid Khan and Haq Nawaz Talpur, Advocates.
For the petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC.
(Const.P.08/2009)
Assisted by
Barristers Ms Natalya Kamal & Syed Shehryar, Advocates
For respondent No.1
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa Attorney General of Pakistan.
Agha Tariq Mehmood Khan, DAG
Mr. Shah Khawar, DAG.
Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, AOR.
For respondent No.2
Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Leghari, A.G. Sindh.
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.
For respondent Nos.3 & 4. Nemo.
Respondent No.5. Not represented.
Dates of hearing: 20th to 24th and 27th to 31st July, 2009.
JUDGEMENT
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
The above Constitutional Petitions bearing Nos. 9 of 2009 and 8 of 2009 involve common questions of facts and law and are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. In the first mentioned petition, the petitioner while referring to several provisions of Constitution and the case law, beside making other contentions, legal and factual, has stated, in para No.5, that:
"The removal of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts on 3.11.2007 was not only violative of Article 209 of the Constitution, 1973 but was against the rule laid down by the bench of twelve (12) Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD 2000 SC 869). The subsequent validation in the case of Tika Iqbal Khan (PLD 2008 SC 178) a smaller bench of the Supreme Court is per-incuriam and in any event, is not by a Supreme Court that is de jure. It is respectfully submitted, that Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar could not be treated as Constitutional head of the Supreme Court even after the decision in the case of Tika Iqbal Khan (supra) as he himself was the real beneficiary of the said Judgement and contrary to one of the cardinal principles of natural justice, "no person should be judge in his own cause" had headed the bench. Hence, in view of the facts and reasons stated above Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is still the Chief Justice of Pakistan as per Constitution and all appointments and re-appointments made in the Supreme Court and High Courts without consultation of de jure Chief justice of Pakistan are unlawful, illegal, ultra-vires of the Constitution as well as malafide".
3. Having made above averments, the petitioner has, inter-alia, sought a declaration to the effect that the respondents Nos 3 and 4 namely Justice Zaffar Ahmad Khan Sherwani and Justice Abdul Rashid Kalwar are and continue to be Judges of High Court of Sindh and that they would continue as Additional Judges till 25.8.2010 and that their term of appointment has not expired as opined by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as then he was called. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for him prayed further that following declarations be also granted:
i) that the purported acts done by General Pervez Musharraf, (Rtd) between 3.11.2007 to 16.12.2007 aimed at to suspend and amend the Constitution through several instruments are unconstitutional, invalid and without any legal consequence;
ii) that on account of his acts taken during 3.11.2007 to 15.12.2007 relating to superior judiciary, General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) became a usurper;
iii) all the appointments of judges of superior judiciary on or after 3.11.2007 up till 22.3.2008 which were without consultation of de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan are/were unconstitutional, invalid and without any legal consequence;
iv) that the two (so called) judgements dated 23.11.2007 and 15.2.2008 on Constitutional Petitions No. 87 and 88 of 2007 filed by Tika Iqbal Muhammad and WATAN Party and the Review Petition No.7 of 2008 filed by the former are/were nullity in law, being decisions per incuriam, corum-non-judice, without any legal basis and based on malafide proceedings rendered by biased persons of Tribunal (then calling themselves as Judges of this Court) fraudulently, collusively and lacking in bona-fides;
4. In the other petition No. 8 of 2009 which has been filed by Nadeem Ahmad, a practicing Advocate, while criticising the judgement delivered in case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan versus Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2008 SC 178), the petitioner has, inter-alia, averred as follows:
"All the persons who were not judges on 3rd November 2007 but who were brought into Supreme Court and High Courts as 'judges' despite the fact that the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan was never consulted before their appointment which meant that they were never appointed under the Constitution."
AND
"On the night of 22 March 2009, issuance of cause lists comprising persons who have not been appointed in strict adherence to Article 177 and who are therefore complete strangers to the Supreme Court, is a serious matter and it is incumbent on the Honourable Chief Justice, before proceeding with any other judicial work, to forthwith stop all these persons from hearing any cases till such time that he, along with other validly appointed judges, are able to look into and judicially determine validity of their appointments as judges."
5. The petitioner has, among others, sought a declaration that all those persons, both in Supreme Court and High Courts, regardless of whether they have taken oath under PCO or the Constitution, who have been appointed without 'consultation' of Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan as not judges and therefore, not entitled to function as such.
6. On 22.7.2009 a notice was issued to General Pervez Musharraf (r) on his available address intimating him about the proceedings in this case and 29.7.2009 as the date fixed therein before this court. The Process Serving Officer reported on the same day that he had gone to the residential place viz: C-1, B Park Road, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad where a person identifying himself as Muhammad Hussain son of Amir and that on formers offer the latter refused to receive the notice. The factum of issuance of the afore-referred notice was widely televised through National and International TV channels. Also, it was widely published in National and International print media, but, on the date so fixed no one entered appearance.
7. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Attorney General for Pakistan.
8. Before dilating upon the pleas taken in the arguments by learned counsel for the parties, in our view, some of the facts/events which took place before 3rd November, 2007 touching the very basis of the issues involved in the matter are brought on record.
9. In our country, during sixty years of its independence after partition, to the misfortune of people, several times, the Constitutions framed by Legislative Bodies were desecrated. Sovereignty of people was not allowed to flourish and get deep-rooted in the polity of our country. Prior to 3rd November, 2007, the Constitutions were either abrogated or put in abeyance and the democratic system of governance was put to an end. For the first time, Constitution of 1956 was abrogated on 7th October, 1958 and Martial Law was imposed by the then president, Sikandar Mirza who dismissed the Central and Provincial Governments; dissolved the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies and abolished all Political Parties and appointed General Muhammad Ayub Khan, the then Commander in Chief as Martial Law Administrator. Sikandar Mirza was soon, within few days, replaced by the latter. On 25th March, 1969, again the then head of Army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, abrogated the Constitution of 1962 and by proclamation (PLD 1969 Central Statutes 42) Promulgated Martial Law followed by Provisional Constitution Order (Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary 4th April, 1969). On 5th July, 1977 once again Martial Law was imposed throughout the country by the then head of Army Chief vis former General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who, vide Proclamation of Martial Law (PLD 1969 Federal Statutes 326) dissolved the National Assembly, the Senate, the Provincial Assemblies etc. and put the Constitution of 1973 in abeyance followed by Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977. When the Constitution was revived, it was undeniably, in a mutilated form by the notorious Eighth Amendment.
10. Later, there was another onslaught on the ongoing democratic system of governance. On 12th October, 1999, the then Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, now retired, once more, put the Constitution in abeyance and the whole of Pakistan was brought under the control of Armed Forces. The National Assembly, the Senate and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended, so also, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended and it was declared that the Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors, the Provincial Chief Ministers and the Adviser to the Chief Ministers would cease to hold offices, followed by issuance of Provisional Constitution Order and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000. General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd), self-styled himself as chief executive and started ruling the country under the new dispensation. Later, he, unceremoniously, occupied the office of president and in the coming years revived the Constitution with Seventeenth Amendment.
11. Again, on 3rd November, 2007 the General Pervez Musharraf, (Rtd), in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff, in the garb of declaration of emergency, put the Constitution in abeyance, issued Provisional Constitution Order No 1 of 2007 followed by the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, making as many as sixty-one (61) Judges of superior judiciary including Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chief Justices of three Provinces dysfunctional for many of them either did not agree to take or were not given the oath. Of them were; from Supreme Court 13 out of 18 (17 permanent and one ad-hoc) Judges including Chief Justice of Pakistan, 18 out of 31 Judges of the Lahore High Court, 24 out of 28 Judges including Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh, 6 out of 13 Judges including Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court. It is quite saddening that all the five Judges including the Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court took oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007.
12. An independent and strong judiciary is a backbone of viable democratic system all over the world. The time-tested experience has proved that independent and strong judiciary provides strength to the institutions running government particularly, those who roll on the wheels of democracy. Equally the independent and strong judiciary acts as an arbiter striking balance among various segments of Democratic system. It helps State organs, such, as, Legislature, Executive and the judiciary itself to function smoothly maintaining balance inter se. The constitution of Pakistan, of 1973, too, provides the judiciary guarantees enshrined in it and states that the judiciary shall be fully secured, but, unfortunately, to its great dismay, this organ of State has, all along been under the wrath of adventurers imposing their dictatorial terms obviously for their ulterior designs. The history of this country witnessed that in a set up of one government tenure of a Chief Justice of Pakistan was curtailed with ulterior motives and was restored to its original position when the designs were stood achieved. Likewise, through various instruments, the favorites and pliant members of superior judiciary were out rightly given underserved benefits while the others were shown doors. This happened during the era of the then Martial Law Administrator General Zia-ul-Haq and following the same foot steps, General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) did the same in the year 2000. Many judges of superior judiciary who declined to toe his line of action were unceremoniously sacked.
13. General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) through his 1999/2000 action, declared that the National Assembly, the provincial Assemblies, Senate, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, Speaker of National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended and the Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors and the provincial Chief Ministers and the Advisers to the Chief Ministers, to have ceased to hold offices. However, his November 2007 action was a singular in nature, in that, the onslaught was on judiciary alone. All other institutions were intact. The independence of judiciary was given a serious blow. In order to save the judiciary from being destroyed, for the first time in the history of this Country, a seven member bench of this Court headed by the de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan, passed an order, inter-alia, restraining the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan from undertaking any such action, which was contrary to the Independence of Judiciary. So also the Judges of this Court and that of the High Courts including Chief Justice(s) were required not to take oath under the Provincial Constitution Order or any other extra Constitutional step and on the same day viz: 3.11.2007, the order was served on the members of superior judiciary through the respective Registrars of the Courts by way of Fax. It was also sent to all the relevant Executive functionaries.
14. The action of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) was, undeniably, taken to prevent the 11-member Bench of this Court, which was hearing the Petition No. 73 of 2007 filed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad and others in which the qualification of the General was in question, and perhaps, he was not expecting a favourable decision. The reasons shall, in that behalf, be found in the detailed judgement. Be that as it may, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as then he was called, alongwith four other Judges of this Court took oath in pursuance of unconstitutional Provisional Constitution Order and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007 and by that he also violated the order of seven member Bench of this Court which was headed by de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan. Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar took the oath of Chief Justice of Pakistan, although, the office was not vacant. Some of High Courts Judges too took oath likewise violating the constitution and the order of seven-member Bench, legally and lawfully passed. Besides, many other Judges in this Court and in the High Courts were appointed and they took oath in violation of constitutional provisions and the order of seven-member Bench of this Court.
15. Subsequently, in order to dilute the effect of afore-referred seven-member Bench order, Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the CJP, as then was called, constituted a Bench of eight Judges including those appointed afresh in pursuance of Provisional Constitution Order and took up CMA bearing No. 2874 of 2007 in Constitution Petition No. 73 of 2007 and by their order dated 6.11.2007 illegally and unlawfully, without the mandate of the Constitution, declared the order dated 3.11.2007 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Later, a 10-member Bench was also constituted, which was headed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, as then he was called. This Bench again illegally and unlawfully took up and dismissed the petition No. 73 and Original Criminal Petition No. 51 of 2007 filed by Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad calling in question the eligibility of General Pervez Musharraf to contest election to the office of President although, it already stood dismissed for want of instruction. Further details in this behalf shall be given in the detailed judgment.
16. Also subsequently, another seven-member bench headed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, as then he was called, took up hearing the case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan and WATAN Party and decided the same on the principle of 'Salus Populi Supreme Lex' and granted that relief which was even not prayed by the petitioner. This judgement is/was, ex-facie, per incuriam, corum-non-judice illegal and unlawful. Later, a time-barred Review Petition was filed by Tikka Iqbal Khan, which was heard by 13-member Bench and was dismissed, palpably to give impression that a larger Bench decided the matter to dilute the effect of a previous judgment handed down in case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD 2000 SC 869).
17. It may be noted that the chosen representative of the time, too, did not extend validation to the unconstitutional acts taken up to 3rd November, 2007 as is universally known. It is, however, quite heartening that, for the first time, in the history of our beloved country, the chosen representative of people, who took their offices as a result of election taking place on 18th February, 2008 have, commendably, stayed their hands off and have not sanctified the unconstitutional acts, such as, the Declaration of Emergency, the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1, the Oath of Office (Judges), Order, 2007, the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 (President's Order No. 5 of 2007), the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order of 2007 (President's Order No. 6 of 2007) and many other instruments made and declared by General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd). In this, their restraint not extending validity to all these unconstitutional and illegal instruments and other steps taken by retired General are laudable. Evidently, this was done by the present representatives of people believing firmly that the prosperity of the country lies in the strong and independent democratic system which can alone flourish and survive with democratic steps to be taken in the better interest of people always apt and keen to choose them in such a viable system of governance. We are sanguine that the current democratic dispensation comprising of the President, the Prime Minister, Ministers and the Parliament shall continue to uphold the Constitution, its institutions and sacred values.
18. From above, the conclusions drawn are that:
i) The General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) in the garb of Emergency Plus and the Provisional Constitution Order made amendments in the Constitution by self-acquired the powers which all are unconstitutional, unauthorised, without any legal basis, hence, without any legal consequences;
ii) Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, took oath as CJP in violation of the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by a 7 member Bench headed by de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan and in pursuance of unconstitutional instruments introduced by General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd), additionally knowing well that the office of Chief Justice of Pakistan was not lying vacant;
iii) Also, the Judges who were either retired or were not holding any judicial office, beside those in High Courts took fresh oath on their appointment on and after 3.11.2007 till 15.12.2007 in Supreme Court where the full strength of Judges alongwith an Ad-hoc Judge appointed under the Constitution were already working and thus there was no vacancy. Similarly, many Judges took oath in Provincial High Courts. All of them did so in violation of order dated 3.11.2007 passed by seven-member Bench headed by de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan. Four incumbent Judges already functioning in the Supreme Court took fresh oath under the influence of and in pursuance of unconstitutional steps of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd);
iv) The Petition No.73 of 2007 filed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad challenging the eligibility of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) to contest for the office of President in uniform was dismissed purportedly on merits although the record maintained in the Supreme Court revealed otherwise;
iv) The decisions in the cases of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan granting validity to the actions of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) were per incuriam, corum-non-judice, without any legal basis hence, of no legal consequences;
vi) The amendments in the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, (XXXIII, 1997) 1997 by way of Finance Act, 2008 raising the strength of Judges in Supreme Court from 17 (1+ 16) to 30 (1+29) seemingly aimed at providing allocation of funds for increasing the strength of Judges is unconstitutional because the strengths of Judges of Supreme Court is be increased by Parliament as defined in Article 50 to be read with Article 260 of the Constitution which defines the acts of Parliaments;
vii) Surprisingly, in the past the Courts of the time used to extend favours empowering the adventurers to amend the Constitution in actual effect were to achieve their overt and covert agenda but this time, such powers were acquired by the General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) himself through the PCO and brought a host of unconstitutional amendments for his own benefits; and
viii) The present representative of people firmly believe in strong and independent judiciary and the democratic system which is evident that the deposed Judges of Supreme Court, High Courts and the de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan were restored with effect from 3rd of November, 2007 implied that the present representatives of people denied the validity of the actions of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) taken from 3.11.2007 to 15.12.2007 during which the Constitution remained suspended.
19. Considering the above, in the light of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the material brought before us and for the detailed reasons to be recorded, we dispose the above petitions as follows.
20. The judgment purported to have been delivered in Constitutional Petitions bearing No: 87 and 88 of 2007 in the case titled as TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF AND OTHERS (PLD 2008 SC 25 and PLD 2008 SC 178) and the judgement dated 15.2.2008, purported to have been passed in C.R.P.No. 7 of 2008 titled as TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF AND OTHERS and any other judgwment/judgwments passed on the strength of the said two judgements are hereby declared to be void ab initio.
21. The Proclamation of Emergency issued by General Pervez Musharraf as the Chief of Army Staff (as he then was) on November 3, 2007; the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007 issued by him on the same date in his said capacity; the Oath of Office (Judges) Order of 2007 issued by him also on the same date though as the President of Pakistan but in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Proclamation of Emergency and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007; The Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 issued by him like-wise on 15.11.2007; the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being President's Order No. 5 of 2007 issued on November 20, 2007; the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President's Order No. 6 of 2007 issued on 14th December, 2007; the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order 2007 dated 14th December 2007 being the President's Order No. 7 of 2007; the High Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being Presidents Order No. 8 of 2007; the Supreme Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being President's Order No. 9 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007 are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, ultra-vires of the Constitution and consequently being illegal and of no legal effect.
22. As a consequence thereof:-
i) the Chief Justice of Pakistan; the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; any Chief Justice of any of the High Courts and the Judges of the High Courts who were declared to have ceased to hold their respective offices in pursuance of the afore-mentioned alleged judgments or any other such judgment and on account of the instruments mentioned in para 21 above, shall be deemed never to have ceased to be such Judges, irrespective of any notification issued regarding their reappointment or restoration;
ii) it is declared that the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan never fell vacant on November 3, 2007 and as a consequence thereof it is further declared that the appointment of Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the Chief Justice of Pakistan was un-constitutional; void ab initio and of no legal effect;
Provided that subject to whatever is contained hereinafter, the said un-constitutional appointment of Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the Chief Justice of Pakistan shall not affect the validity of any administrative or financial acts performed by him or of any oath made before him in the ordinary course of the affairs of the said office;
iii) since Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar was never a constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan, therefore, all appointments of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, of the Chief Justices of the High Courts and of the Judges of the High Courts made, in consultation with him, during the period that he, un-constitutionally, held the said office from 3.11.2007 to 22.3.2009 (both days inclusive) are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, void ab initio and of no legal effect and such appointees shall cease to hold office forthwith;
Provided that the Judges so un-constitutionally appointed to the Supreme Court while holding the offices as Judges of any of the High Courts shall revert back as Judges of the respective High Courts subject to their age of superannuation and likewise, the Judges of the High Courts, who were District and Sessions Judges before their said unconstitutional elevation to the High Courts shall revert back as District and Sessions Judge subject to limitation of superannuation;
iv) the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, if any, the Chief Justices of the High Court, if any, and the Judges of any of the High Courts, if any, who stood appointed to the said offices prior to 3.11.2007 but who made oath or took oath of their respective offices in disobedience to the order passed by a Seven-Member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 3.11.2007 in C.M.A.No. 2869 of 2007 in Constitution Petition No.73 of 2007, shall be proceeded against under Article 209 of the Constitution. The Secretary of the Law Division of the Government of Pakistan shall take steps in the matter accordingly;
Provided that nothing hereinabove shall affect those Judges who though had been appointed as Judges/Chief Justices of any of the High Courts between 3.11.2007 to 22.3.2009 but had subsequently been appointed afresh to other offices in consultation with or with the approval of or with the consent of the Constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan;
v) any judgements delivered or orders made or any decrees passed by any Bench of the Supreme Court or of any of the High Courts which comprised of or which included the afore-described Judges whose appointments had been declared void ab initio, are protected on the principle laid down in MALIK ASAD ALI'S CASE (PLD 1998 SC 161);
vi) since the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President's Order No. 5 of 2007 and the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order being President's Order No.7 of 2007 establishing Islamabad High Court for the Federal Capital Territory, have been declared to be un-constitutional and of no legal effect, therefore, the said Islamabad High Court shall cease to exist forthwith. All judicial matters pending before the said High Court before the passing of this order shall revert/stand transferred to the courts which had jurisdiction in the said matters before the promulgation of afore-mentioned President's Order No.5 of 2007 and President's Order No. 7 of 2007 promulgated on 14th December, 2007. The Judges of the said Court shall, as a consequence thereof, cease to be Judges except such Judges or the Chief Justice of the said court, who prior to their appointments in the said Islamabad High Court, were Judges of some other High Court who shall revert to the court of which they were originally the Judges, subject to their age of superannuation. The officers and employees of the said Court shall also cease to hold their respective appointments and shall become part of the Federal Government Surplus Pool for their further appointments. However, if any such officer or employee was an officer or an employee of some other court or department or office, such officers or employees shall revert to their respective courts, departments or offices to which they belonged before joining the service in the Islamabad High court, subject again to their age of superannuation;
we would like to mention here that establishment of a High Court or a Federal Court for the Federal Capital Territory might be a desirable act but it is unfortunate that such a step was taken in an unconstitutional and a highly objectionable manner. We may, therefore, add that notwithstanding what has been declared and ordered above, the relevant and competent authorities may take steps to establish such a court in accordance with the Constitution/the law.
vii) the Ordinances promulgated by the President or a Governor of a Province before 3.11.2007 which were given permanence by the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007 as also the Ordinances issued by the President or a Governor between 3.11.2007 and 15.12.2008 (both days inclusive) which were also, likewise given permanence through the same instrument and which legislative measures alongwith the said Provisional Constitution Order had been validated by the afore-mentioned judgment delivered in TIKA IQBAL MUHAMAD KHAN'S CASE, stand shorn of their purported permanence on account of our aforementioned declarations. Since on account of the said judgment in TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN'S CASE purporting to be a judgment of this Court, the presumption that the said Ordinances were valid laws not requiring approval of the Parliament or the respective Provincial Assemblies in terms of Article 89 or 128 of the Constitution and since it is today that this Court has attributed invalidity to the said legislative instruments, therefore, the period of 120 days and 90 days mentioned respectively in the said Article 89 and the said Article 128 of the Constitution, would be deemed to commence to run from today and steps may be taken to place the said Ordinances before the Parliament or the respective Provincial Assemblies in accordance with law;
viii) since the Constitution, through its Article 176, authorises only the Parliament to determine the number of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and since the Parliament had so done through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act XXXIII of 1997, therefore, the increase in the strength of the Judges through the Finance Act of 2008 which Act was not passed by the Parliament but was passed only by the National Assembly would be deemed to be valid only for financial purposes and not for the purposes of Article 176 of the Constitution. It is resultantly declared that the number of Judges of the Supreme Court for purposes of the said Article 176 shall continue to remain sixteen.
ix) in the Code of Conduct prescribed for the Judges of the Superior Courts in terms of Article 209(8) of the Constitution, a new clause shall be added commanding that no such Judge shall, hereinafter, offer any support in whatever manner to any unconstitutional functionary who acquires power otherwise than through the modes envisaged by the Constitution and that any violation of the said clause would be deemed to be misconduct in terms of the said Article 209 of the Constitution;
x) in view of our findings above regarding Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar not being a constitutional and a valid consultee, the notification dated 26.8.2008 and the notification dated 15.9.2008 extending the term of office of Mr. Justice Abdur Rashid Kalwar and of Mr. Justice Zafar Kalwar Khan Sherwani as Additional Judges of the High Court of Sindh are declared to be un-constitutional and of no legal effect.
xi) that the court acknowledges and respects the mandate given by the sovereign authority i.e. elec
Lockheed eyes more deals after India-U.S. defence pact.
By Bappa Majumdar
July 30 2009
Reuters
U.S.-based Lockheed Martin Corp says it will speed up delivery of six C-130J military planes to India and is negotiating for sale of six more in a deal potentially worth $1.1 billion, a senior official said.
Lockheed, one of the world's largest defence companies, last year sold six C-130J military transport planes for about $1.1 billion, India's biggest arms deal ever with the United States.
"We will start delivering the planes from the first quarter of 2011 and work is speeding at the moment to meet deadlines," Jack Giese, a senior manager at Lockheed Martin, told Reuters on Thursday.
"The current agreement with the Indian Air Force for six C-130J aircraft has an option for another six and we are holding talks at the moment."
A defence pact agreed with the U.S. last week allowing U.S. inspectors to check all defence equipment sold to India periodically, has paved the way for companies like Lockheed to eye the growing Indian defence market.
India is one of the world's biggest arms importers, and its government plans to spend more than $30 billion over the next five years to upgrade its largely Soviet-era arsenal to counter potential threats from Pakistan and China.
Lockheed is aiming for deals with India worth $15 billion in the next five years and is focusing on winning contracts for fighter aircraft, military transport aircraft, naval helicopters and missiles.
Lockheed and Boeing are two big U.S. companies trying to enter the Indian market, but New Delhi's reluctance to sign the defence pact, allowing U.S. inspectors to examine defence equipment sold to other countries was delaying new deals.
"It is a landmark agreement and Lockheed is looking forward to a long-term partnership with India," Giese, who is visiting India, said referring to the pact signed last week.
Lockheed is also gearing up for field trials in August to win a $10.4 billion contract to supply 126 F-16 fighter aircraft to India.
Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, France's Dassault Rafale, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of European companies, are the other companies in the race.
"We are very excited and ready since April for the trials to start and show what the F-16 can do," Giese added.
(Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani)
July 30 2009
Reuters
U.S.-based Lockheed Martin Corp says it will speed up delivery of six C-130J military planes to India and is negotiating for sale of six more in a deal potentially worth $1.1 billion, a senior official said.
Lockheed, one of the world's largest defence companies, last year sold six C-130J military transport planes for about $1.1 billion, India's biggest arms deal ever with the United States.
"We will start delivering the planes from the first quarter of 2011 and work is speeding at the moment to meet deadlines," Jack Giese, a senior manager at Lockheed Martin, told Reuters on Thursday.
"The current agreement with the Indian Air Force for six C-130J aircraft has an option for another six and we are holding talks at the moment."
A defence pact agreed with the U.S. last week allowing U.S. inspectors to check all defence equipment sold to India periodically, has paved the way for companies like Lockheed to eye the growing Indian defence market.
India is one of the world's biggest arms importers, and its government plans to spend more than $30 billion over the next five years to upgrade its largely Soviet-era arsenal to counter potential threats from Pakistan and China.
Lockheed is aiming for deals with India worth $15 billion in the next five years and is focusing on winning contracts for fighter aircraft, military transport aircraft, naval helicopters and missiles.
Lockheed and Boeing are two big U.S. companies trying to enter the Indian market, but New Delhi's reluctance to sign the defence pact, allowing U.S. inspectors to examine defence equipment sold to other countries was delaying new deals.
"It is a landmark agreement and Lockheed is looking forward to a long-term partnership with India," Giese, who is visiting India, said referring to the pact signed last week.
Lockheed is also gearing up for field trials in August to win a $10.4 billion contract to supply 126 F-16 fighter aircraft to India.
Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, France's Dassault Rafale, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of European companies, are the other companies in the race.
"We are very excited and ready since April for the trials to start and show what the F-16 can do," Giese added.
(Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)