Maulana Sufi Nek Muhammad has set the cat among the pigeons by repeating his assertion that laws in Pakistan were not Islamic, and by rejecting the possibility of appeal against the decisions of the Qazis that are to be appointed under the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation. While his claims have caused some controversy, with the prime minister among the many voices raised in condemnation, this seems to ignore the fact that the Maulana is not uttering some wild-eyed pronouncement, but is reciting orthodoxy. This orthodoxy was overturned in the whole Muslim world in the first half of the 20th century, but while Muslims know that it was reversed before they were born, and that modern Islamic parties did not subscribe to this view, they do not know that this reversal was not accomplished by orthodox means, and was carried out by a not-so-strict adherence to the text of the Quran and Sunnah. Also, it was not carried out by experts in Islamic law, and did not fulfil the conditions laid down in any of the schools of thought. The reversal was part of the modernising project, which suffered from two major flaws: first, it tried to convert Islam into another version of Christianity and Judaism, as 'religion' rather than a complete 'way of life', and second, it left orthodoxy in the hands of ulema, who had received a medieval training, and who did not accept the modernist project, which is still not complete, of converting the Muslims of the world into good capitalists. Because of this, even though the ulema supported modernising, they retained enough of orthodoxy that most (but not all) continued preaching it, and the consequent resistance to capitalism that it meant. The orthodoxy was such that it continued to be taught in the madrassahs that are even now producing ulema. One advantage that the ulema secured was that they became a class which was already in existence, and which Islam tried to render irrelevant: a clergy. The rites of marriage and death were taken over, along with prayer, and made the preserve of a given class. When the Islamic modernising parties got busy, they either replaced the traditional ulema with ulema of their own, or with their own cadres. They did not try and do what is essential, to convert their cadres into Arabic scholars who could directly approach the sacred texts, and thus carry out the missing piece of the modernising project: the ownership of Islam by ordinary Muslims, rooted in the Quran and Sunnah. Perhaps the main reason for this being the missing piece, rather than a basic portion, of the modernising project, is that this in no way contributes to the absorption of Muslims into capitalism. As a result, the Muslims lack a class which can provide solutions to life's problems, which adopt the modern styles but which also give the lie to capitalism, especially now that it has turned to paganism. This has also coincided with the end of ijtihad, which Iqbal for one wanted it to be carried out by the parliament of the Muslim people, but which others see as being possible only if the mujthideen are competent scholars. This is presumably to guard against those who want ijtihad to represent a complete overhauling of Islam to make Muslims amenable to capitalism. Therefore, we have Muslims who criticise the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi for being orthodox, and who apparently see Islam as something that allows them to lead a European lifestyle, or rather a capitalist one, and which does not prescribe punishments for offences against the Islamic code, which is the generalised meaning of Shariah, rather than the particular meaning it has in Swat. However, to expect other than orthodoxy in Swat was probably going too far anyway. The first point that arises is the absence of appeals. This is also probably more important than other points, for the present judicial system, introduced by the British, has depended on appeals. However, Islamic orthodoxy limits the right of appeal, so that the trial court is mostly the only court to hear the case. Therefore, the Qazi has more power than a sessions judge, with the decision of the former final, as opposed to the latter, who may have not just his final decisions reversed on appeal to not just the High, but also the Supreme Court, but also interim decisions on applications. One reason why the Qazi is quicker than the judge is because the appeals are limited to the Darul Quza, who can only decide if there has been a misapplication of Shariah by the trial judge. As a matter of fact, misapplication of law is supposed to be the only underlying ground of appeal in the case of session judges, and the real ingenuity of lawyers is not tested by trying a case, as in finding grounds of appeal. There is no reason to believe that the Darul Quza will be any different. While Malakand Division continues to operate in a British system, the legal professionals will do their best to make the system correspond to the rest of the country. Another aspect of orthodoxy is the refusal to accept democracy as an Islamic system. As already explained, this was part of the modernising project, and democracy really has no place in Islam. Islam does not accept the undoubtedly democratic right of an assembly to make laws that, let alone not according with Islam, are in contradiction to it. Islam claims to be a complete code of life, while so does capitalism, with democracy as its political manifestation. Therefore, to expect the TNSM cadres to be satisfied with what they have got, and not to regard the whole Swat experience as a victory for their brand of orthodoxy, and, more important, not to want to spread it to the rest of the country, would be crying for the moon. At the same time, those in government might want to think whether the USA regards Swat as a defeat just as much as the Taliban regard it as a victory. To expect the rest of the country to fall to them is to accept their critique, particularly of the justice system - not just that it is slow and expensive, but not Islamic in the bargain. However, there is enough truth in their sayings to appeal to the orthodox. The presence of these followers of orthodoxy does not mesh well with the claims of those who claim that Pakistan is not an orthodox land, but one of people whose Islam makes them primarily qualified to be part of the capitalist experiment.