WHAT is Chaudhri Shujaat up to? Is he on some kind of personal crusade against the women’s bill? On Sunday he met a team of ulema who reportedly found six of the bill’s clauses anti-Islamic. After the meeting, one of the ulema said that the PML chief, too, believed that some of the clauses of the bill were unIslamic. Now it is the PML president’s duty to either deny the statement attributed to him or accept that he indeed believes that the bill contains some clauses which are in violation of the Quran and Sunnah. If the latter is the case, then he must stand by his word. On Nov 15, the day the National Assembly passed the Protection of Women (Amendment to Criminal Laws) Bill, Chaudhri Shujaat handed in his resignation to Speaker Amir Hussain, saying that he should keep it pending until someone proved that the bill did contain anti-Islam clauses. If it was drama, then the speaker evidently did not seem to go along and returned it to him. Later, Chaudhri Shujaat said that he would quit the National Assembly if it was proved that some clauses of the PWB were against Islam. Unless he denies what has been attributed to him after Sunday’s meeting, he should stand by his word and resign. Not many people would be very keen to see the PML president out of parliament, since his presence or absence would in any case make little difference to the quality of parliamentary proceedings; all one is trying to point out is the futility of such threats and the way the chief of the ruling party is conducting himself on a bill that is now on the statute book.

The basic issue that seems to elude our politicians is the sovereignty of parliament. Their behaviour often betrays a lack of understanding of this fundamental principle in the working of a state pledged to democracy. The preamble to the Constitution makes it clear that the state “shall exercise its authority through the chosen representatives of the people” — in other words, parliament — and Article 227 says no law shall be enacted if it is repugnant to Islamic injunctions. Whether a law violates Islamic injunctions must ultimately be decided by the people, because there is no other way of arriving at ijma (consensus). In his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Allama Iqbal argued that in modern times it is parliament that should be the vehicle of ijtihad — finding solutions to new situations by amending Islamic laws needing a modern interpretation. No group can arrogate to itself the sole right to Islam’s interpretation. To do so would amount to creating a religious hierarchy, something repugnant to Islam.

The Hudood ordinances were controversial. They were enforced through a decree by a dictator who did not bother to seek a consensus. The PWB, on the other hand, has been passed by parliament. The bill had been vetted by the standing committee, boycotted by the MMA which is now threatening to quit the Assembly. This hardly advances the cause of the sovereignty of parliament or democracy. Chaudhri Shujaat seems to have forgotten that he is head of a party which has a majority in parliament and the PWB bill would not have become law if the PML had not piloted it. By playing to the religious gallery, he is merely undermining the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.