In the context of the Panama case, these days, the article of the Constitution 62-63 is in discussion in which the ability to become a Member of Parliament. And the eligibility is that the person (Muslim) can become a member of parliament who is a good character and is not known for the violation of the sectarian Islam.
Islamic knowledge is appropriate. Essential religious duties are fulfilled and not involved in temporary sins. They are wise, do not be corrupt and honest and Trustworthy. Obviously they are the ideal conditions. Whoever wants the person whom he is choosing is an illusion of evil. But can anyone be Sadeq & Amin? These are two attributes that are connected to Rasoolullah S.A.W. only and since then the Prophet-hood was not revealed. If it is so easy to be honest and Trustworthy, then before or after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in Makkah, nobody else can get the title of Sadeq & Amin. Sadiq and Amin neither can get involved in bigger sin nor in small sins. There is a condition of being innocent with Sadeq & Amin, and only Prophet Muhammad S.A.W was innocent.
Therefore, in some constitutional clause, a general human being can be expected to be honest, sincerely, high-profile and breeding, but how one can expect him to be honest and trustworthy? Would you believe it? If I tell you General Zia-ul-Haq was Sadeq & Amin, who made these purified terms part of the law and order, it is very impossible to be honest and trustworthy. The same condition itself is that the Parliament should follow the mandatory obligations of Islam. When Hazrat Bahawadin Zechariah Multani Died, so according to his will they came an announced that his funeral prayers will be red by only that person who had not missed single prayer in his entire life. Just one of the thousands of people went ahead with the cloth (so no one can see his face) on the face and said: “you have gone but you have open our secrets.” And that was Sultan Dehli shams ud din Al tatmesh.
An Abnormal politician Javed Hashmi said: why article 62 applies only to Parliamentarians. Why the Generals, judges and bureaucrats are free from such a good article? Is it obligatory for them to be true, sincere, sincerely cleansed, and forbid, and worshiped? Or it is not necessary for all of them as much as lawmakers. The Election Commission is bound to ensure that the candidates meets to the Article 62 of the Sadeq & Amin's requirements. As it is determined that members of the commission and the paper checking presidency officers are Sadeq & Amin papers. Now you should remember all the names which are currently sitting in assemblies after fulfilling the requirements of Article 62. The Truthful, polite, trustworthy, honest, true believers of Islam, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Asfandyar Wali, Mahmood Khan Achakzai, Sheikh Rasheed, Faryal Talpur, Sharif family, Hanif Abbasi, Sanaullah Zehri, Rana Sanaullah etc etc etc…. !!!
According to the Bible, A woman was brought in front of Jesus with an allegation of whore. The crowd demanded she should be stoned. Hazrat ESSA approved and said: the first stone should be thrown by a person who has never ever committed a sin, by hearing this the people started hiding. There is No Article 62 in the Constitution of any Western and Eastern democracy. Because it was assumed that those who are on high positions will never work with against the law, and if they do, they will automatically get legal accountability. So there is no unusual thing to get someone accuse or punish. It is only PAKISTAN where our politicians are playing us in non-serious and hypocritical society, using the terminology of our historical and religious context, the name of the law.
However PAKISTAN is the only country where more than a thousand people are sitting in parliament and provincial assemblies. Here No one has any guts or courage to even think about removing the parliamentarians in the light of Article 62. And if a person stood against them and tries to question them, the whole assembly will run after him with allegations of corrupt, traitor, immoral, and dishonest.
- Font Size
- Reading Mode