The Decisive Edge

NEWSLETTER VOLUME 1

Our future Our ideology

AUGUST - 2010

INSIDE FRONT

Editors Note
With immense pleasure we present first edition of The Decisive Edge a complete account of the progress in our drive Our Future Our Ideology. On 07 August, 2010 with the debut seminar, we took the first step is on a long journey, in a quest for means and methods of salvation for our people. What we had thought would be an uphill task, became simple due to the positive reception, encouragement and assistance we received from the Thinkers, Scholars, the members of the Judiciary, the Media and public at large, which we acknowledge with gratitude. We feel encouraged by the fact that we, as a populace, not only realize and understand the problems confronting us, but are also willing to indulge in debates and discussions to find a roadmap to resolution as well as lend support where required. We will endeavor to continue this drive at a balanced pace, in a manner befitting the caliber and stature of the discussion. We will put in our best effort to proliferate the proceedings and activities in order to achieve our goals, for the betterment of our people and our nation.

Ms. Nazish Shah CEO Live Rostrum News Agency Editor: The Decisive Edge

Table of Contents
THINK! The Decisive Edge Our Introduction .............................02 Honourable Panel of Jurists (Short Profiles)................................03 Proceedings of Debut Seminar (07th August, 2010) Mirza Shahnawaz Agha ...................................................04 Dr. Khalid Zaheer..........................................................07 AVM (Retd) Dr. Abid M. Rao ...............................................10 Dr. Huma Baqai ............................................................14 Engr. Muhammad Zubair Ahmed.........................................16 Mufti Irshad Ahmed Ijaz ..................................................18 Jury Statements...........................................................20 Q&A Session................................................................21 Debut Seminar through the Lens (Pictorial) ...........................23 Proceedings of Jury Meeting (24th August, 2010) Terms of Reference .......................................................25 Jury Meeting through the Lens ..........................................26 The Verdict ................................................................27 Our Events in the Media .....................................................28

Team
Mirza Shahnawaz Agha...............................................................................Declarant Nazish Shah ................................................................................................Editor Syed Asif Ali ......................................................................................Transcriptions Fizzah Shakil .........................................................................................Moderator Muhammad Ali .....................................................................................Coordinator Hasan Moien ..................................................................................Design & Layouts Anas Sheikh .......................................................................................Photographer Khalid ..............................................................................................Photographer Esteem Concepts........................................................................................Printers Faisal Ahmed ...........................................................................................Supports

extremis malis extrema remedia Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Our nation today faces a challenge to its sovereignty, our populace is intimidated by a test of survival and each individual is inundated by trials for making two ends meet. To address these various issues bogging down the cross section of society, we have launched 'THINK!' platform to deliberate, discuss, deduce and decide on a roadmap to resolution. It is time to bring about a change in thought and action, a change in perspective and approach, and thus a change in tomorrow. We believe these are desperate times and invite you to come join us and THINK! together. THE CONCEPT Our nation today stands at a cross road, where the turmoil and agitation in the society demand reassessment of both our thought and action. Despite being geared up to face equitable coexistence, with no dearth of talent or vision within our ranks we find ourselves quashed by varying dichotomies on a daily basis. Issues ranging from general governmental and management related items to resource utilization and economic concerns keep surfacing to intimidate each member of the society. While we face these trials on a individual level, it is imperative that we ignite a constructive discussion and debate on some platform to bring together the capable minds from amongst us and uncover means and measures to mitigate the impending predicament. It is with this goal in mind that 'THINK!' has been created to initiate a dialogue under the theme of OUR future: OUR ideology. A judicial benchmark of the Divine Dictum-Islam (a complete code of life, a guide to matters not only pertinent to the relation between man and the Creator, but all affairs on both individual and collective levels),has been used for a thesis such that the permissible limits therein can be addressed to neutralize radicalism with functionality. Islam entails clear guidelines on social, political, moral, material, ethical, national and international themes in spiritual, intellectual as well as management paradigms. Islam vividly defines duties and rights in all interpersonal dealings. No areas have been left unaddressed; from human rights to inheritance, from charity to punishment, from foreign relations to internal affairs, Islam outlines not only the complete system of life for an individual but also the foundation of the judicial system, the bedrock of War/Peace Laws and the core of governmental policies. Today, the gurus of human rights and international affairs are hell bent on classifying Islam as a religion of radicals. Preaching and practice have become eons apart. The depth of the message has been lost to the tones of dust that has settled upon our mind in the last fourteen centuries. The religion of Peace, Harmony and Judicial Co-existence has now been labeled as a regime of terrorists in the hands of a select few who have failed to absorb the completeness of the Message. In our series of debates, discussions and dialogues we will endeavor to bring to light the magnanimity and more pertinently applicability of Our ideology. We will venture topic after topic in search of the true road-map. We will bring together the most capable minds in our midst to ponder over solutions to all our predicaments through the application of the rules of the Almighty. THE STRUCTURE Under the banner of OUR future: OUR ideology, we will hold a series of debates on dilemmas confronting our populace and thrash out with experts the possible solutions. Our structure will comprise of a thesis on each topic being presented by one expert followed by a panel debate between academic and technical experts of the field. A working session will follow entailing questions from the audience thus opening the floor to a wider range of ideas and perceptions and keeping the audience engaged. Panelists will include specialists from the academics, technocrats, bureaucrats, religious scholars, personnel from the armed forces, the judiciary and others in accordance with the demand of each topic. We will strictly avoid any political discussion, since our dialogue will be based on issues and not personalities and organizations. A jury comprising of reputable retired judges and members of the civil society will grace these seminars and will impart a declaratory verdict based on rationality and the deliberation of the seminar with an end purpose to compile a white paper archive over time.

02

Honorable Panel of Jurists

Justice (Retd.) Saiduzzaman Siddiqui Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui started his formal career as an Advocate High Court of West Pakistan in November 1963 and gradually elevated in cadre to the Judge of the High Court of Sind in 1980. He was appointed Chief Justice of High Court (Sind) in 1990, Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1992 and Chief Justice of Pakistan/Chairman Pakistan Law Commission on 1-7-1999. He was prematurely retired in 2000 as he declined to take fresh oath of office under PCO I OF 2000. During his professional career he has attended copious conferences and seminars. He also presented four reports to the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on the plight of Muslim minority in Bulgaria. He has also held innumerous prestigious offices, in the government as well as various educational institutions in the country. In addition he has been an active member of the civil society and has been President/ Patron of multiple social welfare projects/ societies and forums. Justice (Retd.) Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi Justice (Retd.) Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi, enrolled as an advocate in 1987, and became standing counsel Pakistan in November 2002. He was appointed Special Prosecutor for AntiNarcotics Force in 2003 and was subsequently elevated as a Judge of Sindh High Court in October 2007. He ceased to hold office after July 2009. In one of his landmark judgments, he barred the bank recovery officers from harassing defaulters, as a result of which State Bank of Pakistan made a proper policy to deal with such matters. During his professional career he has participated in innumerous conference, workshops and seminars. It is as a result of his recommendation that the Special Terrorist Act, 1975 and Special Courts were abolished and separate Courts were constituted under the Act, 1997. Barrister Farrukh Zia Shaikh Barrister Farrukh Zia Shaikh, enrolled as an Advocate, Sindh Bar Council, 1989. Called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Lincoln's Inn (London) on 1991. Lecturer in Laws, Sindh Muslim Law College, University of Karachi (Pakistan). Lecturer in Laws, Sindh Judicial Academy. Member, General Council of the Bar, England and Wales. Member, International Bar Association, London, United Kingdom. ExSpecial Prosecutor, Anti Narcotics Force, Government of Pakistan. Author of Chapter on Pakistan in Enforcement of Foriegn Judgements and Hague Convention No: 28 (Child Abduction). Ex-Judge of the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Karachi Justice (Retd.) Syed Ali Aslam Jafri Justice Syed Ali Aslam Jafri started his formal career in 1965. He became an Advocate of Sindh High Court in 1972 and practiced as an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan from 1986 onwards. He was elevated as a Judge of Sind High Court in October 2000. He retired in October 2005. He was appointed the Federal Insurance Ombudsman in April 2006. He has been an active member of the civil society and holds prominent positions in various forums, associations and organizations. Justice Jafri has participated in various seminars and conferences and has also been affiliated with the field of legal education and has had held many eminent positions during the pursuit.

Justice (Retd.) Khalid Ali Qazi Mr. Justice Khalid Ali Qazi, started his career as an Advocate Sindh High Court in May 1982. He then enrolled himself as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in January 1996. He was on the panel of approved Advocates of various Financial Institutions, Universities and Statutory bodies. Mr. Justice Qazi was also twice a member of Sindh Provincial Assembly and had also served as a Provincial Minister for Education, Government of Sindh. Mr. Justice Qazi has the honour of receiving an honourary Doctorate from the University of Preston USA in 1999. He is the author of four books titled 'Rendezvous with law: A judge's Reflection', 'A treatise on Law of Evidence', 'Fundamentals of Social Legislation' and 'Sindh Excise Manual'. Muhammad Jawaid Alam Muhammad Jawaid Alam enrolled Advocate subordinate courts Sindh and Balochistan in 1975 and High Court in 1988. Appointed Addl. District & Sessions Judge Sindh 1991 and promoted as District & Sessions Judge in 1998 and posted in many pertinent judiciary posts. He was selected one of eight Special Judge Anti-Terrorism for Sindh in 1999 discharged duties till 2000. He was appointed Judge of Accountability Court at Karachi in 2000 for 3 years and also held position of Administrative Judge Accountability Courts of Sindh As he acquired Islamic and moderate judicial education side by side, he is one of the versatile intellectual in his own turf.

03

Debut Seminar Opening Thesis Paper

Mirza Shahnawaz Agha was born in August of 1950, into a family of immigrant traders, and was brought up in the former East Pakistan; He went to the first cadet college in the country then and post graduation in commerce studied Islamic Jurisprudence as an apprentice to Dr. Muhammad Said Al-Awadi from Jaddah, Saudi Arabia. He has had a career in trade and industry from the age of 18 and heads a few enterprises today; He proposed the re- structuring of the ministry of tourism, culture & sports to Government of Pakistan, as a consultant, enabling the declaration of tourism as an industry by the government of Pakistan. During his professional career he has been an active member of the civil societies and has contributed his share and formalizing several public welfare projects. Mirza Shahnawaz Agha is presenting his paper on Debut Seminar of THINK! as the Thesis Presentor. Duration: Approx: 25 mins 21 sec. To his credit are four books; A rendezvous with Destiny, First Feelers, Decisive Edge and What is this thing called Religion for God sake and many articles as a research scholar. He has been a active contributor to a reputed newspaper on political economy and social issues. A research scholar, he is very well traveled and exposed.

1. The temperamental need to question our plight warrants the exercise of free will. 'Free will' is often mixed up with Predetermination. A saint of the 5th Hijri period has clarified that: A person is free to do as he wills, but he cannot will what he will. Why am I poor? Why am I rich? Why am I being victimized, or why am I victimizing others? Why am I short or tall? Why am I ill or bursting with energy, and so forth? 'Free-will' thus has a limitation to it for all human acts which can be positive or negative based on the extent of knowledge one possesses. Towards the appropriate exercise of 'free-will' the prerequisite is therefore the acquisition of knowledge, enough to fathom the harm an action can cause. 2. The freer a society from the restraints of inquisition the more inventive, productive and civilized they tend to remain, and indeed this is evident. The liberty to question therefore is a revered human right and the corner stone for the evolution of human civilization. Civilization which is progressive, tolerant and free from regressive dishonesty and stagnation. Civilization can deem to be evolving when and where questions are being constantly raised and answers are being found, continuously, transparently and truthfully. 3. The exercise of free-will is again often misconstrued as denial of law, or lawlessness. Here I am referring to freewill as one that does not interfere with collective peace or harmony in societies, instead it addresses the individual and collective right to think, analyze and draw logical conclusions. The ability to research! A research that can be applied to

carry human knowledge a notch ahead. 4. In the history of man one observes a battle between Cain and Abel, the two poles for social governance. One is subjugating, the other being subjugated; One oppressing, the other getting oppressed. Altogether it is a story of the usurpation of the common wealth of nature by one, to create a profit-center dedicated to himself, and or in the macro context, of countries, to themselves. Right or wrong this is, and has been the history of man. 5. Debating the worth and value of an equitable socio-economic order compared to the order in history that has been and remains, one needs to only identify the players and play along with an improvised set of rules. In recorded history the face of the usurper has been dual just like the craft itself founded on hypocrisy, duplicity the like. These faces are identifiable in the leadership of 'extreme materialism' and 'extreme mysticism'. 6. Accordingly to Islamic beliefs a hundred and twenty four thousand messengers of God showed up in history to set this disorder right in societies that were leaning towards either of the two poles 'extreme materialism' or 'extreme mysticism'. The common agenda of all prophets has been only indicative of one requirement to enable man the freedom enough to exercise free-will in an equitable social order. 7. Evidence of this goal for socioeconomic equity can clearly be seen in: The timing when each of the prophets

arrived in any society, their common job description, their being tutored first as Sheppard's, their economics, and their abodes. They all identified monotheism as the pivot of social and economic justice. This is the bed-rock of the philosophy of law making. This is the essence of religion - which is a social science, a science on how to manage societies. 8. Consistently however, post the arrival and departure of the prophets we see that the leaders of 'extreme materialism' and their pseudo partners the leaders of 'extreme mysticism' distorted their messages and way-led societies, in the visage of message itself, from the worship of one to the worship of none. Infact the tradition to worship ancestors, power, money, the odd looking, and the like are a more popular form of worship than the freedom of practicing any monotheistic order. This is polytheism and the order of slavery today! 9. The perpetrators of this crime of polytheism against man-kind are all the Gods that are, and have been in human history. The kings, the dictators, the usurpers of the common wealth of nature on the one hand, and their pseudo partners on the others the maulvi, the monk, the padre the like. They keep condoning the usurpation denying material justice. They live different to commoners, they dress differently and their economics for an elusive profit center lies in the captivity of land, labour, capital and enterprise. The Pakistan case history is exemplary! 10. The right or wrong of this mechanism of governance (management of societies)

04

is indeed the issue at hand. I am not here to motivate a hate syndrome. I am not here as a critic of this fine art of profiteering. I am here to talk alternate solutions. The course to take, for us the people of the world and Pakistan more specifically. The course that will establish 'material justice' and 'social equity'. I am here to think with you our independence from the shackles of decadence. 11. To me the world is divided into countries that have found a USP (unique selling point) for their existence, and those that have not. The owners of the USP (for the lack of a better term) are those that have anchored an exclusivity without which the rest of the world cannot presumably live / survive. These countries enjoy the benefit of a captive economic playing field for production and block the evolution of civilization by global laws that are anti-well being of the human race. They hold material hi-tech above social hi-tech. This is the position we must seek to reverse. 12. The shackles that arrest us in a dragnet are clear at both the individual level and at the level of countries. These have to be shed. Not by appeals, by pleas, by passive resistance or militancy but by judicial legislation within. 13. Our USP that the world will acknowledge is our ability to survive with what we have (in the form of human resource and natural resource), and in a social and economic environment that is equitable. This is our road map and our destination both. A country without a road-map and a destination is one that suffers from what is referred to in sociology as the 'monkey syndrome'. Copying others without knowing why. 14. When it comes to desiring a national or social goal the intricacies that plague the desire are popular consensus and the legitimacy of the desire. While popular consensus is achievable through proliferation of a message the legitimacy requires a bench-mark, a yard-stick that is bigger than the desired message. This ratification is only available as I see it from a Divine Dictum. This of course in our case is shredded to threads and branded as products. The good news however is the intactness of the principal pillars. To quote a few; there is no clergy in Islam; there is no monarchy in Islam; there is no nationalism in Islam; there is no comprise on the dictum in Islam; there is no landlordism in Islam; Money is not a

commodity, it is a measure of labor in Islam. This is the irrefutable premise none of the brand-owners of Islam can rob the Ummah with! 15. As I call out to you to 'revert to our ideology' I essentially aim at and remain focused on the irrefutable pillars of the Divine Dictum that are enough to achieve an independent Pakistan. A Pakistan with a USP that will enable us to live in peace, breath, and progressively grow into an exemplary welfare state. We must not brush this away as being 'right of left' or 'right of right'. It is a question of survival and honorably moving from slavery to real independence. Moving from dogmatism to realism. 16. In questioning our plight I have envisaged the questioning of limitations that stem from a constitution, that stem from a reactive foreign policy; that stem from a partisan judiciary; that stem from all four factors of production and above all from a defeatist attitude settling for what is, when what can be is a great option available! From this platform we will endeavor to head into a series of at least twenty seminars and document them into a white-paper for proliferation. We will endeavor to address a change in our condition; We will endeavor to do this as an obligation to fellow human beings enslaved like myself without any fault whatsoever! We will endeavor to rise to meet-up with the preamble of Islam as propounded by the Last Prophet to mankind Muhammad (SAWW) Obedience to Allah, service to His creations. 17. In charting out a course for ourselves I have endeavored therefore to place before you today a road map divided into macro and micro objectives for a destination. The destination ofcourse is the indispensable place for Pakistan and the like countries, in the community of nations who will need us just as much as we need them. The basis is clearly a civilized world view, and not the rudimentary and myopic craft of the past and present where military strength and or deception is the criteria to subjugate for supremacy. 'Follow me because I can twist your arm', is the uncivilized doctrine of human oppressors in history and we on the planet need to look beyond, fearlessly and now! 18. The macro section of the road map essentially warrants the instant assertion of human liberty as is available and

ordained by the Dictum. The world is a divide between the followers of monotheism and the polytheist. This divide is in clear negation of political boundaries as we see today, and one can see that the issue whenever it surfaces is swiftly pushed under the rug. This polarized world view is already in place today. We choose however to hide its current ugly form in the diplomacy of political territories, western democracy and human rights as are. It is ugly because it is devoid of material justice and social equity. The other macro factor of the road map rests in ending authoritarianism. There is no finality for convictions and beliefs. We need to stop sundry forms of beliefs being thrust down our throats by religious pundits and bigots. Research has no end, and all levels are mere levels, and therefore not equate-able with the Dictum the ultimate truth of everything! 19. Having established the Macro parameters I would like you to view the micro measures which by my level of research, as it stands today, may bring about a degree of relief: Two founding philosophies are addressed here for economic emancipation and social justice. a. 'Economic De-centralization', and b. 'Just is Just' 'Economic De-centralization': Here I seek to protect the factors of production (i.e. land, labour, capital and enterprise) from exploitation such that we stop scavenging the planet to a point of making it non sustainable for its inhabitants; and two, to devise uniform standards for human subsistence which are applicable for all, for the basics, including an end to scavenging of the human resources of the planet by media abuse. This of-course has to be at the highest level of technology available to man as ordained by the Quran: 'Go for the best;' 'Go for nothing but the best. Let opportunity that stem from labour and Providence be the only variable for individuals that excel one over the other. I seek to manage land as 'lease-hold' across the board, even for essential services and public utilities; The founding thoughts and beneficial arithmetic attributable to this reform lean on the clear injunction of

05

Islam that all land belongs to Allah. I seek to fund the cost of government and development inclusive through land revenue only; The founding thoughts here stem form the injunction that 'all land belongs to Allah, and that we are His viceregents on the planet. I seek to provide stakes for individuals as owners in the population units of their respective belonging; The need to provide the population with the best minimum standard for basic subsistence warrants that we opt for 'urbanization' and each citizen has a share in the urban unit. I seek to formalize the status of each population area in existence as a municipal company supporting the urban unit to be with vertical facilities; The thought behind this is fiscal management such that it provides for investment opportunities for the citizens without the element of 'riba'. I seek agriculture to become corporate to effectively support the population within the country; From the surpluses the industry can go beyond. The thought behind this is to arrest free hold land ownership and consequent fragmentation of land. I seek to empower labour to a point of dignity such that they are free from the shackles of slavery relying only on their toil and no more; The captivity of labor is criminal in Islam and will have to be done away with in every form whatsoever. I seek to empower the medium of exchange by the instrument of 'assetization' and cross-border amalgamations giving it international equity at par; This is a fundamental injunction which has to be implemented. The medium of exchange we call money is not a commodity it is a measure of labor and needs to be addressed such. I seek to renounce all curbs on enterprise, external and internal, that deter our respective and individual right to exercise our free will. The injunction in support is amply explained hereinabove. I seek to adopt the Dictum as our Constitution as the ultimate level of knowledge. We should keep evolving towards the ultimate level of the truth and in the interim keep governing ourselves with statutes that evolve like any technology based on research; This is

in consonance with the injunction of 'ijtehad'. I seek to make education compulsive and without cultural and gender bias. Islam has nothing to do with illiteracy and it cannot be condoned for any reason whatsoever. I seek to reform the army Act to make it the Islamic Army of Pakistan Act. The amendment would stretch to conscript the entire population such that war and peace times can cater to unemployment. This transformation will also give the defense forces of the country a larger foot print. Ofcourse this is in absolute consonance with the tenets of Islam. I seek to curb Islamization of Islam. The social leadership and legislation have to be freed from the affects of edicts that are made by the clergy in denial of Ijtehad and shoora both. It has driven the Muslims away from the worship of Allah to the worship of Mullah in the thousands. 'Just is Just': Politics is the defense of an ideology, a profit center, a doctrine. The elements of justice on the contrary have to be puritan and therefore we cannot have ourselves adjudicated by a partisan jurist. The benchmark for adjudicating needs to be (a) the Dictum, and (b) the ultimate level of research-base available to man., On these factors should rest the scales of justice. However idealistic this may manifest the entire judicial structure is in need of change. This change is necessary to uphold the rule of law through a neutral umpire that stands between the Governors and the Governed. ! ! I therefore seek that the head of judiciary be the Head of State. This is what the Dictum proposes too. I seek that the institution be independent of monetary gain. They should be the highest paid office in the country. Judges who be therefore, when they adopt the profession, should die in it. I seek that society support the cost of this institution in defense of our social fabric and economic frontiers; I seek that legislation is primed, based on research carried out at universities for social sciences, and are legislated without sectarian basis

in assemblies; I seek that all laws based on borrowed philosophies and without popular consensus be ratified to meet with our socio-economic identity and most our ideology; I seek the writ of the judiciary be executed evenly across the board by people as executioners and defenders; I seek the back-integration of the bureaucracy into civil society such that they cease to be an economic vested interest. They must be able to relate to the commoners and identify with them as true Public servants. They must always remain without any judicial powers which must never be given to them.

20. Conclusion: My dear friends, in concluding this narration I have tried to deliberately refrain from quoting Ayas from the Quran and Hadis from books that document them. You have perhaps heard them all and you have seen how these are distorted to protect the economic and political vested interests of materialist and the mystics. I have tried to only appeal to your logic and your sense of realism; I have chosen you as my audience because I can relate to you as an victim of the present diabolic world order that is destroying you, me and our children and most our abode - This planet you and I live on and will certainly die in. I therefore invite you to THINK! And THINK! Hard. It is in our nature to seek our riches in the joy of forbidding wrong and inviting to be righteous. Let's get rich, live better and die as heroes by uplifting our lot. I leave the floor for the panelist, to present an anti-thesis, defend the status quo or agree with this initial submission that seeks of us to revert to our ideology. Thank you all!

! !

06

Dr. Khalid Zaheer

Profile: Dr. Khalid Zaheer is the Dean of Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at University of Central Punjab. He completed his Ph.D. from University of Wales in 1994 in Islamic Economics. He has been religiously associated with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi Sb, Dr. Israr Ahmed, Durus-e-Qur'an and Durus-eHadith. With all his deep studies and experience he started teaching at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) from 1995 and later joined as a member of permanent faculty. His subjects were Islamic Studies, Islam and Modernization, Issues in Islamic Tradition, Islamic Ethics in Business and Islamic Economics. Taught at Institute of Business Administration (I.B.A.), University of the Punjab and was appointed as Director at al-Mawrid. He has conducted innumerous programs with a local TV Channel and appeared in programs as guest in various others. His diversified experience includes advisory services to Crescent Standard Investment Bank, Atlas Islamic Fund on Islamic Banking. Appointed as the member of the task force of the Finance Division of the GoP and later non-official member of the Board of Management of Pakistan Bait-ul- Mal. Delivered lectures on topics relating to Islamic Studies in Universities of Lampeter, Aberystwyth, Swansea, and Exeter. He has authored various articles and delivered multiple lectures on topics relating to Islam and economics.

Dr. Khalid Zaheer is presenting his paper on Debut Seminar of THINK! as the first guest speaker. Duration: Approx: 21 mins 09 sec.

N A H M A D - U - H U - WA - N U S A L - E - A L A RASOOL-E-HIL-KAREEM. I am extremely thankful to the organizers of this seminar for giving me the opportunity to comment on this occasion, on a wonderful presentation made by Mirza Shahnawaz Agha. My presentation is going to be divided into three parts, In the first part I will talk about the agreements that I have with the worthy speaker, in the second part I will dare to speak about some of the disagreements and in the third one I will try to talk on the topic which is the way ahead, the issue, the problem, the worry that the speaker has in mind which has prompted him to go for thee presentation and I will like to make my own observations and recommendations. Let's talk first about the agreements; to begin with I must say that really it's a wonderful idea that you have something in your mind for the welfare and betterment of the nation and you put it across to people and invite them. It is a very good gesture on his part that he has invited people like me to come forward and express ourselves freely for or against what he has said. Not many people I can assure you, would dare do that, so that in itself is really a remarkable achievement. I agree with him completely that Islamic teachings stand for freedom of expression and freedom of research and if we do not have the freedom of thinking, understanding and expressing you can't have any worthwhile research

done in the society and no progress can take place. It is, therefore, imperative that we be tolerant, we be open minded and try to understand each other, our respective points of view, and the arguments. If the present state of affairs is completely otherwise, it really is a tragedy. It is a very poor presentation of what Islam truly stands for. I completely agree with him. The second point where I agree with him, which of course is a natural corollary or emerges from the first point, is that in Islam there is no possibility of imagining that people are illiterate and uneducated.. What I mean is according to Islam, education should be universal, every child which is born in a Muslim society has the right to be educated at a certain decent minimum level; without which the kind of exploitation that we are trying to overcome would never be possible to be overcome. So education for all is something for which Islam most certainly, very strongly stands for and it is the birth right of every child that he or she should get it. The third area where I would completely agree with him is that the message of Islam is a balanced message and it wants its followers to avoid the two extremes; the extreme materialism as well as extreme mysticism which are monasticism. You have to live in this world and cater to all the obligations which are expected of you to discharge as a good human, taking into account all the religious and moral obligation that you have to, as a consequence take seriously.

So there is not a possibility that a pious Muslims would become so greedy that he will not take into consideration any of the moral principals nor Islam would like us to just run away from our worldly responsibilities to just worship God at some secluded place. I also completely agree with him on his understanding that in the Muslim society, the judges should enjoy the highest status. They should be the highest paid individuals, who should have no possibility, no inclination of being tempted because of the people who are for them to judge offering them baits and temptations. He also said that a judge should be the head of the state. Well I agree with him; in actual fact in the earlier period of Islam the Ameer of the Muslims (Ameer-ul-Momineen) was also responsible for discharging the judgments, so all judgments of the Qazis were actually emerging from the right conferred by the head of the state to the judges. So all judiciary was actually discharging its obligations because it was desired by the head of the state, and he himself happened to be therefore responsible for whatever judgments were made. That's how the Almighty has created us, we are all people with different minds, different approaches and different backgrounds so it has to be that at some points we must disagree, not for the sake of it but that's how it is. So some of the points that he has mentioned are ones that I do not feel very comfortable with, and of course it is quiet likely that I may

07

not have understood what has been mentioned properly. One of the things that the worthy speaker mentioned is that in Islam money is the measure of labor alone, honestly as an unintelligent person, I don't understand what it means, I think money is the medium of exchange. If you are an employer you hire the services of an employee, you can go to the markets and purchase commodities, it is something which is a blessing of the Almighty if properly utilized, if it is not used as a means of exploitation so it is not just a measure of labor it is a measure for everything in the market which is there for us to go and buy; it is a really a good facility. If by the mention that money is a measure of labor alone, we mean what Carl Marx said that whatever the commodities are comprised of are either the endowment of nature or what human labor has enabled it to become and whatever value addition is there is only attributable to the labor. The fact of the matter is that a person can own a commodity, without him actually having worked for it at all because of the fact that he is a wealthy person and the wealth that he has been able to get hold of is what he got hold of through completely legitimate means. So that is one point where I probably may not have understood what he meant or what was the purpose but I would say that I do not completely agree with it. The second point where I am uncomfortable is the mention that all land belongs to Allah. Well of course all land belongs to Allah! Its not that I would disagree with it. But the kind of practical conclusion that has been attempted to be drawn that no individual can own any piece of land, to my ordinary, humble understanding is not what Islam stands for. AL-ARD-U-KULLU-LILLAH and it means Everything that is here in this world belongs to Allah; you, myself and all that is there in this universe has actually been created by God. If I happen to be the owner of something for a certain while it is very temporary ownership and possession which is going to last as long as I live. Even during my lifetime it can actually be taken away from me by the will of Almighty Allah and be given to somebody else. So therefore even if I am the legal owner of something for the time being, that ownership is not the real ownership. The real ownership is

always Allah's because He is the one who created and He is the one who is in charge of the affairs of this world and is in control of everything. But I humbly submit it that perhaps it doesn't necessarily means that no individual can own in the legal sense, in the worldly legal sense, any piece of land. I have a feeling that sometimes, some people are, I would say, mistaken by the understanding of an off-quoted Quoted verse. LAISA-LIL-INSAN-E-ILLA-MA-SAAA. Let me be very clear; and very humbly submit, that if you look at the context in which this verse has appeared in the Quran, you will find that the Quran is mentioning that look here in the hereafter nobody's deed are going to come to your rescue, it's only your deeds which are going to help you there. LAISALIL-INSAN-E-ILLA-MA-SAAA, Man is going to get nothing except what he is going to endeavor for. He himself, she herself, nobody else. That is what to me is the proper understanding of the verse. This verse has got nothing to do with our mundane worldly affairs. Here of course you work, and you get the wages for it but honestly, you work because there is somebody else who was more intelligent and bright enough to imagine and envisage the project for which you were employed so that intelligent person should also have the right to be given some value for his imagination, so that again is something where I would say that I have difference of opinion. And I also would like to say that a third assertion that there is no nationalism in Islam is also where I would partly disagree. The tribal system was not completely done away with after the arrival of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Aous, Khizraj and Quresh (the ancient Arabic tribes) were all very much present. The only thing that was done was that the tribal system was made subservient to the ideology of Islam, and people were not allowed to be biased and to be unfair, to be inclined favorably towards one person rather than the other simply because of tribal association, family links and nationality. So there is nothing wrong in nationality, there is nothing wrong in the family system, there is nothing wrong in tribal system. WA - J A - A L N A K U M - S H A O O B A N - WA QABAILA is what the Quran says We made you into the nations and tribes LETAARAFO so that you could introduce yourself to each other. But what is not

allowed is that if you are , and this is something which is happening right now also, if you are a Pakistani you say that whatever Pakistan has done is all Alhamdulillah correct. All nonsense, all wrong decisions I as a Pakistani support. That is wrong. I mean as a Pakistani I must say that I am the Muslim first. And therefore if Pakistan took a decision that was wrong, I don't condone it. That is where nationalism is a curse. But if nations are made as units which are helpful in enabling us to make progress, to do well in this worldly life, well my humble understanding is there is nothing seriously wrong with it. Now let me move ahead and say a few things about what the real concern of the worthy speaker was, that the present state of affairs of the world in general and Muslims in particular is not very acceptable, and not very pretty. Therefore we need to do something in order to improve the situation, how could it be done. Now I want to mention this that in Islam there is balance in everything. The two things which have to be brought together simultaneously, unfortunately the economic history of the world shows that at some stage there is one factor which dominates and the other is subjugated and it is vice versa in other stage, other eras. There is one thing called enterprise, initiative. That is extremely important, if you would put restrictions on my initiatives, I will not be able to make progress. If you will tell me that if I am going to work hard, I am not going to be able to make profits, I'll say that to hell with hard work, I am not going to work hard, because there isn't enough incentive. Islam would not like people to not utilize their God-given potential to the fullest, so the enterprise is fully encouraged. However the fact of the matter is that if you give unbridle liberty to the enterprise, the end result is that there are people who will get exploited, there are people who become entrepreneurs, they become such big, huge business owners that there are a large number of workers at their mercy, who get exploited, that again is something which should be condemned. Islam would like to have a balance between these two extremes, the enterprise of the entrepreneurs is not compromised and as a consequence of it we are also not bringing about such a

08

system whereby the ordinary workers are at the mercy of their owner and getting exploited. Therefore what we ought to do is that we have a system whereby the rights of both parties are fully protected and that is exactly what Islam stands for. Very briefly I'll mention a few points. One of the things I would like to say is that for example in our banking system; the funds that get collected are actually the savings of large number of small savers. And invariably the people who get benefited are the ones who have big businesses, because they are credit worthy. The end result is that money begets money, it attracts money. Now this is something which a truly Islamic system would not allow to see happening. Because why should you get more money simply because you are a wealthy person, that is no criterion. So that is one area where we should really be very careful. Of course the worthy speaker is worried about landlordism and so am I. I believe that if we start depriving people of their land simply because they happen to be holding a large track of land that in itself is going to be a principle that will result in exploitation. However we know that there are many landlords who have these lands at their disposal simply because their ancestors were friends of the British rulers and they conspired against their own people and simply because of that they were given these large tracks of lands, then there is no reason why we should not deprive them of what they have in their possession. And we should make a move and somebody was telling me that there is already this understanding developing that we should approach the judiciary and request them that the land should be taken away from them because it does not belong to them. But if somebody has owned land out of his hard work and labor and God has been kind to him in enabling him to have more profits than others then we can't stop him. If you stop him you are going to stop enterprises, initiative and if you stop enterprises you are going to stop the progress, you'll become a poor country. There will not be any new businesses coming up, because people would not work, the incentive for it would be gone. And I am sure that you all know that this is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. It was created to actualize the dream of Karl Marx but I think Karl Marx

must be having bad dreams. At least for Soviet Union, because it did not materialize, the fact of the matter is that people did not have incentive and the people who made progress were the ones who were doing it for their own purpose, for their own vested interests. But the system was not allowing it and it really was corruption which was rampant. In order to protect the workers, the workers must be given minimum wages. That is important and the minimum wages right now are ridiculous they should be higher. That would mean that many people are going to be unemployed. Now for unemployment it is imperative that the people who are rich must come to their rescue, through the system of Zakat. And I can tell you that if you allow me to speak on Zakat, there are so many funds that can be collected through Zakat. The understanding of Zakat is so limited in the minds of many Muslims. If you start implementing the understanding of Zakat, huge funds are going to get created. So a minimum standard of living should be insured for everybody, whether he is employed or unemployed, through the system of Zakat and institution of it. Of course we also need to have the public sector side by side with private sector. We are not going to allow people to have our Steel Mill as owners of it because this Mill belongs to everybody and the nation should make sure that we do not make people unnecessarily rich without them having worked for it. Finally last thing which I would like to mention is that honest to God no system can function without people and if people are corrupt, no matter whatever system you adopt, it is going to remain corrupt. Therefore it is imperative and very important that we understand the Quran and we let the people know, about the life hereafter and as much as possible remind them and tell them that we are here to make sure that we become good humans and we purify our souls and that is the only way we can actually be successful in the hereafter. If we are able to make such humans in this world I can assure you that not only in the hereafter is going to be successful; this world is also going to be transformed into a much better place to live in. Thank you very much.

09

AVM (Retd.)Dr. M. Abid Rao

Profile: Air Vice Marshal Dr. M Abid Rao (R) has served Pakistan Airforce for 34 years as a fighter pilot, instructor and combat commander flew 20 types of aircraft, commanded a fighter sqadron, fighter wing, fighter base and regional air command. Served UAE Airforce on deputation and Ecole Militaire Paris. He is a PhD in International Relations (Thesis on Conflict between Religion and Nationalism in Pakistan) and has been a member of research faculty of PAF Airwar College. He has served as Deputy Director General Civil Aviation from 2003 to 2005. He was awarded SITARA-E-BASALAT in 1987, SITARA-E-IMTIAZ in 1998 and HILAL-E-IMTIAZ in 2002. AVM (Retd.)Dr. M. Abid Rao is presenting his paper on the Debut Seminar of THINK! as the second guest speaker. Duration: Approx: 26 mins 47 sec. He has hosted over 250 programs and talk shows on a Private Channel and is a reputed Analyst of Defence, National and International Issues, Religious History and Current Affairs.

BISMILLAH-HIR-RAHMAN-NIR-RAHEEM I am feeling very honored to be at this occasion, and to be present in this group of literate people who are aware of national and religious issues I hope I will be able to get away with my ignorance only on the basis my background. I have a military background but I will speak to you as a student of history and as a common citizen of this country, on issues that had bothered me from my childhood and today I find myself on a roundabout without knowing the direction of exit and where will I end up. So before start commenting on this very serious subject let me also say few verses because every day when you wake up there is a new crisis, and you get a new subject to think, and bigger crisis makes you forgets yesterday's crisis. So it's a very good attempt today by Agha Shahnawaz, a learned person in the city, as we all knows who has taken this initiative, and asked us to speak on a subject we all hears on the TV channels at night. My poem is titled as AAJ >> >> >> >> >> Let me come to the subject of the day; Today the situation in which we find us is very unusual, and since I started reading newspapers, there is one phrase that I find repetitive, that the country is in a very critical status, we never saw such catastrophe before, it proves that we are everyday stepping into the bigger crisis. But when we look at the problem, you

must look at the background, from where does it generate. So if you look at the creation of the Pakistan, we have to look at it dispassionately, 14th August is just one week away and we are nearly 63, and when you touch 60, the wise people say that either you become wise or you turn senile. So this is the turning point. I am also reaching at the age where I have to choose between madness and maturity. It is difficult to pick up the starting point of the thread when you want to solve a crisis but let's pick it up from where ever we can, randomly, so that maybe we can find, or somebody amongst us can indicate the problem and therefore a solution. Creation of Pakistan from the standards of social sciences, political science was very unnatural. Please pardon me for that word but it was unnatural. Because Pakistan never existed before 14th August 1947, so we did not get the freedom, we carved out, we design and we took a new state from a mother country. The freedom movement for this county was fought in those areas which are not part of this country. The leaders who fought for the freedom did not belong to this area except for very few, like Quaid-e-Azam you can give him the credit of being a Sindhi Karachi-ite, or being in Bombay, other than that nobody from Punjab, NWFP or Baluchistan contributed from that point of view. The national language was imported, the national dress of Sherwani and Shalwar

10

was imported, and it did not belong here. East and west wings were 1000 miles apart by a hostile motherland. The only thing common between the two wings was religion and nothing else which proved too fragile to keep the two wings together and it lived only for 24 years and we lost East Pakistan which is Bangladesh today. The country I am told, I read, I have heard was created in the name of religion, for Muslims, for establishing a Muslim State, Islamic state I leave it for you to decide. But all religious parties before '47, opposed creation of Pakistan. Soon after partition, the same religious parties wanted a share in the power and till today they are destabilizing this country for their piece of the meat. Basis of creation of Pakistan Two Nation Theory in political science, I don't want to debate whether it was right or wrong, we have got the best part of that the dividend- the country. The freedom from Hindus was based on hatred, in political science there is a theory called The theory of Exclusivity. That in 1870 when Sir Syed Ahmed Khan suggested this theory it meant that we are Muslims, we are different and we don't want to live with you people, we want a separate identity and they were the majority and they were the Hindus, including other non-Muslims like Sikhs and Christians. In 1940, we refined this theory of exclusivity and we demanded that we want another country and declared that we reject you (Hindus) to live with. In 1942, 1943 we coined the word 'Pakistan' which means 'The Land of Pure' that means the impure have no place in this country or will not find a place in this country. In 1947 we create this country and in '49 we create an objective resolution rejecting or giving a relegated and a lower status to the non-Muslims. Then in 1974, we tell the Qadianis that you are not a part of us. We denied them even the right to live in this country. Abdul Salam the Nobel laureate was denied the right to be buried in this

country despite he belonged to this country and was the son of the soil, purely on the religious grounds. In 1980 Zia-ul- Haq imposed Zakat ordinance telling the Shiites that you are a separate community. After that within Sunnis, the theory of exclusivity is not yet ended, but going into that core of very small people that only they are Pakistanis, only they have the right to love and live in this country. So in 1947 a nation was born, a country was created a nation state was created against the ideas of Allama Iqbal, whom we say was the national and ideological poet of the country. You have heard two speakers regarding nationalism in Islam actually I support what Agha Shahnawaz said that in Islam nationalism is discouraged along with geographical boundaries. The realities that came in the early twentieth century, after 1920 when nation starts emerging against the empires, nationalism came up and Allama Iqbal said that:

our national interest, we go for Ummah, any issue with Israel, good or bad, Pakistan is the first country who protests, ok fine as a Muslim country as we are brothers but it should not be done at the cost of the national interest of Pakistan. I will leave it there because 20 minutes are too little a time for me to cover my other points. The good thing was that it is restricted to 20 minutes and the bad thing is that I am a poor manager of time. So coming back to the thesis presented in this morning, Agha Sahab said that there is no clergy in Islam, there is no kingship in Islam, there is no landlordism in Islam and there is no nationalism in Islam, I can agree to what he said. If so, did Islam stops to exists after 41st Hijri, after the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali, because the first thing was born then, was Amir Muawiya, his agenda, his governance was same as what Zia-ul-Haq did what Pervaiz Musharraf did, it continues what our president today is doing. In that I will quote you examples, After Khilafat Amir Muawiya ordered the throne for himself. He was a little heavy in weight and he couldn't sit on the ground, so that may have been his compulsion. From the Maal-eGhanimat that used to come the formula of division was 20 % for the treasury, 80 % to be divided in the army, that fought that campaign, he changed that. He said that whenever it comes home all precious metals, gold and diamonds will be giving to the king, rest to be distributed as per Sharia Law. Second thing, the appointment of the judges, he took in his own hands. Third the people of certain status declared above law; indemnity given to governors who could punish people at will and were not accountable. There were numerous such things and I find total similarity between 41 Hijri and today, so the tradition of kingship continues today. 65 to 75 %, total population of Muslim world live in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and in Asia, since last 1000

You have to bury religion if you want to promote the nationalism. Once I was sitting with someone very senior, President Laghari who was not president then he had left his offices. And I asked him a question that why do people, as educated as you are, not promote nationalism in National Assemblies and Senate. He said there is no confusion. Fortunately we were watching a World Cup match; Yusuf Youhanna was playing for the Pakistan. Zaheer khan was bowling for India. I said if I go with the concept of Ummah, I must support Zaheer khan because he is my Muslim brother. But if I go for nationalism Yousuf Youhanna is my hero. I have to support him. This is a very silly example to highlight the relevance or relegated status of Nationalism in our country. When there is a problem which is effecting Muslim Ummah but it is against

11

years. How has Islam and the Muslim rulers coexisted. Have they practiced Islam, have they brought Islam, or by name they were only Muslim. Starts from the Mughal Empire 1527 when Babar comes to India, when he dies Humayoun, Humayoun dies Akbar, Akbar dies Shahjahan, and the rule of Muslim India which was not Muslim India, it was Muslim Governed India was transferred in the family. How close to the religion? Does religion tells you to practice extremism or when you become the king, or ruler of the country The other problem that history tells me is our inability our difficulty to treat non Muslims. In India in my opinion, the history tells me there are four types of Muslims, one are those Arabs who came with Muhammad Bin Qasim, the shahgees of this area, particularly Sind, the superior lords, the conquerors, the second are the Mughals, who came here as a superior race to rule India, and India as a lower class people, third are the Pathans who just to come Mahmood Ghaznavi, Ghori, Abdali who just to come to rob and go back, their center of power was back home not here. Today Pathans live that way in Bombay, in Rampur, in Karachi, with that aura of power, superiority. Fourth is the category of the locals, the Hindus and other religions who converted to Islam. These four classes don't see each other equal to themselves, what to speak of treating a non-Muslim? Therefore we actually don't know that what rights should be given to the non Muslims who are living in your national estate today in Pakistan. Should you treat them equal? There is a debate of secularism; there is a debate of... Secularism let me say, and please correct me if I am wrong, that our Urdu national press translated it in a very wrong way; they translated it as LADINIYAT. Secularism is not 'ladiniyat'. I say it with full authority and belief. Secularism is when you treat your subjects, nationals, when you apply for a government job, the religion should not be the criteria, your merit, your qualification and your job requirement should be the criteria. But

to declare that our Chief of Army Staff will only be a Muslim and our President will only be a Muslim is actually a part of the theory of exclusivity and application of religious minding. There was a book on the Pakistan written by a Russian scholar in 1961 a nation in search of identity let me quote his conclusions to you because it was a very interesting book, we were only 14 years old as a nation. It says that this nation will never find its identity because it says that the religious identity is more important than the national identity. He says historically it is very easy to die for the cause of your religion, extremely difficult to live up to its expectations. You see this today happening in our country. 61 and 2011 will be 50 years almost. Second this nation does not have its heroes. Till 1965 war, when we got the first Shaheed who defended this country and gave his life who was Raja Aziz Bhatti Shaheed. Who was our national hero, Tariq Bin Ziyad, Muhammad Bin Qasim or those people who did not belong to this area? National heroes are the peoples who are the son of this soil. G.M. Syed used to say that Raja Dahir is our national hero, so what if he was defeated by Muhammad Bin Qasim, because he was the son of the soil. Historically there is truth to this; social science says it is true. If Inzamam-ul-Haq loses a cricket match today to Tendulkar, does that mean that Tendulkar will become your hero and you will reject Inzamam-ul-Haq. He remains the son of the soil and has greater relevance to this hero-ship. So a nation without local heroes has a problem in finding its identity. Then there are so many such issues where you will find Religion and culture for example; There is a serious problem of fusion of culture into Islam. Whatever happens in Pakistan today we say this is Hindu culture, like Mahanadi Besant etc. All cultures are regional. When we the Hindus converted to Islam we stopped, seized all the Hindu practices that were contrary to Islam. We stopped

celebrating Diwali and Holi, stopped going to temples but other festivities which did not conflict with religion or belief, we continued even today, so how right it is to say, that this culture is Hindu this is Muslim. The concept of entertainment does it not exist in Islam, what is the status of fine arts. Zia-ul-Haq came and he banned all films to be re-censored again. He said censor scenes with alcohol, scenes with this that and the other and we had those jokes running that will be the names of films? The question is if you take out fine arts from life, that poetry is haram, singing is haram, painting is haram, dancing are haram, etc, this nation will give birth to the stones and we are doing enough of them. The reformist movements have always existed here. I will speak specifically about Indian society. Allaudin Khilji was a secular ruler he treated his all nationals alike, so the delegation of Ulema went to him and told him that you are not following Islam, he asked how? They asked that why you give so dignity to the non Muslims? He replied what should I do, I am the ruler of India? Then the delegate demands that you ordered all the non Muslims that to embrace Islam and if they don't, declare them to deserve death. He replied to the delegation that we are not even 6% if I gave this order they will terminate us. The delegate again asked that what is the basis of your decision making criterion. He replied that my basis is the equality and betterment for all, including Muslims as well as nonMuslims. So the delegate got back with a minimum agenda approved from the king was whenever the king will see a non Muslim he will see with anger and hate so that the non Muslim will afraid of the king. When Humayoun came and took over the India; he came with the lot of people from Iran who gave him money and military support. Scholars' delegate again went to him and asked, 'why do you have so many Shiites in your government? You must get rid of them.' He replied, 'no, they are Muslims and they are part of my government it will not be done.'

12

When Akbar came he became more secular and he ordered that everybody is free and he terminated the Jaziya tax, yatra tax and other taxes based upon the apartheid. He even prohibited the slaughter of cow because it was the reason for hurting Hindus. And when Aurangzeb comes he reverses everything. It is said that he never missed his prayer and also never leaves any single brother. He killed all of them. Today as students of history who do you think is a better ruler, a man who lets everybody live peacefully or in the name of Islam doesn't let anybody live? This reformist movement took place in the time of Akbar, this reformist movement, before the Taliban of today, was also commanded by Shaheed Syed Ahmed Barlevi. He wanted to impose that Islam of the Arab world which was 1400 years old. He had a 30 point agenda which was the same as these Taliban today; the only difference is the order to blow the CD shops. He declared the profession of barber Haram, wearing a Sehra in marriage Haram, embracing each other Haram, he was that restrictive. He restricted everything and the local people rejected that. Today the Taliban are doing exactly that in the name of Islam. They kill people by the same barbaric way and slaughter as ancient Arab did, since that was the practice in Arab, should the culture of Arab be our culture? Our culture is very rich. When the two nation theory was presented; Gandhi asked one thing; We have created Pakistan very good, we have enjoyed a very exquisite status in Pakistan which we could not have enjoyed in India that the individuals who were Hindus till yesterday how they could declare themselves as a separate nation by accepting Islam. Why a separated nation and why a separate country. But I fully endorse the stand of Quaid-e Azam who gave us a separate and free country. Those of us who have been to India, I prayed extra for Quaid-e-Azam when I went there for he got us our freedom, the Muslims living in India are in a pitiable state. The stance of the religious parties at the time of partition

was correct that Muslims will be divided, those left behind will feel the brunt and that is what happened. One Muslim party used to say that the British have taken the rule from us, we get the rule back which was not possible, and so Quaid-eAzam went for Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that today we need to think where do we stand? Let's recognize this how can we bring Islam, Islam is not a guest who can arrive at your doorstep one fine morning. The route of consensus (Ijtehad) has been closed for the last 600 years. Zia-ul-Haq believed regardless of how government was taken, legally or illegally, Muslims should obey the ruler so that there will be no anarchy and chaos in Muslim State. This was the logic of Amir Muawiya too that is why he demands the other Muslims to shows willingness for Yazid. So we have not changed. Today how will we revive that Ijtehad but I have one fear that if Ijtehad is restarted that we are going to create another sect in Islam and who is going to accept that and who is going to reject. Because within us even today we have those militant people who want to see the implementation of Islam with the all 1400 years old Arab traditions in our country. All the Arab traditions are not the Islamic tradition. No one can become a good or better Muslim by adopting the Arab tradition. I am conscious of the fact that I should be suggesting a way forward. One saying that goes in my favor here is that It is very easy to suggest a solution when you don't know much about the problem so I will not suggest a solution. Another saying very popular among the Rajputs is that if you are weak but have a lot of anger, you are destined to disrespect. Now you have to see that where do you stand? Whether you want leadership to do something or you want to do something by yourself or will you wait for nature to come and do something. I leave it to you. Thank you all.

13

Dr. Huma Baqai

Profile: Dr. Huma Baqai currently the Chairperson, Department of Social Sciences at IBA Karachi, is a Ph. D in International Relations. Among other subject she teaches International Relations and sociology at the IBA and International Political Economy, Contemporary International Politics, Political Geography and Foreign Policy Analysis at Dept of IR at Karachi University. She has ten publications to her credit. A Member Academic Board and Academic Committee, IBA and Patron of Media and Publication Society, IBA, she is a Certified trainer in Communication and Presentation Skills and in Liberal Political Values from Germany. She has anchored a weekly current affairs show Between the Lines at Pakistan State Tele Vision from 2007 to 2010, is a member of the Board of Directors Women Media Center, Karachi and Editorial Board Journal of Freedom, and is a celebrated International Relations Experts and Political Analyst with National and International Media. She quotes her areas of interest as NonTraditional Sources of Conflict, International Political Economy, Liberalism, Secularism, Terrorism and Media.

Dr. Huma Baqai is presenting her paper on the Debut Seminar of THINK! as the third guest speaker. Duration: Approx: 19 mins 23 sec.

Assalam O Alaikum, Why I am here? I really don't know because I am not an Islamic scholar. My views on this issue emerge on a special thought and mindset. As a student of international relations, my dabbling with this subject is firmly based on how religion has impacted conflict, how religion has impacted state-society relations and how religion in today's world is associated with conflict. And I am not saying that it is Islam that I am talking about. I am categorically talking about religion. Mr. Abid Rao made life easy for me introducing a lot of concepts that I am going to talk to you about. The thesis that has been submitted by Agha sahib is very romantic, and it sounds very nice. And like all romantic things you can think about them and they take you, they transcend you into another world and you think that impossible is possible. With all due respect, I think the thesis he submitted is impossible, at least in the way that things exist today and there is obvious reasons for why I am saying that. There are four things in fact that do not make this thesis a possibility right now at least. One is the present situation, what is the present situation like, prior to the 80s, we thought that the religion is a thing of the past, post 80s, religion emerged with the vengeance, it became a Central Asian reality; it became more prominent for South Asia, even in the United States and Europe there was a revival in religion. And when 9/11 happened you had Bush referring to religion by using the word 'crusades'. So religion re-emerged as an element of identity and an element of where I stand in the scheme of things, and where you stand in the scheme of things. But then 80 onwards, what is happening; if we draw parallels from history, probably we are again in the midst of what we called religious wars, the European countries

fought religious wars for thirty years, and then went towards the alternative and the alternative was separation of state from religion. The alternative was secularism and like Abid Rao rightly said that today if you even mention the word Secularism, especially in a country like ours, you are considered blasphemous. I would probably have a Fatwa put against me if I say that Pakistan should opt for secularism. But when I talk about rethinking and alternative thinking, I am going to say something very provocative today and I am going to ask you to think that finally when we reach that dream or finally the romanticism of Agha Sahib becomes reality what do we do in the interim period. What would we do to reach that phase? The present situation today is that we all are followers of Islam but do we all have any consensus on Islam. You and I have heard more than 1000 times from our religious scholars that solution of every problem lies in Islam. We can probably find solution if we implement Islam. You can get rid of all social and financial problems like bribery, corruption, political problems, common man's problem, distributive justice if you implement the Islam. And what is Islam? I am not a religious scholar; my understanding emanates from what is being said around me about it and the impact that has had on our present day situation.The vehicle of implementation of Islam; so to speak is what? Sharia? The Islamic law? That is the vehicle of implementation of Islam? And with all due respect I ask you to think and tell me, do we have consensus on Sharia? Is my Sharia is the same as your Sharia? And if today in this room we decide with the imposition of Sharia; who's Sharia will we impose? And we tried this, we talked that if we impose Zakat; our all problems will be

solved. Pakistan is the world's 3rd largest philanthropist state which donates money; pays Zakat. Despite of this when Zia Sahab imposed Zakat; Abid Sahab said correctly that besides of imposition of principle of exclusivity, first of all Shiites announced that they do not go with our path; they exempted themselves from the situation. Tell me that how many people are sitting here who have submitted certificate in the banks to avoid Zakat? Or they withdraw their money before 1st Ramadan and deposits back on 3rd Ramadan. Do we do that? Yes we do that. We are guilty of it. Shiite or Sunni. At least the present situation is not ready for this imposition Another important point which I want to state here is; that I am a student of international relations; timing and the circumstances in which you are surviving or exist. I want to remind you that a few days back we faced a serious issue on facebook regarding blasphemous sketches of Holy Prophet (PBUH); we were all hurt by that act. I was once in a TV debate with reference to the issue and the person who was opposing me he said that will we all die if we boycott facebook? Why we tolerate all this? And he quoted examples from the Madni life of Prophet (PBUH) that when the Prophet (PBUH) came to know about such things he ordered the destruction of that person etc. In my opinion he was talking irresponsibly while debating on TV but having said this; if today we want to place ourselves as a Muslim, where we are? Can we draw the lessons from the Madni life or the Makki life of the Prophet (PBUH)? Where are we standing? We are standing on back foot. We could only prosper on the way of

14

reconciliation; that is why I said that timing is very important for this. This will raise serious red flags on the international community and we are unaware of the seriousness of it; or if we are aware we do not want to talk about it because we think that by debating this issue we are challenging Islam. I often think are we challenging Islam? When we challenge how Islam should be portrayed; you and I often understand that we are challenging Islam itself. That is why we adopted silence for long period, and that is why forces like Taliban and such mindset grabbed our place. That space was continuously taken from us. It is now the time for all of us who have wisdom and ability to think; to retrieve that space again from these peoples. Probably the most important aspect of this entire situation is that as Muslims in Pakistan and as global Muslims, do we have the critical mass to bring about this change? A critical mass and thinking is needed before every reform and revolution. Today Muslims do not have any world class university, you can say that it is the system's structural problem, but we also didn't endeavor. So do we have the critical mass to project in a way where we can actually make it happen? Where we can actually turn it into a reality! Do we have such scholars, consensus, options, and methodology to make this real? I think this is the most important point if we try to go for the romanticism. I completely realize that I have said some things which may be un-pleaant for many people here. And probably what is the way forward; and when I suggest this as the way forward, I am not suggesting it as the option. I am suggesting it as an interim period. As we created a lot of problems, we joined identity with the religion, we joined possession of power with the religion, we joined politics with the religion and when we make all things the reality of our society; what should we need to do for the interim bridging period? And I think that we have to go for the essences of the examples presented by the Abid Rao. What are those examples? Those all examples were inessence secularism. Secularism is separation of state and religion, secularism is co existence, secularism is tolerance, secularism is giving respect to religious minorities, and secularism is keeping the religion in the private domain. Secularism is not divorcing religion; secularism is to prevent religion's use for vested interests. As we put ban on secularism by describing it

as ladiniyat so that no one thinks neither raises any question about it. If you raise any question about the secularism you will be declared out from the circle of religion. I am a practicing Muslim and I can say it with authority that secularism can give us the way forward in the way we abuse the religion in our country. The term secularism which is a 19th century import from Europe is under scrutiny. Although by India it was adopted but even in India it is under constant threat and is clouted everyday with the Muslims and Christians facing the wrath of Hindu extremism. What we do with the Hindus and Christians, Hindu extremists also do the same. As Muslims, we should have the clemency of let them live. When the suicide bomber attacks the Data Darbar in Lahore, the Chief Minister goes there for condolence but when the mosques of Ahmedis were attacked by the terrorists, people avoid to go for condolence. Were the citizens martyred or killed on the Ahmedis' worship places not humans? Didn't we lose human lives there? Were they not under the protection of this state? Even by the Islamic norms, were they not under the protection of this state? Please answer these questions, we wants to imposed Islam, we are the followers of Islam. Why in this Islamic state Ahmedis were mistreated in past and now they lost their lives in our country. Are they children of a lesser God? Or their deaths are less important? And when Muslims are martyred or killed in other states and their governments call it collateral damage, why you feel bad? Because we are doing all this in our own state. But we also probably have to understand that the concept secularism as is understood has a western dimension and the concept can be adopted with the non western manifestation. And the concept has been adopted with the non-western and non religious connotations in the world. There are examples of it. India remains a very very Hindu oriented state but constitutionally it is secular, which allows at least some avenues of justice. I am not saying the secularism is implemented in India in its true sense. Secularism is threatened in India. The foundations of secularism in India shake daily by Hinduism, just like foundation of real Islam shake daily. The non western views of secularism need to be adopted in Pakistan in my view which encompasses respect of the religion along

with the concept of tolerance, coexistence and protection for religious minorities. This probably also coincides with the Jinnah's vision of Muslim majority secular state rather than a theocratic state. We d o n ' t h a v e t h e v e h i c l e o f implementation. So dabbling with this concept without vehicle of implementation is very very dangerous. This session today is only for us to think that do we have the resources to turn this into a reality, which seems fine and better for us on the face of it. And if we can't make this a reality then how dangerous will be for us to pursue it. We all carry a responsibility in a country like Pakistan where the actual literacy level is no more than 7 or 8%. You people sitting here are the thinking elites of Pakistan and if the thinking elite of Pakistan is not completely clear on the issue or is not ready to question what may not be implementable then I think the problem emancipates but nowhere else but here. This makes us responsible for the plight which exists in Pakistan today. We should create the critical mass before the implementation of Islam. I want to also state that the international global environment; drone attacks in FATA, attacks in Afghanistan and the rhetoric which comes towards us from west, this alternatives feels very good during this rhetoric. It would be better if we understand if this alternative is feasible and concentrate on the resources we require to reach this alternative. All I understand after this debate is how we can bring about change in the situation in Pakistan with all these difficult ground realities. Religion has emerged as a nontraditional source of conflict. You can't deny that in the Pakistani society and state performance, religion plays a conflict creating role instead of consensus building. It creates conflicts among us. So a separation of religion and state, and rethinking the concept of secularism for an interim period and allowing religion to be in the private domain till we create the critical mass and the methodology to be actually accepted and do not allow red flags to stand everywhere because of it, is the need of the day. I'll rest my case here. Thank you so much.

15

Engineer Muhammad Zubair Ahmad

Profile: Engr. Muhammad Zubair Ahmad did his B.E. (Electrical Engineering) from NED University of Engineering & Technology Karachi. He served Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co., Ltd. as Senior Executive Engineer for 6 years in the department of Field Services. In the organization; he was selected to participate in an Automation Training Course offered from Siemens France. After the successful completion of the course; he worked on various national and international power and automation projects. During his job in Siemens; Mr. Zubair completed his M.S. (Electrical Engineering) from NED University. After completing Masters Degree he joined the field of Education. Currently he is associated with Iqra University as Associate Professor in the department of Electronic Engineering. Very recently he did MBA (Marketing) from University of Karachi. Now he is enrolled in PhD program of Iqra University. He participated in various technical and non technical seminars and conferences as Speaker, Facilitator and Session Chair. He also works on different TV Channels as Host and Producer of various Religious and/or Social Programs and writes a regular column in Daily Pakistan.

Engr. M. Zubair Ahmad is presenting his paper on the Debut Seminar of THINK! as the fourth guest speaker. Duration: Approx: 21 mins 09 sec.

Assalam O Alaikum, In discussing the presented thesis, I am facing a few difficulties. The first difficulty is that all the points which I had prepared for the occasion, have already been covered by the preceding speakers, so the problem is that either now I have nothing to say or you will be aware of what I am going to say

observe about this thesis and the seminar and I would like to share it with Agha Sahab and you all, that the thesis presented by Agha Sahab is very vast and he has put in too many points into a single thesis. There are some topics on which one can hold many seminars and sessions. That is why it is very difficult to conclusively agree to disagree with him. I have some agreements with the Agha Sahab like freedom of speech, justice for all, research and consensus, education and the message of Islam being a balanced message. I will speak on those points on which I have disagreements or maybe I did not understand. First is the concept of lease hold, All land belongs to Allah; I didn't understand this part of the thesis. If it means that as all the land is dedicated to Allah, that is why it should not be in the custody of any individual, then this meaning is based on injustice. If we are to draw guidance from Quran and Hadees, there are many things whose ownership has been directly linked to Allah. In fact the whole universe is solely owned by Allah, I quote Surah-eB a q r a h , WA S E E - A - K U R S I - Y U - H U SAMAWAT-E-WAL-ARZ meaning the power; regime of Allah spans over the lands and the skies, over all universes. So He is basically claiming ownership of

Everything! So that will imply the we can't claim ownership of anything. But it is necessary that this system of ownership must be based on justice instead of exploitation. As Iqbal says:

The second problem is that there are many people in the audience, whom I personally know, and I believe them to be better thinkers, scholars and speakers then myself, so OBVIOUSLY I will not be able to exhibit my best abilities here. The third difficulty is that all the three speakers who came before me were doctors and I by comparison, am an ordinary man. But I think that repeatedly hearing all these points the audience will probably have reached such a saturation point, that even if I speak nonsense, it will not register. Like a poet says:

Exploitation based system of landlordism and feudalism should be abolished, Islam does not support such system. Infact the message of Islam came to rescue poor people from such evil systems. But this in no way means that we take away property from any person who has come into its ownership through labor, hard work, persistence and through Halal means. Second part of thesis which I did not understand is the municipal company concept including fiscal management and Agha Sahab is saying that we can get rid of Riba through fiscal management. I didn't understand that how can we be saved by adopting a municipal company? What would be the mechanism for that? And more importantly, before venturing onto this debate, we need to first define Riba. Because Riba is not only intrest, it is quite different thing from intrest; it is our limitation of vocabulary that leads to translation of riba as intrest in our language.

Before commenting on the thesis, as you see we have heard many agreements and disagreements on thesis. One thing I have

16

For instance, kindly keep this in mind that I am not a religious scholar nor I am passing any fatwa, this is just an example, Allah says in Quran A-HALLALLAH-U-BIYA-WA-HARAM-AR-RIBA, meaning He declared trade Halal but declared riba Haram, this is an absolute statement which is present in Quran. While God clearly declares trade as Halal, our scholars, under specific conditions and specific situation, prohibit certain trade, declaring it as Haram! Does that also imply the under some specific conditions riba could be declared Halal or allowed? It is just my perception, neither my decision nor my verdict. I just mean to say that we are still not in agreement on the definition of riba, there are many people who declare many trades as riba, similarly there are also so many people who thinks that Islamic banks are providing free of interest (Riba Free) banking services to their customers, there are also some scholars who say Islamic banking is also riba banking, so we first have to define what is riba. Agha sahib also spoke about the empowerment of labor, I did not understand what he meant from empowerment of labor, if it means that labor should not be exploited then I totally agree with this point. But every person has his own perimeters, his own attributes, hence it is decided that one will be the employer and the other will be employee, we can stop the exploitation of the same and we should. But we can't give everybody the same status by bringing the employee and employer on the same level; if we did the whole structure of social mechanism will break. Agha sahib talked about Ijtehad, it is a very important point but the question is how to conduct Ijtehat. I think we need to change the behavior and mindset of the common people before starting consensus. We think consensus is if I tell you one method of offering prayers and you state another and this completes consensus while that is not what Ijtehad (consensus is!

Let me give one example that in the era of Sahaba (the devoted companions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Hazrat Umar (RA), Hazrat Abdullah Bin Masood (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA) and other companions had major disagreements on issues but despite such disagreements as the Quran says MUHAMMAD-UR-RASOOLL U L L A H - WA L - L A Z E E N A - M A A H U ASHIDAHU-ALAL-KUFFAR-E-RUHAMAHUBAINAHUM they were still very kind to each other. While when we try to do consensus we draw out swords against each other, that is why I said that we need to change our mindset before we try to conduct Ijtehad. We need to develop the patience to hear disagreements, to bear them, to try to understand them, and if someone disagrees with your point of view then at least don't suspect his intention and honesty. I can have disagreements with anyone, but I have no right to say that since he disagrees with me, he is doing so out of vested interest, or that he is a paid agent of Jews. I can tell him that based on knowledge and education, I disagree with your viewpoint but I should not suspect his character, and the same applies vice versa. We can only go forward for Ijtehad if we have such mindset. Agha Sahab said that education is very important but if we are talking about social reform and welfare state then education will be a built-in pillar of the structure. We are talking explicitly about education here then let me say that only education can't bring the freedom of expression and freewill. Health should also be included in this thesis which I think is missing. According to my perception food, agriculture, shelter, clothing, health, law and order are the all things which should be included in this thesis for social reform, without which the concept and message are incomplete. I also did not understand this point that the head of the judiciary must be the leader of the state, I think that this point is wrong. So far as the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was concerned, he was God's Prophet, bestowed with extra

vision and knowledge, he not only communicated with Gabriel (AS) but also directly with the Almighty, thus if he was the head of the state as well as the head of Judiciary, nobody could have any objection. But after Prophet Muhammad (SAW), there were the Caliphs but they were not the Qazi. Head of State and Head of Judiciary are two different portfolios and titles and should remain such. If these are both held by the same person then there will not be any control or check and balance. Other issues will also arise which can be discussed in greater details in another seminar. The last point I want to discuss, Agha Sahab has stated that all the laws which we have borrowed from the west, should be ratified if these do not have popular consensus. May be it is true but we can't apply this statement on all laws. There are many laws in which there is no popular consensus but these laws are in the welfare of state. There are various examples, in Europe there is popular consensus that homosexuality should be allowed, and it is allowed there now. Do you think it has a positive impact on the society? Similarly there could be many things on which we do not have popular consensus. We should give weight-age to popular consensus; the whole focus of the thesis is the Divine Dictum, His constitution and word of God. If anything is acceptable and popular in light of the Divine Dictum then definitely that should be implemented. Thank you very much.

17

Mufti Irshad Ahmad Aijaz

Profile: Mufti Irshad Ahmad Aijaz was born in June, 1972 in Karachi. From 1983 till 2009 he acquired his Islamic education and completed different certificate courses in English Language and Mathematics. In 2009 he completed Masters in Business Administration from Iqra University. He worked as research fellow in Islamic Guidance Trust - an Islamic research institute; Worked with Jamiah Binnoriah as Research Associate in Research and Writing Department. He is Member of the Shari'ah Supervisory Board and Shari'ah Adviser (Resident Member) BankIslami Pakistan limited; also responsible at BankIslami for Shari'ah compliance and certification of all processes. Currently he is the visiting faculty member of different educational campuses. He is also the Head/Member of the different committees and/or task forces made by SBP for Shari'ah Issues of Islamic Banking in Pakistan. He appears as expert in Islamic Finance on electronic media in Pakistan; regularly delivers lectures on Islamic Banking and Finance at different forums; regularly write in print media on Islamic banking and finance.

Mufti Irshad Ahmad Aijaz is presenting his paper on the Debut Seminar of THINK! as the fifth and the last guest speaker. Duration: Approx: 21 mins 09 sec.

BISMILLLAH-HI-RAHMAN-IR-RAHEEM, Thank you for inviting me on this occasion and I apologize for coming late, I have not had the opportunity to hear the comments and thesis of the other speakers. I have though heard the presentation of Engineer Zubair, and I completely agree with him. It is right that the thesis is very vast and contains many points and I found it very difficult to focus on any one point and find out the basic purpose of this thesis. I had interpreted that this will be a judiciary and judicial system related debate. No doubt, as a Muslim nation we are facing different problems in all aspects of life, the system of governance, system of education, system of law and justice all have defects. The reason is that for the last two hundred years we are in the era of decline. But now, we have reached that point where an incline/improvement is to follow. This pattern entails a thinking and designing process stretched over 100150 years and we hope that Allah will bless this nation elevation again. But it should be remembered that this needs a time of at least 400 to 500 years. And the process continues till generation. We, on an individual level, can contribute a very small share to the big picture. We should welcome such

platforms and forums and help such people who tend to identify our weakness for our betterment, so that there is a beginning, no matter how small or insignificant, but a beginning. I want to comment on the global economic changes we are facing today. The economic recession of last year has ignited many conceptual debates around the globe. It has initiated the thought that the intrest based economic system entailing attainable target and free market, currently in existence is about to fail. What should we do to overcome such situation is the question we need to solve. In his thesis, Mr. Shahnawaz has commented that the medium of exchange should be such that would be internationally acceptable, but I didn't understand that what would be the practical shape of such medium. Similarly he has recommended some economic changes, especially the factor of production, which to me, are wishful thinking. How these things will look like in the practical form is what I have not been able to comprehend. Regarding the head of Judiciary being the head of State, I have strong reservations. In the political system prevalent in the world today, it is believed that there are three pillars of a state: the Legislature, the Judiciary

and the Administration. In our current system of government we have merged the Legislature and Administration into one, whereby the ruling elite make the laws and apply them. We have judiciary, administration, and sometimes an opposition party which can be genuinely in opposition or partisan. Islam clearly guides that government is responsible for three basic items, administration, justice and defense. In the olden days we had the caliphate system to govern but that system is no more, and it was replaced by democracy, but I think that the caliphate will revive, may be in the shape of Muslim union, and the caliph could be selected for the duration of three years, on the same analogy as European union. I think the head of State holding the administrative charge of the Judiciary is a possible recommendation. This thesis is basically a diagnosis of our society's diseases and contains a wish list but it is not equipped with the cure and practical solutions are rare. Most probably we have to brainstorm on the practical solutions on the next session. There are some targets which may take more than 100 years to achieve. I think we should include some targets which can be achieved in short term of 20-25 years.

18

It is pertinent to mention here that that the era of the elevation of western nations is the same of the era of decline of Muslims. If you take a look on 16th century till today you will find that it is the elevation period of western countries as well as decline period of Muslims. That is why we think that we could achieve elevation again by adopting the western ways, but this is not necessary. We could adopt some necessary things from them but we also have to take major guidance from our religion. Muslims were only in the progressive state when their concentration was toward Holy Quran and Allah. But Europe thinks that their progress is inversely proportional to their religion, when they quit their religion they get the progress. The reason is that they donot have a complete religion, they have only myths. That is why we have to make sure that whatever system we adopt, must be a balanced system. Lease hold concepts is much similar to the concept of communism, communist says that the everything is of state and we say that everything belongs to Allah; as we are Muslims. Socialism and communism has failed. Yes all things belong to Allah but these things have to be managed by the state and when the state is going to manage; we faces the same crisis as we see in China. The model which is successful is mix economy in which we adopt the good points of socialism and capitalism and include some points from our religion and build a mixed economic system. For instance planning is a good feature of socialism, we will adopt it. It is important to mention here that we may include some items from other systems in our proposed system based on the fact that they are not contradictory to the Islamic beliefs though they might not be clearly outlined in the Holy Quran. Whatever system we propose, we need to make sure that it is a balanced system. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) also adopted some things which were not Arabic but due to betterment he adopted. Ghazwa-e-Khandaq is a valid example here. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) has clearly said that any word of wisdom is

a lost property of a Muslim. We need to establish a system striking a balance between the two extremes, the worldly affairs and the word of God. But the rule should be that the Allah's order must be our priority. In Pakistan we think that the system of education is wrong and we could get rid of all social evils by reforming our education system. But it is also a fact that the biggest thief is one who is more educated as he is aware of all possible ways of theft and methods to get away with it. Even in America, bribery is now legitimate as lobbying firm. Pakistani people get caught due to illiteracy, if they were also as educated as other nation and conducted sophisticated, well planned, offbalance sheet robberies, they would stand a better chance of getting away with it! In my opinion the most important thing is training and character building at social level. If a person has a good character but less education he could be a good person. In islam the most important element of character building is the fear of the hereafter, the fear that no matter how furtively or secretly an act is committed, it will be brought to forth on the day of judgment. Unfortunately as a nation we have quit the fear of Allah, nobody fears the Almighty who will hold us accountable on the Day of Judgment. When a person comes into power he forgets God and remembers only the worldly parties that can either stop him or hold him accountable for his illicit action. We give examples of Hazrat Omar (RA) who was a very great ruler, even if we look 500 or 600 years back we will find honest and God fearing rulers. Even amongst non-Muslim, there are examples of honest and just rulers, who if not due to the fear of Allah, or the hereafter, then for the sake of their respect upheld justice. So I recommend that our proposed system should lay great stress on moral and ethical education and character

building of our future generations, who will be equipped to serve this nation and the Ummah both. Thank you all. WA-AKHIR-UD-DAWANA-ANIL-HAMD-ULILLAH-E-RAB-BIL-AALAMEEN

19

Jury Statement by Justice (Retd.) S. Ali Aslam Jafri

Thank You Very Much BISMILLAH-HIR-REHAMAN-NIR-RAHEEM, A very interesting and lively discussion or rather we should say the expression of views by various speakers who are infact experts in their fields and very learned people. It has been rightly pointed out that the thesis produced by Mr. Shahnawaz Agha, actually its scope is very wider and requires lot of discussion on different parts which have been mentioned and pointed out. Mr. Agha has tried his best to cover all the aspects as per his vision relating to improvement and development and creation of a model society for human beings, particularly with reference to our beloved country. Certain observations with reference to the thesis were made; some agreements and disagreements were expressed by Dr. Kahlid Zaheer, thereafter he also expressed his own views to meet the situation. Similarly other speakers also touched the point. Air Vice Marshall Abid Muhammad Rao, though his speech and expression was to some extent general in nature but in fact it is one important aspect which cannot be ignored because when we try to build a nation or a country and we ignore the basis; we forget the basis; we changed the norms according to our likings and disliking, many confusions arise. Various aspects relating to the difficulties faced by the nation were pointed out by him. Similarly when we heard Dr. Huma Baqai; she touched the subject with a quite different style and her own concept with respect to Pakistan being a secular state. Some may agree, some may not agree with her views but after all the very purpose for the discussion or this paper reading and expression of views is to enlighten the masses, people who are all highly educated and well placed in the society and the leaders of the society, provide food for thought to them, and to consider whether from this angle also we can go in a direction for the betterment, strengthening and development of a country with prosperous life of its citizen. Then there was Mr. Zubair, we have heard him and he also analyzed the situation and offered certain solutions. The points raised by Agha Sahab particularly either to disagree or to agree with some of speakers to some extent. However I may add here one point most probably pointed out by Mr. Zubair that in such cases the presence of a moderator and discussion in such a manner that certain questions soon after the completion of speech by honorable speaker, questions should have been invited by the participants as well. So that many things which a particular speaker said but some of the audience required it to be clarified or they did not agree or were not able to digest it. So if the process of conducting next seminar may kindly be considered keeping in view this observation and I am confident that by brain storming perhaps we may reach at some conclusion. But the only personal observation from my side is that we are living in a society of frustration, in various parts of life which has created lot of fuss and we are going far away from the very fundamental basic preaching of Islam that is live and let others live; Say and hear others, when you hear somebody; it is not necessary that you follow him, it is not necessary that you may agree with him, you may argue with him but within social limitations and with a very cool temperament. Don't try to put hands on his mouth. Don't try to intimidate him. Convince him with arguments because we think and we believe that we are the followers of a religion, we are the followers of a message where tolerance in the society is the basic thing and we are the followers of the great personality of this universe, who was an example Makaram-il-Ikhlaq.. Thank you very much.

with reference to certain fiscal arrangements and the Chief Justice or the Chief Qazi or the Qazi-uz-Quzzah being the head of the state also came under discussion. Similarly it has been pointed out by Mufti Irshad Ahmed Aijaz Sahab. Unfortunately he was not with us when other speakers expressed their views, and had he been here then perhaps he too would have been in a position

Jury Statement by Barrister Farrukh Zia Shaikh

BISMILLAH-HIR-RAHMAN-NIR-RAHEEM, ASSALAM-OALAIKUM, Ladies and Gentleman; this was not intended but I just want to take few minutes. The speeches made by the panelists were good but I am afraid I did not totally agree with a lot of things and since I am the part of the jury, and I hope I will be there after this speech, so I just want to make my views clear on how I think about it so if I am the appropriate person to remain on the jury or not! First, I will not discuss anything political because I am not a political person. I think the problem which have been highlighted, you see we have the solution to those problems ourselves, the intention is everyone tends to improve the quality of our life, we want to be successful, we want to have security, we want to have children with nice future, without sending them abroad we can have bright future for them in Pakistan and I would prefer that and so would you. I don't want to leave my country, yes but if I have to send my children out to study I would like them to come back but why can't I make things better in Pakistan. Which will of course be much cheaper for me and my children will also be close to me and I would be able to supervise them. Our basic problem is not making new laws, our basic problem is; our basic problem has been; our basic problem will be, if we do not think differently, the implementation of laws. We are deviating from the rule of law and independence of judiciary. We have our constitution after Quran and we are bound to it. We have to hold on for the two. The sacred book for us is Holy Quran and then we have our constitution. Rule of law is extremely important we should never think about it. If we want to improve ourselves. 63 years; it is not a joke we might not be very old but not young either. 63 years, things could have been better. Things are not bad. I promise you miracles will not happen anymore, Pakistan is already a miracle. Nargis Hazar Saal Aur Roye Gi, Koi nae Peda Hone Wala Aur. You are the real heroes, we are the heroes, and heroes are already there, we don't need any other heroes. What are we waiting for? Do something for God's sake. If you want to improve, just prove it. Stick to the rules of law and stick to the laws you have, implement them rather than making new laws. To cut a long story short; and nothing is above the law. I will just read a part of the constitution; just preamble is not the moment being challenged anywhere. Your minorities freely to prospect and process their beliefs, develop their cultures, wherein shall be guaranteed the fundamental rights, including equality of the status, opportunity, and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, believe, faith, worship and association subject to law and public morality. Wherein adequate provision shall be made to saveguard legitimate interest of minorities and backward and depressed classes, (and my classic one) wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured . This is your constitution's preamble's opening few lines. In article 3, Elimination of exploitation the state shall ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual fulfillment of the fundamental principle from each according to his ability to each according to his work. And lastly Articles 4 states, Rights of individuals to be dealt with accordance with law, to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inarianable right of every citizen, wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken accept in accordance with law. No person should be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law and no person shall be compelled to do that which the law doesn't require him to do. In a nut shell; rule of law, independence of judiciary. . . . Islam is our religion; as far as the law is concerned we already have the constitution. Stick to it, we don't need more heroes. A friend sent me a text message on 14th August, and it touched my heart. I would like to share it with you, kindly listen with concentration, and go deep into it. Anjuman apni kisi khwab ki tabeer se hy; ban gae hy to isey khwab na hone dena. Thank you very much.

constitution's preamble is already stating whatever our learned speakers are saying. I will just read few lines from the preamble of the constitution please concentrate on the words, whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him, is a sacred trust wherein the state shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people, (Constitution has always wanted democracy) wherein the principle of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. I am only reading the preamble. Wherein the Muslims shall be enable to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and the requirements of the Islam, as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, wherein adequate provisions shall be made for the

20

Q&A Session
Q: Commdr. Rashid: In the present setup if we take out religion from our politics, does it have any bearing on our ideology, based on which we have got our independence? A: AVM Abid Rao: Our religion didn't give us any system of governance, our religion gives us a set of values, these values are based on fairness, tolerance and merit, and respect to others' lives. Live and let live. We have plundered this country in the name of Nizam-e-Mustafa; we destroyed our country. As a result of the PNA Movement of 1977, and the arrival of Zia-ul-Haq, we have stepped backward for around 500 years; or the situation we are in now, this is also a result of the same. That is why I say that the connection of religion with the politics with reference to Pakistan is that all religious parties are gunning towards Islamabad for the Seat of Prime Minister and President. They are doing politics in the name of religion, they are not putting religion or values into politics. If they do so, then Nizam-e-Mustafa will be here. If you see the era of Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Great Caliphs, there is no system of parliament , governance and democaracy per say. There was fairness, everybody's opinion was respected. Selective portions system of Islamic governance have been adopted by different people in the past. For example the welfare state system of Hazrat Umar (RA) is adopted in Britain. The penalty system was adopted by Mao Xe Tung in China. Mahateer Muhammad adopted the system of religious equality in Malaysia. These are the countries that showed development in recent past. But our system of combining religion with politics is the reason of our retreat since last 63 years. Comment: Salman Alvi: I would like to offer only a short comment. I am not a scholar but I try to be a good citizen; a good follower of the law, a good human being, I think the purpose of this platform should be find ways and means for execution; from where it should start, we are talking about the last level whereas we have not even taken the first step. I think if we take a look at our hierarchy of needs we will find that our majority has not yet overcome the physiological needs and we are talking about ego needs. I think let's talk about the practical solution, we all knows the problem. We also know that there is a law, we and I agrees that religion should not be mix with politics, as it is hazardous for consensus. I am sure and I am not a judge of that, honorable jury is here and the learned scholars are here, that overall our law and constitution is not in conflict with our religion, why do we keep raising the same conflict again and again. Some portions might require refining; we should start practice the basic at least. We shall overcome the our basic physiological needs. At least let's implement the law which we have on roads and on all aspects of life. And at the same time coming to the honorable jury; please try to provide justice faster, as this is affecting the common man. Q: Abdullah Zaidi: I have two questions in particular with Khalid Zaheer and with Madam Huma Baqai; unfortunately she left. We often heard a suggestion from the scholars like Aitzaz Ahsan and Dr. Farzana Shaikh that may be our echoes are back to local traditions which emphasizes the commonalities between the Islam and other South Asian religions. What is your perception over the commonalities between Islam and other religions? As I understand that our solution doesn't lie in the Arabization; may be our solution lies in South-Asianization. And my second question is; the major critics over sharia are that we don't have any consensus over particular terms, which form and what form of Islam should be adopted? Similar problems I am seeing in the secular laws, recently what happens in France about the veil that is miscarriage of democracy, secularism and human rights in my perception. So I am seeing a decline in both systems, I want to have comments on this by the panelists specially Khalid Zaheer and AVM Abid Rao. A: Dr. Khalid Zaheer: Here I am , hearing discussion in favor of secularism And thinking how the mistakes of us Muslims are also loaded onto Islam. Islam is very clear, you have the right to say what you want to say, you have a different religious point of view and the others have a different perception too. Tell me is it fair that I pray namaz because of the Allah's command, as Allah orders in Quran to pray namaz; but in parliament I state that now in parliament I am not that Muslim who says thieves should have Islamic penalties. I am the same Muslim who reads Surah-e-Baqrah and also reads Surah-e-Maidah. I will go to the parliament and I will try to convince my fellow parliamentarians that Surah-e-Maidah is also to be implemented. I will not force it down their throats. I will say that these are my arguments, you too are Muslim. When the majority of the parliamentarians are going to accept God Almighty's law on the punishment of theft; that will become the law. Will I pass this law on the name of secularism that the God's orders over the collective affairs are not applicable today, in this day and age? I think this is an overreaction. You gave a good example of France, their inappropriate behavior; what does it mean? I mean if you are somebody who is trying to implement law to everybody across the board then of course you have to take into consideration the individual understanding of the ladies who want to wear veil. I mean how can you intervene in their private affairs and say that their liberty is not going to be respected. I think we have to be consistant. We should say that religious people should not impose their religious perception on others nor they should deliver sentimental speeches, they should present their perception with arguments and let others have their say as well and obey the rule of majority and democracy in parliament at all cost. A: AVM Abid Rao: Secularism is not Ladiniyat. This is a wrong translation. Secularism is a political translation of the word tolerance. I believe that the founder of secularism was the Mughal king Akbar. To represent all religions; he made a hall and told everyone to describe their religion's virtues. Then from this exercise, he adopted for a form of government and titled it as Deen-e-Ilahi. He went a little bit too far in a wrong direction. His basic purpose to do so was he wanted to give sense of security to the non-Muslims and ensure their participation in the state matters. After Akbar, Aurangzeb reversed his every act; he too was at the extreme level. As I quoted the example of Humayoun; he faced a lot of pressure because of Shia advisors in his government. Akbar appointed Hindus in his advisory board. Aurangzeb came as a opposite of Akbar. This is my personal opinion as a student of history that Islamic government in Hindustan did not end in 1857, it ended on 1707. Mughals were fragmented in these 150 years and the Hindus Maharajas had already snatched the government from them. British only finalized the whole situation. British were blamed because their's was the last nail in the coffin. Arabization will not solve our solutions. Arab dresses, culture and tradition don't make you

21

. . . Q&A Session
a better Muslim, your own culture and dress is far better. Islam did not order any specific dress. It only orders what you have to cover and what you can show it is not necessary to wear Arab dress for that. Converting Lailpur to Faisalabad is not an act of faith and whatever you do in the name of Shah Faisal, was just to please Saudi Arabia. It has nothing to do with religion. As Huma Baqai said that when the worship places of Ahmedis was under attack, Chief Minister didn't go there, all dignitaries who regreted the incident received death threats; what kind of Isalm is this? Comment: Arshad: I am a lawyer by profession. I would like to ask that drugs, smuggling and Kalashnikov culture was promoted in our society 30 years ago, unfortunately we didn't stop that. And we even don't have any cure for it. But we should include in this thesis that how can we give a better future to our children between the age of 5-6 years today? These children are indulgent in cell phone, emails, SMS messages and other digital communication resources. I don't think I have to elaborate how illicitly they are using communicating devices. I think you should also include this issue in your thesis. A: Fizzah (Moderator): Apology for interrupting you sir but I want to state that this is actually a debut seminar and we will continue this drive furthermore, at least till 26 seminars, in which we will discuss many such matters in detail. Comment: Sarwar Naseer: I have some comments despite of question. We have been listening the thesis of Mr. Mirza, actually the topic was quite vast but he tried his best to give the vivid description of the subject and touch almost all the sectors of the topic. But the point he left is that in which era we are living and despite of Islam and secularism, what do we need to bring change in ourselves at initial level, according to poet; Agr is daur me aasmano se farishtey b utare jaen, agr wo sach bolen to wwo b marey jaen. Our first priority should be what change we should bring in ourselves? As you talked that the Chief Justice should be the President, but in my opinion president do more justice than the chief justice, he sits on a chair which doesn't require court; his every moment spends in giving justice. But if he didn't give the justice, then he is same criminal as the ordinary ones. Thank you sir you didn't say that President should be the chief justice. We need to bring change in ourselves. If we bring fundamental changes in ourselves at grass root level first, then we could get rid of the many evils of our country and society. JO KAHO HAQ KAHO; JO LIKHO HAQ LIKHO; MASHAL-E-ADMIYAT KO BUJHNAY NA DO; APNAY JIS HATH MAI THAMTAY HO QALAM; TUM KO US HATH KEE AABROO KEE QASAM Q: Shoaib Shamsi: My name is Shoaib Shamsi, I am faculty member at Greenwich University. My question will be very brief, I will not make my own speech. Your speeches show that there is an atmosphere of frustration in our country. I often hear a statement from many people that Pakistan was a mistake, but I don't take this statement seriously, I want to ask the learned panelists through this panel that was Pakistan a mistake? A: Justice (Retd.) Mahmood Alam: As you ask whether Pakistan was a mistake? Parents often say about their children that he/she was a mistake but they still provide them education and make them a better human. Its is simple; forget this statement and work for Pakistan. Secondly Barrister Farrukh Zia Shaikh referenced the constitution, one point which most of the people don't know is that the fundamental rights were introduced on 15 August 1973 but were taken back within 24 hours, and it is true that the same fundamental rights remained seized in the tenure of the democratic government; and the dictator Zia-ul-Haq restored the fundamental rights. One thing I like about AVM Abid Rao is when the people are in forces, they have a different frane of thought, but when they have left the forces they speak the truth. Lastly I feel that the thesis by Mr. Agha was targeted and the real purpose and subject of the seminar was lost. Perhaps I was expecting a lot from Mr. Khalid Zaheer and Mr. Muhammad Zubair Ahmed. There is a lot of confusion as every panelist has its own perceptions and thoughts. Perhaps Dr. Huma Baqai has a very different school of thought. I would like to say that the recitation of Holy Quran by Allama Sahab was very comprehensive and after that the debate and logics of Khalid Zaheer was elaborated but very concrete, so the answer of many things like social justice etc is present in various verses of Quran. In Surah-e-Taghaban, chapter number 28, verse number perhaps 64; Allah says very clearly that we should search within our relatives, our friends and other people to find the needy and poor and share our money with them. This will eliminate crimes. May be you remember that 30 years ago, the law and order situation was very satisfactory but due to economic disasters we have destroyed all the peace. We stopped the use of Quran and constitution that is why this all system collapsed. Mufti Sahab said correctly that when we left Sunnah; we faced a decline. We are living in dual system. We wear hat (topi) before praying Namaz, if we have any problem with it; we can pray namaz without covering our head as well. We promote secularism till the age of 60. But after 60; we go for Umrah and Hajj and keep beard on our faces. So first we have to clear ourselves. I am repeating again for God's sake that by understanding only three verses daily from Quran we could bring change in us. Comment: Ahmed Hussain: My name is Ahmed Husain; I am a recent law graduate. I just want to know that it is a time bring change in our thought and action, a change in perspective and approach, and thus a change in tomorrow, if I am not mistaking then we are sitting here before most intellectuals of our society, the greatest thinkers right now. Yet I am disappointed with the fact that you know we are talking about bring a change to our country yet we can't disciplined ourselves to start the seminar at time, to respect when the other individual speaking, to actually adhere to simple mannerism as everybody taught. How we can change the society if we can't even disciplined ourselves to conduct seminar. A: Fizzah (Moderator) : let's start today then.

22

Debut Seminar through the Lens

Ms. Fizzah Shakil initiated the debate with a beautiful poem and moderated the whole event with a wit and a smile.

Mirza Shahnawaz Agha is presenting his Debut Seminar concept paper to initiate a drive for the betterment of the nation.

Dr. Huma Baqai renowned scholar and Chairperson of Sociology Department at IBA, is presenting her disagreement on the timing of the idea.

Dr. Khalid Zaheer, renowned scholar and professor from Punjab University, Lahore, is adding his valuable comments and suggestions along with few disagreements and confusions.

Engr. Zubair Ahmed from Iqra University, is suggesting a different structure for the drive and the seminars.

AVM (Retd.) Dr. Abid M. Rao is presenting an anti-thesis on the basis of his wide spectrum experience and knowledge.

Mufti Irshad Ahmed from Bank Islami is adding his views in the light of Shariah.

Our Scholars waiting for their turn to express there views and suggestions at the Debut Seminar held at Karachi Sheraton Hotel on 7th August, 2010

Our respected panel of Judges listening to the papers presented at the seminar.

23

24

Terms of Reference
The Honorable Jury convened for an in-camera session on 24th August 2010, at Gulab Conference Room, Karachi Sheraton Hotel, at 5:00 pm. The agenda of the meeting was to formalize the Terms of Reference for the Jury and discuss the proceedings of Debut Seminar, to arrive at a verdict. The session lasted for two hours, and post detailed deliberation, the Jury arrived at a unanimous verdict.
CEO THINK!
1. For the purpose of maximum benefit from the basic structure of our forum, it is extremely important that the Thesis authored by Mirza Shahnawaz Agha, presented progressively on our last gathering, and the theme whereof shall be spread over a number of seminars, be subject to scrutiny of experts who will be dealing with their respective topics. The above exercise is to acknowledge dissent, in the Spirit of Shoora (as incumbent upon all Muslims). The Thesis and the dissensions are subject to validation based upon logic, reality and common sense, as in the founding philosophy for making laws of any nature. After deep thought, it is therefore proposed, that a Jury comprising of Judges be best requested to hear the Thesis and the dissension, and then adjudicate the applicable levels of acceptability based on the merits of realism and a practical solution thereto. This will then manifest as a form of Ijtehad. It is also humbly proposed that the respected members of the jury (which is expandable) may kindly consent to the following: a. THINK! Platform will provide copies of the proceedings of the preceding seminar to all members of the Jury within a week time post seminar. All members of the Jury will convene for a Jury Meeting on a mutually agreed date between the two seminars (to be coordinated by THINK!). The members of the Jury will discuss the proceedings of the preceding seminar. THINK! Platform will make arrangements for the Jury to question any / all panelist (s) (electronically or by any other means) during the Jury Meeting; as and when required. Mirza Shahnawaz Agha (the presenter of the Thesis) will be requested by THINK! to be present at the Jury Meetings (if so desired by the Jury). The Jury will announce a declaratory majority / consensus verdict based on realism, logic and in the light of the Divine Dictum to be circulated at the succeeding seminar. The members of the Jury will be at liberty to choose the presenter of the verdict. The entire material thus collected will be published as: issues raised, deliberated and ratified for a 'white paper' to be published at the end of the exercise. Individual verdicts with the archived material of all members of the Jury will be collected by THINK! at the conclusion of each Jury Meeting, for the archives of THINK! Platform. The jury (post presentation by each individuals speakers) will have the first right to question him / her.

2. 3.

4.

5.

b.

c. d.

e.

f.

g. h.

i.

j. 6.

The purpose of the entire aforementioned exercise is to seek the change in the management of Pakistan from the rudimentary colonial methods to modern and futuristic Islamic doctrines. Above all, the Jury will bear in mind that the purpose of this exercise is to bring awareness to the millions of citizens of Pakistan so that they are conscious of their rights and existence. It is the most humble prayer of this platform that the decision of the Jury will be bold, fearing only Allah Almighty. They will follow the spirit of: Fiat justitia, ruat coelum (let justice be done, though the heavens should fall).

7.

8.

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum

(let justice be done, though the heavens should fall)

25

Jury Meeting through the Lens

Nazish Shah CEO THINK! initiating the meeting by outlining the agenda of the meeting.

Pakistan is an Islamic state, created in the name of Islam hence Islam should be the foundation of the system, governance and law of this country, CJP (Retd.) Saiduzzaman Siddiqui.

Mirza Shahnawaz Agha Declarant THINK! elaborating the Terms of Reference and answering questions from the Jury regarding his thesis.

Islam is being abused by some individuals in our society for personal gain. It is essential that such element are not only identified but also shunned, Justice (Retd.) Syed Ali Aslam Jafri.

It is necessary that we get ourselves acknowledged by the international community as true representatives of Islam, Religion of Peace, through our actions, Justice (Retd.) Khalid Ali Z. Qazi.

The aim of the drive or the jury is not to undermine the integrity of the scholars, but to establish the difference between clerics and scholars, Justice (Retd.) Mehmood Alam Rizvi.

The current situation in the country demands attention to not only law making but also application and implementation, Barrister Farrukh Zia Shaikh.

Many articles in the current constitution are also in consonance with Islam and we need to ensure that these are made effective and followed, Advocate Jawaid Alam.

A thought provoking discussion in session

Jury at Iftar Dinner after session

A Group of all present at the meeting

26

27

Our events in the Media

28

OUR SUPPORTERS AND COLLABORATORS

Asset Management Company Limited

ALL LOGOS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THEIR OWNERS

This platform needs Panelists Judicial Activists Social Activists Volunteers Permanent Venue Contributions Patronization

YOUR SUPPORT

LIVE ROSTRUM (NEWS AGENCY) 4th Floor, Muhammadi House, Main I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi - Pakistan. Tel : 021 3 241 5254 - 6 Fax: 021 3 241 5257 E-Mail: info@liverostrum.com

www.liverostrum.com