Saad Lakhani – Page 2 – My Bit for Change

Islam and Rule of the People -II

Islam is very democratic in its application of things. After all, in its truest essence, democracy is not only elections, but a variety of things. These include pluralism, free speech, freedom of association, basic human rights and so on. Islam encourages all of these within its own framework.

As far as the objection that in a democracy, people can make laws as they wish, one has to understand that Islam itself gives a framework within which there is room for human creativity and reason to come into play. In a constitutional democracy, democracy is restricted by the constitution. Legislation can only be carried out within that framework. If a constitution is based on Islamic principles, than there is abundant room for legislation. In fact, from the standpoint of being Muslims in a democracy, one cannot, by his allegiance, legislate or make decisions against the teachings of Islam. If he does, it is no less different than breaking the constitution. For in theory, one can always do that as well. Acting against faith, or law, is a crime. So to the response of ‘what happens when a Muslim parliament legislates in favor of alcohol’; one can simply reply that when such a thing will happen, the members of parliament and their supporters, will be committing a crime against their faith, or even against the constitution, if it is based on Islamic principles. The blame will hence go on the whole Muslim community. And Allah has referred constantly in His revealed book in regard to what happens when a whole nation cooperates in wrong deeds.

Islam is not totalitarian, and does not have precise details and orders for every minute thing. In fact Islam sets broad guidelines and principles, while also setting some limitations. This aspect is sometimes missed, and mostly those who are overly defensive of their religion contest that Islam gives us a game-plan and to-do list for every single situation we face. While one may think that such were true, he must always realize that if it were than it would not be possible for Islam to have a universal character, and hence apply to changing times and circumstances. If the object in question changes, then how can the way we deal in it not? This doesn’t mean that Islam changes, but in fact the principles and guidelines it suggest remain universal and permanent.

I actually had a debate with an emotional friend of mine in which he argued that if something is not already endorsed in the Quran and Sunnah, and absent in Islam, then it cannot be permitted to be carried out. However, when I asked him whether he ever looked at religious sources before deciding to scratch his head, his response was a confused resort. Another example I had to give him was regarding clothing; while the Prophet (SAW) himself is reported to have worn the dresses of both Persians and Byzantines, Islam still has a dress-code. That dress-code is not particular in the sense that it tells you what to wear, but rather it tells you how to wear what you wear. This means that you can wear clothes ascribed to any culture – Arab, Persian, Western, African and so on – or form as long as the Islamic criterion is met.

Two reputed Islamic scholars write in a collective article

“The Islamic approach is that faith, values and principles and some key institutions such as the Quran and Sunnah provide the permanent framework. Within that framework, there is a lot of flexibility for change and experimentation. Islamic commands have been divided into five categories. On the one end are fardh, the obligatory requirements, which are specific and occupy a relatively small proportion of commands. On the other end are haram (forbidden) elements: this is the bottom-line that may not be crossed. Between these two ends are desirable elements of conduct (mustahab) and undesirable elements (makruh). The rest of human activity falls in the vast middle area of mubah (permissible) conduct, which may be regarded the domain of human freedom.” *

To be continued…

Click here for Part I and Part III

References

“Religion, State and Society” by Prof Khurshid Ahmad & Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi, in “Policy Perspectives, Volume.5, No. 1”

Islam and Rule of the People – I

Is there anything wrong with the idea that people should have the right to rule? Many people argue that there actually is something unacceptable and Islam does not permit such a thing; a blasphemy, maybe. To say that the people have the right to rule, they argue, is to give away a right reserved for God alone as sovereignty belongs to God, no one should be allowed to be partner in it.

Seemingly, this does tend to make sense. More so, in times as ours when people have come to detest democracy in general after witnessing decades of jiyala politics in Pakistan, and hence express their frustration in various forms, including religious ones.

I, for one, cannot comprehend the absolutist condemnation of democracy. One may debate that politics in our country has degenerated to a very humiliating level (to which one can point out many other reasons besides ‘democracy’). But an outright condemnation to the point that one uses religion to oppose it brings many complications as the image of a religion – that is democratic to the core – is put at stake.

I believe that the argument above is based on certain confusions and mishandlings of conceptions in the Islamic tradition.

First of all, it is beyond doubt that God alone is sovereign. This concept emanates from the creed of Tawhid-the oneness of Allah. This is undeniable and incontestable on all levels. But when we are talking about this world we have to be more explicit and clear in what we imply.

While we may recognize God’s supremacy in this world and the next, we never mean that humans don’t have worldly authority. To say that they don’t would be to deny both free will, everything we see all day and common sense, for the sake of it. It is people who already rule themselves; whether in the form of a singular individual, an institution, class, race, parliament and so on. If human rule is to be denied in its worldly sense then the only plausible form of government would be an anarchic one. Sadly maybe, neither God nor His angels come down on earth and take control of governments. It’s a human decision to make; with or without taking God into consideration.

The question that arises then is, in what form does an Islamic state manifest itself?

Islam has provided a socio-political framework and universal principles that guide us in this regard as well. While Islam recognizes the Divine authority, it fails to recognize a divinely class, and hence closes the doors of theocracy. In this sense, the Islamic ideal is not a religious state. Nobody represents God’s will on earth. Instead, God provides the legitimacy to people to rule on his behalf under the framework of His divine guidelines. He did this by making universal man (all humankind) His vicegerent on earth.

The Islamic principle of governance establishes itself on the basis of shoora (consultation) and Khalifat. Derived from these two principles, we can safely say that while western democracy champions popular sovereignty, Islam recognizes popular vicegerency. While there seems to be common ground on the functional level, conceptually both are worlds apart. It’s somewhat like praying in front of a rock; if your idea of the rock is that it is an idol worth worship then the same action – that would otherwise be completely appropriate – becomes a sin.

The Islamic ideal requires that the Muslim community be taken into confidence not only in the selection of the rulers but also in the decisions of the rulers. The welcoming attitude towards criticism by the Khulfa e Rashideen (the Pious Caliphs) is well established. The attitude of Hazrat Ali (RA) and Hazrat Usman (RA), for example, towards the rebels is without any precedent in history. At a moment, Hazrat Ali (RA) even refused to take action against a rebel who openly declared that he will murder the respected caliph. In both these cases, the caliphs in question had to bear many troubles to uphold such cherished ideals.

On an occasion, Hazrat Umer (RA) spoke unambiguously about the selection of the Muslim ruler. While explaining to people that the selection of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was not to be taken as a precedent because it was only adopted out of circumstantial necessity, he went on to say that “If someone gives pledge (bay’et) of allegiance to another (to become a Caliph) without consulting the Muslim community, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed.” * Obviously, the strict connotation at the end refers to carrying out a crime against both the state and the community. The same treatment would today be reserved for someone who breaks the constitution to usurp power.

Click here for Part II and Part III

Reference“ *Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817”

Is Islam non-democratic?

It is true that while Islam may not be a proponent of liberal western democracy as we know it, but in its very essence Islam is quite democratic.

“Consultation” is a fundamental concept in Islam. If anything, the Islamic ideal is nearest to a constitutionally restricted democracy whereas democratic principles are ordained under, within and from the principles of the Quran and Sunnah.

The basic flaw is made in understanding as to what democracy essentially means. Contrary to popular belief, democracy is a very fluid concept. For example, if you attempt to understand democracy in its original, and strictly, Greek sense, you’ll be surprised to note that such a concept cannot be applied to ‘modern democracies’. This is because in the Greek city-states, all the citizens would gather in one place to decide their affairs. This is true not only in time but also in space as democracies around the world differ from each other on fundamental grounds. So one must realize that claiming ‘Islam upholds democratic ideals’ doesn’t mean that it also upholds western democratic models; which are based on the premises of secularism and nationalism.

The idea that democracy is the rule of the people while Islam only recognizes the rule of God doesn’t necessarily imply a contradiction. In effect, however, neither God nor His Angels will come down to earth to rule nor has God made anyone His representative (hence closing the doors for theocracy). In fact, it is people who rule and, I argue, by divine decree; as Allah has made man (not a specific man, but meaning all-humanity) His vicegerent (Khalifah) on Earth. Allah says clearly.

“We have honoured the children of Adam” (17: 70); to which the revered Algerian scholar, Malik Bennabi, writes

“The verse was revealed as if to lay the foundations of a democratic model that is above every other model, where the divine element within man is taken into consideration and not just the human and social aspects…”

The following is an excerpt from an English translation of the celebrated ‘Tafheem-ul-Quran’ by Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi. It’s the scholar’s commentary on the verse ‘amru-hum shura baina-hum’ (they (believers) conduct their affairs by mutual consultation) (42:38). An understanding of the following will display that while restricting the negative effects of western democratic models, the Islamic model is yet still more democratic.

‘This quality (of consulting one another) has been counted here as the best quality of the believers and has been enjoined in Surah AI-‘Imran Ayat 159 as well.

‘So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him].’

On this basis, consultation is an important pillar of the Islamic way of life. And to conduct the affairs of collective life without consultation is not only the way of ignorance but also an express violation of the law prescribed by Allah. When we consider why consultation has been given such importance in Islam, three things become obvious:

Firstly, that it is injustice that matters of the state be decided on the basis of personal opinions. No one has a right to do as he likes, in matters of common interest. Justice demands that all those whose interests are involved in a matter be consulted, and if it concerns a large number of the people, their reliable representatives should be made a party in consultation.

Secondly, a man wants to usurp the rights of others for selfish ends, or because he looks down upon others and regards himself as a superior person. Morally both These qualities are equally detestable, and a believer cannot have even a tinge of either of these in himself. A believer is neither selfish so that he should get undue benefits by usurping the rights of others, nor he is arrogant and self-conceited that he should regard himself as all-wise and all-knowing.

Thirdly, that it is a grave responsibility to give decisions in matters that involve the rights and interests of others. No one who fears God and knows what severe accountability for it he will be subjected to by his Lord, can dare take the heavy burden of it solely on himself. Such boldness is shown only by those who are fearless of God and heedless of the Hereafter. The one who fears God and has the feeling of the accountability of the Hereafter, will certainly try that in a matter of common interest he should consult all the concerned people or their authorized representatives so as to reach, as far as possible, an objective and right and equitable decision, and if there occurs a mistake one man alone should not be held responsible for it.

A deep consideration of these three things can enable one to fully understand that consultation is a necessary demand of the morality that Islam has taught to man, and departure from it is a grave immorality which Islam does not permit the Islamic way of life requires that the principle of consultation should be used in every collective affair, big or small. If it is a domestic affair, the husband and the wife should act by mutual consultation, and when the children have grown up, they also should be consulted. If it is a matter concerning the whole family, the opinion of every adult member should be solicited. If it concerns a tribe or a fraternity or the population of a city, and it is not possible to consult all the people, the decision should be taken by a local council or committee, which should comprise the trustworthy representatives of the concerned people according to an agreed method. If the matter concerns a whole nation, the head of government should be appointed by the common consent of the people, and he should conduct the national affairs in consultation with the leaders of opinion, whom the people regard as reliable, and he should remain at the helm of affair only as long as the people themselves want him to remain in that position. No honest man can try to assume the headship of a nation by force, or desire to continue in that position indefinitely, nor can think of corning into power by deception and then seek the people’s consent by coercion, nor can he devise schemes so that the people may elect representatives to act as his advisers not by their own free choice but according to his will. Such a thing can be desired only by the one who cherishes evil intentions, and such a fraud against the Islamic principle of consultation can be practiced only by him who does not feel any hesitation in deceiving both God and the people whereas the fact is that neither can God be deceived nor the people be so blind as to regard the robber, who is committing robbery in the bright day light openly, as their well-wisher and servant.

The principle of consultation as enshrined in ‘amru-hum shura baina-hum’ by itself demands five things:

(1) The people whose rights and interests relate to collective matters, should have full freedom to express their opinion and they should be kept duly informed of how their affairs are being conducted; they should also have the full right that if in the conduct of the affairs they see an error, a weakness or a deficiency, they can check it and voice a protest, and if they do not see any change for the better, they can change their rulers. To conduct the people’s affairs by keeping them silent and un-informed is sheer dishonesty which no one can regard as adherence to the principle of consultation in Islam.

(2) The person who is to be entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the collective affairs, should be appointed by the people’s consent, and this consent should be their free consent, which is not obtained through coercion, temptation, deception, and fraud, because in that case it would be no consent at all. A nation’s true head is not he who becomes its head by trying every possible method, but he whom the people make their head by their own free choice and approval.

(3) The people who are appointed as advisers to the head of the state should be such as enjoy the confidence of the nation, and obviously the people who win representative positions by suppression or by expending wealth, or by practicing falsehood and fraud, or by misleading the people cannot be regarded as enjoying the confidence in the real sense.

(4) The advisers should give opinion according to their knowledge and faith and conscience and they should have full freedom of such expression of opinion. Wherever this is not the case; wherever the advisers give advice against their own knowledge and conscience; under duress or temptation, or under party discipline; it will be treachery and dishonesty and not adherence to the Islamic principle of consultation.

(5) The advice that is given by a consensus of the advisers, or which has the support of the majority of the people, should be accepted, for if a person (or a group of persons) behaves independently and acts on his own whims, even after hearing the advice of others, consultation becomes meaningless. Allah does not say: “They are consulted in their affairs”, but says: “They conduct their affairs by mutual consultations”. This instruction is not implemented by mere consultation, but for its sake it is necessary that the affairs be conducted according to what is settled by consensus or by majority opinion in consultation. Along with this explanation of the Islamic principle of consultation, this basic thing also should be kept in view that this consultation is not independent and autocratic in conducting the affairs of the Muslims, but necessarily subject to the bounds that Allah Himself has set by His legislation, and is subject to the fundamental principle: “It is for Allah to give a decision in whatever you may differ,” and “if there arises any dispute among you about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. ” According to this general principle, the Muslims can hold consultations in Shari ‘ah matters with a view to determining the correct meaning of a text or verse and find out the ways of implementing it so as to fulfill its requirements rightly but they cannot hold consultations in order to give an independent judgment in a matter which has already been decided and settled by Allah and His Messenger.”

Ethnic hooliganism on Pakistan Day

Sometimes I just wonder whether the state we will in is even a state anymore. If by the state we mean the government, then what is the government even doing? Very frankly, I feel no security seeing the police around. Far from that, I often avoid encountering or approaching them for help. Experience tells us that often the police is just another of the many exploiters that surround us. What about courts? Who likes to go to court? Frankly, nobody! After all, who likes to go through more injustice to get justice? Then there is open violence; everywhere there is violence; it seems as though, tolerance and respect have seen their days.

But I guess, we are all used to it.

So what if the state isn’t playing its role. So what if it’s not respecting you as it should? Does that give you the right to disrespect others? To simply raid into a city of your own country in large numbers and taking full advantage of that city’s hospitality to infect it with your hooliganism. Just because you come in large numbers, and ‘political correctness’ has learned to make room for your ethnic “grievances”, and therefore doesn’t interfere when you decide to hold your rallies in different cities, does not mean that you can loot and plunder, humiliate and kill people, and desecrate sites that are held sacred, either culturally, religiously, or historically.

On this 23^rd of March, the day we celebrate as the Pakistan Resolution day, a national holiday, I was with a few of my friends, from universities that included IBA, SZABIST, CBM (IoBM), FAST among others, from the platform of Youth Intelligentsia, at the Mazar-e-Quaid to offer our respect and prayers for the cherished founder of our country.

What we saw there was shocking and heart breaking too. People were entering the great leader’s last resting place with ethnic flags and wearing shoes, both of which are not allowed. They raided in with dirty abuses for our leader and even Pakistan. They openly chanted anti-Pakistan slogans and had sticks in their hands. Many displayed very disrespectful and degrading gestures to the founder of the nation.

Surrounding the premises of the Mazar was a rally organized by an ethnic separatist movement.

While we saw these horrifying scenes and so did the many women and children that came in families to mark this national event, many of us wanted to do something about it. We asked the guards and they simply added that they needed orders to counter them. It was also understandable that any scene at the Mazar would have negative consequences. But we did decide to do what we came here to do, and in the process break the silence of fear that had occupied the atmosphere.

We had with us Pakistan’s ex-national Golf coach, Jamal Badshah Khan, who raised out loud the “Pakistan Zindabad” slogan right next to Jinnah’s grave just after we performed the Fateha. The people, who were till then silent, chanted alongside us even louder. Then the Guards performed a parade in what was one of the most patriotic moments of my life.

The anti-Pakistan rally was not far away, and as soon as they heard us they rushed inside chanting the slogan “Pakistan kay chahnay walon… Hum Tumhari maut hen” (Those who love/desire Pakistan… we have come as your death).

By the grace of God, however, no violent confrontation took place. Maybe, because these hooligans feared that we were more in number or as to how the ordinary people would respond if so were to happen. We then left the Mazar when we had accomplished our task. On our way back we saw members of this ethnic group with guns and axes in their hands, only wondering on the cowardice of such people coming to a public site visited by families.

We learned later that this ethnic hooliganism had taken hostage much of the city, except in manners more violent if not shameful.

Many questions are raised regarding the whole incident.

Where was the so-called writ of the government that allowed such terrorists to do whatever they want for a whole day, and that too on Pakistan Day? Was it because such groups are largely perceived as the asset of ruling party; the members of whom have publicly talked of a ‘Sindh Card’?

What has happened to our society that violence and thuggery have gained widespread acceptance? Difference of opinion is an acceptable element, but where did such disrespect come from?

Would the perpetuators of these crimes be brought to justice, or is it true as is observed that Pakistan is becoming a more stateless society with every passing day?

Did you say ‘Secular Extremism’?

The phrase-“Give unto God what was God’s and to Caesar what were Caesar’s”- is such a charming phrase, full of all that is naïve, and based on wishful thinking.

Let me elaborate on secular grounds, using reason alone against the dogmatic principles associated with revelation, that there exists a very obvious contradiction in the statement, which is to say ‘what if God and Caesar disagree? Who to ‘give unto’ then?’

But let’s not concern the logical fallacies, or rather, intellectual dishonesties, secularists entail in their arguments. For now, we’ll bring to discussion the attitude they adopt in their desperate attempts to pin down all-things-religious.

And here comes the dilemma of our ‘pseudo-liberals’. You’ll never find them taking part in any real intellectual argument. They’ll never take your words as a basis of your argument but would rather first declare you “Mullahs”, “Ignorant”, “Religious Extremists” and so on. Then, they will simply take the stereotypes based on these words and try to throw false accusations on you.

It’s the easiest job to put your opponent in any given debate in his weakest position i.e. extremist and put words in the mouth of your opponent, based on awkward stereotypes and flawed assumptions. And by taking such childish measures they are in fact running away from any fruitful dialogue based on sound principles such as reason, empathy, honesty and maturity. Without these principles you are a child who, inattentive of what other people in the room are saying, is too busy talking to his imaginary friend. When told that there are secular extremists too, they simply deny any such thing. They simply say that only religious extremism exists as extremism belongs to the narrow minded which of course seculars can never be.

But I tend to differ.

After all, what would such liberals have to say on the secular fascism taking place on the streets of Karachi? All three political parties accused of violence in Karachi, namely the PPP, MQM, and ANP are secular parties working on purely secular motives. Alternative accounts would say that ethnic rivalries are the motives behind the everyday killings of ordinary citizens that we all have become accustomed to. But aren’t ethnic rivalries essentially secular in nature. So can we really back away now from admitting that ‘Secular Fascism and Terrorism’ does exist in our very metropolitan?

Secular fascism doesn’t only exist; it’s all over the place. It’s the rule, not the exception. For instance, look at the word fascism itself. Its roots are in a purely secular ideology that has nothing to do with religion. Those who upheld this ideology believed themselves superior to other nations on purely secular grounds. Certainly the killing of six million Jews had no religious motivation whatsoever.

Social Darwinism is another ideology that took refuge in what it considered “positive science”. It preoccupied the mind-set of the European colonizers and gave them moral justification for all their vicious acts. Of course, since they could “scientifically” say that they are a more advanced and evolved race, it was their duty to propagate their own race throughout the globe while colonizing, and in the process, plundering, looting, raping, subjugating and exterminating, whole civilizations. After all it was “a survival of the fittest” as Herbert Spencer would like it to be. But all was justified, secularly, as the “White Man’s Burden”, which made it so easy to forget the genocide of whole civilizations in America and Australia, and enslavement of millions of Africans.

But religion is always brought to the limelight on the accusation that so many bad acts are carried in the “name of religion”. But what about the horrifying acts carried out on the basis on secular things, like ‘democracy’, ‘liberation’, ‘civilisation’ and ‘justice’.

What about the most devastating wars the world has ever seen, the world wars? Were they not fought in the name of secularism? What about the cold war that frightened humanity with the unprecedented accumulation of weapons of mass destruction, scientific espionage, false polarization, and organized violence, even wars, in the third world.

What about the making of the nuclear bomb. Would any religion sanctify of the making of a weapon that could kill millions in an instant and ruin generations to come. And what about the bombarding of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; did they have religious motives, or secular ones?

The world is full of secular people and regimes involved in horrendous crimes against humanity.Unfortunately, in our own country we see an emerging secular “liberal” class that has some very strange tendencies.

For first, it excludes anyone with a different lifestyle and view-point, from being part of that class. If you do not detest and dislike everything associated with religion, if you do not think everything wrong with our country is because of religion; and most importantly if you do not make fun of religion and religious people then no matter how open-minded you are, you sir, cannot be a ‘liberal’.

Second, it’s the greatest supporter of US imperialism. If it’s the Raymond Davis issue, they’ll say ‘Well, he has ‘diplomatic immunity (whatever that is)’; if it’s Aafia Siddiqui, they’ll say ‘she is a terrorist and deserves every piece of brutality thrown at her’. If it is a drone attack on innocent civilians, they’ll say ‘we do not have the technology so we have no other option because, after all, our lifestyle is ‘threatened’.

And third, it side-lines all human right calls when it comes to religious people; the state murder of the female students of Jamia Hafsa was justified, with no room for sympathy whatsoever, because they were used as a ‘human shield’. (So the next time a person uses your daughter as a human shield to save him from the gun in your hand, you should kill both).

Such liberals are not liberals at all. They’re extremists. Full stop!!

The greatness of purpose, Malcolm X

Some men are great, some are remembered and some go on to live forever in the minds of millions.

Alexander was great but what did he do but conquer lands? Einstein was a genius but what did he do but lead humanity to its worst nightmare, i.e. the nuclear bomb? Many philosophers are believed to be great but what did they do but solve some abstract riddles? A man in love with wisdom was Socrates. His death which was otherwise so meaningless and ordinary, was never truly his death and he lived on in the hearts and minds of people to this day.

What is greater is the immensity of purpose. I believe in categorical moral reasoning, and so I do not care what influence that man has had on society. What he did and why he did it is supreme for me rather than how successful that certain person ever was. Power, influence and acknowledgment mean nothing in the minds of the crazy ones.

Isn’t it madness that describes change in its complete form? How can we talk of change without talking of madness? Change is not the property of the same, or sane. It’s the belonging of those who resist, who can’t stand sameness, or sanity, or the status quo, or the world order as we know it.

When there is something unjust in the world it is these mad men that find it in themselves the power, the Khudi (In Iqbalian terms), to say it in the face of injustice without any sign of weakness, and without compromise or any sugarcoating of reality.

‎And here are the words of a madman

“… you’re living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution, a time when there’s got to be a change. People in power have misused it and now there has to be a change and a better world has to be built and the only way it’s going to be built is with extreme methods. And I, for one, will join in with anyone, I don’t care what color you are, as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this earth.”

When he championed extremism I believe he intended to describe the position of truthfulness met by extreme and extra-ordinary opposition.

This is Malcolm X, great in a many ways but what I value most is his greatness in purpose and will. He had given his life a purpose which was to fight a war against injustice.

Born to a poor black family in a racially charged American society, he can be assumed to be quite accustomed to the realities of discrimination. But as obvious as this sentence may seem, it is not.

In relation to his own people, he had always been very bright skinned. This had added to his social status and he always saw it as benefit and a good thing. But after some time he did realize that this was nothing to be proud of. To be brighter, to be nearer to white was not anything that he had accomplished. He realized that this belief was imposed on his people by the white man who enslaved his people ages ago. This white man taught his people that they are inferior and it is the white man that is superior. With time, an inferiority complex was ingrained in the minds of the blacks, which he believed was not only misleading and false, but also disastrous in its implication for the community.

The realization that his big lips, curly hair, black complexion and all that follow to be part of his African being are not to be ashamed of, didn’t come that easy. It came as a lightning bolt saying “the White Man is the Devil”. He started to hate white people from then on.

Not only did he witness the outright hypocrisy of this certain ‘white race’ that played lip service to democracy, freedom for all, equality and the likes, while indulging in the worst crimes of humanity, he also read how in history this race has taken with itself a ‘white man’s burden’ and a ‘civilization mission’ under the banner of which whole nations have been whipped out, mistreated as animals, colonized, raped and plundered.

When asked why he hated ‘the white man’, he bluntly replied “For the White man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep ‘do you hate me?’. The White Man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate”

In any case, he understood that the decolonization of the Afro-American mind was the greatest need of the hour. He would say “A race of people is like an individual man; until it uses its own talent, takes pride in its own history, expresses its own culture, affirms its own selfhood, it can never fulfill itself.”

He joined the ‘Nation of Islam’ a distorted movement initiated by Elijah Muhammad, who claimed to be a prophet of the black people. This movement taught him ‘the white man’s the devil’ doctrine. Interestingly all of his education took place in the jail’s library for which he would famously say that

“My Alma mater was books, a good library. I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity.’’

Being a self-learned and self-skilled person as he was, Malcolm X remained always critical and open to new thoughts and considerations. After taking part in a formal Muslim pilgrimage, he converted to mainstream Islam. Religion was not the only thing that changed, it was his whole world view. Upon seeing the sight of Hajj where people of all races, nationalities, colors and complexions where walking together in harmony and love for the Almighty and His creations, all in the same cloth regardless of socio-economic backgrounds, he was simply amazed and astonished. It was here that he realized that some of his previous convictions were wrong. It’s not the white man who is to be condemned; it is the deeds he has carried out.

His letter following the pilgrimage says that

“America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered ‘white’–but the ‘white’ attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.”

This great man was martyred. According to the autopsy report, Malcolm X’s body had 21 gunshot wounds. He lived and died a brave and proud man.

I see him as a person who truly liberated himself. The greatest freedom is the freedom of the mind. This he accomplished by first decolonizing his mind from all the silly beliefs of inferiority imposed by the European race. He later freed his mind from the prejudices he had established regarding the white man.

In these tough and rough times, the need of the nation today is to have its very own Malik El-Hajj Al-Shahbaz, A.K.A Malcolm X

Decolonizing the mind

Faiz Ahmed Faiz was once attending a ceremony in his honour in Delhi, while residing at the home of the Pakistani high commissioner. Faiz tells us that the son of the commissioner came to him for an autograph. In return, Faiz inscribed his signature along with one of his verses. The boy looked at it and asked Faiz, “Uncle, you know such good English. Dad told me you were also the editor of a daily but you have given me your autograph in Khansama’s language?”

There should be nothing surprising in this narrative. Our brown sahibs, or Angraiz wannabes, are the product of a deeper phenomenon. They are one group of many affectees of a collective inferiority complex; an inferiority complex that is a legacy of colonization. Colonization is not only physical; it can be very much mental as well. The imperial mission of the British in India has always inculcated a scheme of spreading “civilization”.

We must come to realize that no colonization is possible until both the bodies and mind of the colonized subjects are subjugated.

Our former British masters had this in mind when they made guards and other lower staffs wear the traditional dress of the aristocracy of their predecessors, the Mughals. The elite staff was to wear western outfits. This legacy lives on to this day in elite circles.

Similarly, the people who we cherish as heroes today for resisting imperial occupation were equally met with such cheap colonial tactics. For example, even today many on the streets use the word “tipu” to call dogs. However, few know that the origin of the word lies in British attempts to humiliate their arch rival, Tipu Sultan.

The History of our education speaks volumes in this regard.

When, in the early 19^th century, the British took it upon them to educate the people of India, the belief followed that knowledge and wisdom was something they exclusively possessed, and hence declared that all traditional and indigenous forms of gaining knowledge, were not only insignificant, but also irrelevant.

So in 1833, an imperial committee sat down to determine an education policy for the native subjects. Lord Macaulay, who was head of this committee dismissed all oriental knowledge as “absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd physics, absurd theology; for raising up a breed of scholars who find their scholarship an encumbrance and a blemish, who live on the public while they are receiving their education, and whose education is so utterly useless to them that when they have received it they must either starve or live on the public all the rest of their lives.”

He went on to say that he has “never found one among them (Indians) who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education.”

So what Lord Macaulay was setting for was “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”; this class of people still roams about in our country running our bureaucracy, our media, our academia, our military, and our politics. Never to realize that the British are gone, and they can emerge anew with their true identities and lead their own destinies consistent with their own culture, history and experience. But they remain adamant to forward the colonial heritage as a legacy to our future generations.

I believe much of this has to do with power. Man has always wandered this earth with an inherent desire to impose his will on others. He wants to have power so he can prove himself better than others in some way. The Quran has addressed this dilemma on many occasions. In fact, this seems to be a major theme. From the Pharoah to Namrood, and to the story of the owner of two gardens, the Quran has commented on how man is corrupted by power to the extent that he will go at lengths to impose a false belief of his intrinsic superiority over another’s intrinsic inferiority.

Another mentionable phenomenon haunts slave nations; a collective inferiority complex and lack of self-esteem. When Moses (PBUH) led Bani Israel out of the clutches of the Pharaoh, it did not take long for Bani Israel to resort to idol worship and Coptic paganism in the short absence of Moses (PBUH). The Quran tells us that during the whole episode, these companions of Moses (PBUH) witnessed many miracles and blessing of the Almighty. Despite this being, it does make you wander as to why such a nation would go astray in such a short period of time.

Maulana Maududi (RA) has commented on the episode by telling us that it was the glamour of the Mighty Egyptian Civilization of the time that had dazzled the minds of the Jews, who were still trying to come to terms with decolonization. Dr Israr Ahmed has further related, for good reasons, the whole story with that of the Muslims who struggled for a separate homeland in the sub-continent.

History is witness to the fact that these superiority-inferiority tensions have been recurring. “Survival of the fittest” ideas, as developed by western nations, have had their own shapes and forms in other dominant civilizations. Muslims have been equally vulnerable to this menace.

When Muslims were at their peak, they were equally tempted to fall to the belief of others being inherently inferior to them. So are the views of Ibn-Khuldoon explained on the people of Europe being unable to perform thinking tasks properly because the cold weather has deterred their brains; in others words, these people were naturally unfit for intellectual pursuits?

More interestingly, Europeans were considered ugly on account of their “pale” skin by Muslim historians and travelers. Which goes on to show that even conceptions of beauty are social constructs that have more to do with power than we would otherwise think.

Muslims still stand out for their exceptionality of incorporating all races and ethnicities in their fold. It has been Europe that developed social-political-scientific movements on racist ideologies. Finding refuge in “science” and it’s “objectivity” was the only way to provide a moral framework for the pursuit following the “white man’s burden”. But that’s a whole different story.

When Muslims were ruling Spain, the rest of Europe was in tyranny, disorder, anarchy, and famine. They were living on a very low standard of life. No wonder the new emerging elite would go to study in Islamic Spain and adopt Arabic lifestyles. They would wear Arabic dresses, adopt their culture and cuisine and even talk like them.

The Bishop of Cardoba, Bishop Alvaro, who lived during these times writes “My countrymen have forsaken the study of the sacred characters of Rome for the Chaldeans (referring to Arabs/Muslims). That out a thousand Christians, scarcely one was to be found capable of repeating the Latin forms of prayer, while many of them could express themselves with ease and elegance in Arabic. Learned men were now resorting from every part of Europe to the colleges found by Abdul Rehman and his successors.”

Another character, an Englishman, Daniel of Morley, writes in his autobiography “I stopped a while in Paris. There I saw asses rather than men occupying the Chairs and pretending to be very important. They had desks in front of them heaving under the weight of two or three immovable tomes… But because they did not know anything, they were no better than marble statues: by their silence alone they wished to seem wise, and as soon as they tried to say anything, I found them completely unable to express a word…I did not want to get infected by a similar petrifaction… But when I heard that the doctrine of the Arabs was in fashion in Toledo in those days, I hurried there as quickly as I could, so that I could hear the wisest philosophers of the world”

It’s a bit entertaining to see it the other way around, but we must also realize that the west only revived its glory by strongly reestablishing itself with its own identity, history and traditions, without which Europe could never have the self-esteem and self-confidence to pursue its journey of development.

You would never tell your child to start copying another child for him to succeed as you know that each individual has his unique abilities and talents. Blind imitation will never get you anywhere. It robs you from the chance of producing original work, fully expressing yourself, and the confidence that comes with doing stuff your own way. As this applies to individuals so does it apply to whole nations. In the words of Malcolm X,

“A race of people is like an individual man; until it uses its own talent, takes pride in its own history, expresses its own culture, affirms its own selfhood, it can never fulfill itself.”

As far as we are concerned, Iqbal’s words seem relevant,

The secrets of the self is not in the lute and the guitar

Nor in the promiscuous dancing of her daughters,

Nor in the charms of her bright faced beauties

Nor in the bare skins, nor in bobbed hair.

Her strength is not in irreligiousness

Nor is her rise due to Latin Script.

The strength of the west is due to knowledge and science,

Her lamp is alight from this fire only

Knowledge does not depend on the style of your garments,

And a turban is no obstacle to the acquisition of knowledge

Neo-Crusades?

Call him an assailant, an attacker, a gunman, a guy with a bad temperament; anything but a terrorist. After all, does he look like a terrorist? No, not at all! He has blond hair and white skin. He’s not Muzzlim. Well he did kill above ninety people, and yes he should not have done that; especially in front of kids. Kids should be kept away from violence; video games being the exception. It was an act of violence, as stated by the U.S. State department. This type of violence is fine to promote on popular media, but we should try not imitating it in real life. And besides, he’s a lone wolf; an exception. Terrorism is such a strong word, and should be used with responsibility.

If he is a Muzzlim, you are allowed, with all blessings of thy democracy, to be xenophobic, racist, and completely indifferent. You should hate Muzzlims, because they have beards and their women cover themselves. Yes, Jesus had a beard, and Nuns do wear similar outfits; but when Muzzlims do it, they are on to something. They might just explode in front of you, and kill everybody in sight, and especially those who are white, innocent… and white! They are not even humans; in fact, they are alien monsters out to chop off your heads and chew your flesh, slowly. Izzlaam teaches hate; it’s full of Jeehad, and to kill Christians and Jews.

And the lameness goes on and on.

How many times have you not heard the statement “Every Muslim may not be a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim”. And this idea of absolute indifference is propounded not only by foreign neoconservative fascists, but even more so by local “liberal” apologetics.

The Norway incident is just one slip that got things exposed. So easy was it to condemn the event as an act of terror; absolute terror conducted by the likes of Al-Qaeeda. The Global media couldn’t wait till the actual story unfolded, and had got its accusations running in advance. Little does anyone care of the consequences, the Muslim communities have to go through.

But then things turned out different than what Islamophobes predicted. The guy was actually a Christian fundamentalist and an ethnic Norwegian. Yet the lameness continued.

The New York Times, for example, was quick to say “Even if the authorities ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks.”

So basically when Muslims have nothing to do with it; they still do. The guy was motivated by his hate for Muslims; hate that these media groups had helped fuel. And yet these propagandists have the nerve to bring Al-Qaeda into the equation somehow.

Further still, the term “terrorism” almost completely disappeared to describe this act from popular media discourse. As though the very definition of the word implies, that it must be an act carried out by a Muslim.

So, what about the “lone wolf” thing? Well, statistics tend to differ. According to FBI reports, from the years 1980 till 2005, terrorist activities conducted by Islamist Groups on U.S soil only make about 6 percent of the total. In fact, activities of such nature conducted by Jews, motivated by religion, amount to 7 percent; more than those by Muslims. The greatest perpetuators of such acts happen to be Latino groups.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

In Europe, according to Europol, from the years 2007 till 2009, terrorist attacks conducted by groups with Islamist motivations make only 0.15 percent of the total. Separatist groups are the main conductors of terrorism in Europe, and yet all Muslims carry the label.

These statistics do not include the massive state terrorism, conducted by western powers, which we often wrongly term “Bad foreign policy”. Killing thousands of people, genocide, is not foreign policy; it’s organized terrorism, period.

So where does Islamophobia come from? It comes from hate, pure and simple. Some people just want a clash of civilizations. It should not come as a surprise that the Norwegian terrorist described himself as a modern day crusader.

So much does this aspect reveal. The Original Crusades was also a period of Anti-Muslim Propaganda. The message of Islam and the image of the Prophet were distorted and demonized. Muslims were depicted as Satanic Barbarians, off to destroy the Judo-Christian traditions. And the whole of Christian Europe was united on a one point agenda; destroying and stopping Muslims and their faith. The “danger” of creeping otherness took over the minds of the masses, and so begun the bloody crusades.

Let may be very clear on this, Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist is not the only crusader here. The global (or Western, or Eurocentric) media plays its part equally; they just don’t say it out loud. Many western intellectuals have rested not the least, in distorting and demonizing Muslims and Islam, and, by so doing, giving intellectual space to Islamophobia. The United States and her Allies have pretty well acted as Crusaders by bombarding Muslim lands at will, fostering Anti-Muslim sentiment, ridiculing Muslim sensitivities through public policy and in countless other ways.

So it should not be seen as that strange now that George Bush mentioned about launching a crusade in one of his pre-unleashing-of-terror speeches. He called it a slip of the tongue; and sure was it a slip of the tongue, indeed.

The Complexity of inferiority

When I was eight years old, my family returned to Pakistan from the United States and a lot of things in the world suddenly changed for me. I remember (and my relatives won’t ever let me forget) that one of my very first statements was, “Why is everything broken?”. I’m pretty sure, I meant to refer to the buildings and the streets at that time, but today, I believe many other things are broken too.

I remember myself thinking about the prospects of going to Pakistan; a place my parents taught was home. I remember being worried about whether I was going to be that easily accepted. I knew for one thing that I was raised, till now, in a very different environment than the one I was going to.

One thing that really troubled me, then, was that I wouldn’t be able to speak my local language; English was all I knew. I wondered as to how I’ll go about in Pakistan, as I was expecting to have problems in interacting with other people. I was of the impression that once I get there I’ll be struggling with all my might to utter words in broken Urdu, the language of my parents, and people will see me as dumb as I would not be able to easily convey anything I want to say.

But such was the awkwardness that society was adjusting to me, rather than the vice versa. Instead of me struggling to speak to others, I would see people struggling to speak to me. I was also getting the scent that there was a factor of ‘showing-off’ in people trying to speak to me. People were desperately trying to speak with me in English. And I could see by their faces the difficulty many were going through. Personally, I felt a bit embarrassed seeing everybody put all their efforts in trying to speak in such a broken way. And after every attempt it was as though they were asking, through their facial expressions and body language, “how was I?”

Some may say well, what’s so awkward about all this? Well, for an eight year old it was awkward, and it should be ten times more awkward for a seventy year old. It’s actually bizarre! Imagine yourself going to the U.S.A from Pakistan and see all the people around you working their tails off just to speak in your language, Urdu. And not only do you notice this; you also notice that people are competing with each other just to prove as to who can speak the better Urdu?

I was taught to have pride for my country and everything in it, and therefore I was really disturbed on the way people looked down to their own language. Soon I reacted by refusing myself to reply in English, and instead tried to give my answers in Urdu, as much as I could. People were shocked at my behaviour. I believe they found it equally awkward. My aunts used to tell me that I was doing much loss to myself for refusing to use English in my conversation. They said that it is great luck that I’m fluent in English for people look up to those who are. “But why?” would be my response, just to get the what-do-you-mean-isn’t-it-obvious look.

Why are people looked up to just because they know English? The problem is because, for us, knowing this language is a sign of superiority. It’s as though just knowing it makes us more smart and knowledgeable. We become more liberal, more open-minded, and, most importantly, more educated. We can suddenly speak with more authority. When we want to make a point, or impression, we throw a sentence or two in English. As though by doing so just made the content matter anymore different then what it would have been otherwise.

It is because of this attitude of ours that a specific class dominates society just because it could afford good quality English language education. And if you were to analyse more closely you’ll realize that this has caused chaos in the lives of ordinary Pakistanis.

Why, I ask. Why the doors of opportunities are shut upon people, just because they can’t speak in a language which is not even local to the place? Why even in your own country, your own language carries no value? It’s all because we are still slaves mentally. By admitting their superiority we give up our identity, our pride and our humanity.

In 1948 the Duke of Gloucester, the brother of the British Emperor, was coming on a visit to Pakistan, and the British envoy requested the Quaid-e-Azam to receive him. The Quaid replied, “If I do so then the British head of state (King) would have to reciprocate when my brother would visit London”. Today our president feels no shame in carrying out a press conference with a third level U.S representative like Holbrooke. Today our most senior ministers get their body scans when entering U.S airports, while U.S citizens are given visas with zero scrutiny. Just recently, Senator and acting president of the ANP, Haji Adeel, was not allowed to enter the U.S embassy despite an official invitation. He was told by a guard that he needed a specific sticker on his car to get in or he could just park it outside.

You do not need to be physically captured to be a slave. Was our land occupied when our authorities handed over people to the U.S? Were we not independent and autonomous, when Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was taken to trial in the U.S and when Raymond Davis killed our citizens in the daylight and got away with it? No! We were a sovereign entity! But were we, ever?

A mere number!

What have we come to? Are we not a mess?

It is as though our humanity has been stripped away from us. Violence, violence, and more violence, plus so much of indifference! We have lost our ability to feel; to feel the sacredness of the value of life. Human suffering is gradually meaning to us not more than a matter of individual concern. Whatever happens around us, for us what matters is our lives, our lifestyles, our careers, our possessions, our image… our everything. We have individualized our universe. Happiness has become, but an individual property.

We live in a place called Pakistan; a place where death is a mere number, despite the fact that we belong to a religion that teaches us that the sacredness of human life is above everything; a religion that teaches us that the unjustified murder of one is like the murder of all humanity.

Every day, we listen to death tolls as we listen to match scores. When hearing the news of killings or casualties, our facial expressions and feelings fail to carry the intensity of the news. We then ask, as if for formality, “How many?” And hence we put all the suffering, the loss of lives, and things attached to it, in a mere number.

What has brought us to such a condition? Is it not but the daily violence, the daily oppression and the daily injustice we collectively go through? Every day we see drone attacks, target killings, and suicide bombings on the top of mass corruption, institutional exploitation, and poor governance!

We have developed an every-man-for-himself psyche. But what else can be done?

Hazrat Umer (RA) has always been presented as a perfect model of justice. But we also learn that a time came when he temporarily lifted the usual punishment for stealing. But what was so specific about this time. The nation was facing a crisis of famine, and the state could not fulfil its responsibility of providing basic necessities . Hence if the state is not able to fulfil the social contract with the people then it is wrong to expect the people to respect the same?

Saint Augustine said, “In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?” Without justice, are not parliaments, police stations and courts, mere centres of exploitation? How can you expect peace when there is no justice? When courts further exploit you, when the police robs you, and the government lives lavishly off you; how can you expect citizens to respect the state and its institutions?

But there is justice being done somewhere. Of course, extra-judicial justice that is. In fact, the very enforcers of law break the law, all in the name of justice. Needless to say, however, this justice exempts all those who have any socio-political backing, or wealth and prestige. You don’t need to escape the hands of law, you only need to shake them.

A friend of mine came to me and asked whether I saw a video he posted on facebook? He said it had made him cry. This video was of a youngster, being viciously murdered by law enforcement agencies in broad daylight in a crowded park. After seeing the video, which surfaced all over the social networking site, I asked as to why he cries for the one he was able to see. What about all those painful and degrading deaths which go nameless and unmentioned. Yes the media cashed the situation fully. But does that make this single incident any more significant than all others? Should we not extend our frustration and sorrow for all oppressed? Not only those who made it, somehow, to the camera.

Some claim that this victim of brutality was yet another mobile snatcher, or a criminal. These people cause so much damage, and he, apparently, got a taste of his own medicine. But little is realized that such accusations are irrelevant. For, if criminals are to be punished in such a manner, why not start with the big fish? Why is such treatment reserved for the weak and poor? Why those powerful and wealthy just get away with it?

This young man was murdered. But it wasn’t just him. Justice was slain. In this state of zero justice, the people cannot be expected to behave in a civilized fashion. Their actions are products of exploitation and oppression.

But we remain silent and numb. And by putting the value of life in a mere number, we wait passively for our own turn to be added to the count.

Saad Lakhani is a motivated young writer, a student of Social Sciences from Karachi.