(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; *
*
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;
*
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen;*
IF it was a matter of speculation and accusation, just these three clauses would pretty much disqualify almost everybody in the current political scenario in Pakistan, not just IK.
IF it was a matter of speculation and accusation, just these three clauses would pretty much disqualify almost everybody in the current political scenario in Pakistan, not just IK.
Which is why morality clauses are ultimately futile. Let the public decide whether a candidate's morals are acceptable. Of course this can backfire too, i.e. rednecks voting for Republicans who pay lip service to religion and the military.
(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; *
*
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;
*
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen;*
*
Provided that the disqualifications specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) shall not apply to a person who is a non-Muslim, but such a person shall have good moral reputation.*
..And who is going to decide about the sins.. the biggest sin in Islam is shirk..
A vast number of Pakistani muslims go to shrines and mazars for prayers. Some others consider this is equivalent to shirk.. Same is the case with blasphemy issue. Some muslims consider Sherry Rehman and Governor Taseer of committing blasphemy and declared them "Wajib ul Qatal".. in fact one self righteous muslim killed Governor Taseer in broad day light. There are many contradictions which exist between different versions of Islam as far as definition of sins is concerned.
The clause in the constitution is highly flawed. State can not indulge itself in the matters of sin.. State can only deal with matters pertaining to crimes. This highly flawed article in the constitution should be immediately struck down by the SC as non-implementable and contradictory in nature. It is not logical without defining what real Islamic sins are and who has the authority to define these sins to implement this clause.
In a country where an easily verifiable qualification like having a university degree was molested like anything, judging 'sadiq' and 'ameen' would be a bit of an issue.
I am wondering how much implementation would happen ... but if all relevant articles in constitution would get implemented to its full then you can expect to see big shakeup and plenty of fire-work.:)
Implementation of a declaration with a person who is not even eligible to contest elections and has not intention of taking part in the democratic process? dream on!
In a country where an easily verifiable qualification like having a university degree was molested like anything, judging 'sadiq' and 'ameen' would be a bit of an issue.
We need to distinguish between crimes and sins. Mis declaring credentials to qualify for eligibility of candidature for elections of the parliament is a crime. This clause if implemented to check criminality of aspiring candidate is implementable. If criminality is mixed up with sins.. we are going to become one hell of a confused nation. Take example of IK.. he is accused of sinning by some in his private life at some stage in his life. should we disqualify him on these grounds. We should only be concerned about criminality of the potential candidates..