Shah-Bano-eng
Shah-Bano-eng
Shah-Bano-eng
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Shah</strong> <strong>Bano</strong>, MW Act, and Mataa<br />
stated in Hedaya and by Baillie and quoted above by us on the<br />
reasoning that their Lordships “do not care to speculate on the mode<br />
in which the text quoted from the Koran, which is to be found in Sura<br />
II, verse 240, is to be reconciled with the law as laid down in the<br />
Hedaya and by the author of the passage quoted from Baillie’s<br />
Imameea. But it would be wrong for the Court on a point of this kind<br />
to attempt to put their own construction on the Koran in opposition<br />
to the express ruling of commentators of such great antiquity and<br />
high authority.”<br />
14. This dictum of the Privy Council quoted above pronounced<br />
about one hundred years ago in 1897 AD cannot be followed on three<br />
grounds.<br />
15. Firstly, the learned Judges in the Privy Council were non-<br />
Muslims and they were anxious to decide such issues in accordance<br />
with the laws as propounded by the Muslim jurists rather than<br />
independently, disregarding the Muslim jurists.<br />
16. Secondly, Article 8(1A) of the Constitution of Bangladesh,<br />
contained in Part II under the heading “Fundamental Principles of<br />
State Policy”, states that absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah<br />
shall be basis of all actions. It indicates that Quranic injunctions shall<br />
have to be followed strictly and without any deviation.<br />
17. Thirdly, Quran urges:<br />
Those to whom we have sent the Book study it as it should be studied;<br />
they are the ones that believe therein. (Second Sura Baqara, verse 121.)<br />
This verse directs continuous study of the Quran which is in<br />
conformity with the dynamic, progressive and universal character of<br />
Islam.<br />
18. We now like to quote an observation from a decision of the<br />
Lahore High Court reported in PLD 1960 Lahore 1142 (Mst. Rashida<br />
Begum v. <strong>Shah</strong>an Din & others) in support of our above views as<br />
hereunder:<br />
22<br />
Thus it is quite clear that reading and under-standing the Quran is not the<br />
privilege or the right of one individual or two. It is revealed in easy and<br />
understandable language so that all Muslims if they try may be able to<br />
understand and act upon it. It is thus a privilege granted to every Muslim<br />
which cannot be taken away from him by anybody, however highly<br />
placed or learned he may be, to read and interpret the Quran. In<br />
understanding the Quran one can derive valuable assistance from the<br />
commentaries written by different learned people of yore, but then that<br />
is all. Those commentaries cannot be said to be the last word on the<br />
subject. Reading and understanding the Quran implies the interpretation<br />
of it and the interpretation in its turn includes the application of it which