Tag: islamic state

Partition, Pakistan and Purpose

On 14 of August 1947 and 27th Ramadan the holiest month in Islamic calendar in Indian-Subcontinent a new country came into being on the map of the world; Pakistan; founded on the basis of ‘Two-Nation Theory’ that Muslims and Hindus of India are two separate nations. The Idea of a separate Muslim country in North-West of Indian-Subcontinent was presented by Allama Iqbal, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah led the Pakistan movement through the platform of Muslim League, a political party which was representative of Muslims in India. It would be absolutely illogical not to believe that partition of India was based on religion and the foundation of a new country Pakistan was based on Islam as there would have been be no reason for partition and no need for sacrificing thousands of lives and migration of millions of Muslims to the new state.

Pakistan was not founded on secular concepts such as language, ethnicity or regional nationalism. In fact, it negated all those concepts. The idea of Pakistan’s creation was that Muslims are separate nation because of their religion and they need a separate homeland in Muslim majority states of India for creation of an Islamic state where they can practice Islam in private and public sphere.

Vast majority of Muslims in Indian-Subcontinent supported the Pakistan movement and in 1946 elections, 76% Muslims voted for Muslim League and the Muslim league got more Muslim votes from the states where Muslims were a small minority, now part of India. Muslims living in Bombay, Madras, UP, CP and other States knew that they will never be able become citizens of Pakistan and they would not enjoy the independence but  they voted for Muslim League and supported the creation of Pakistan despite the fact that they will also have to suffer the wrath of Hindus and Indian Congress. They made this great sacrifice for Islam hoping that Pakistan will become an Islamic State and thus lead the revival of Ummah of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

After 65 years of its creation, let alone making Pakistan a Modern Islamic State we are still debating or a secular elite fringe has drawn us to debate whether the country was made to be a secular state or an Islamic State. Looking at purpose and basis of Pakistan’s creation this may sound like debating at night, whether earlier in the morning the sun rose from the east or west. The country which had clear vision, real purpose, sacred mission behind its creation, blood and sacrifices of millions of Muslims for Islam sadly has been forced into stagnation with confusion, denial, hypocrisy and betrayal.

65 years on our judicial system is still Anglo-Saxon penal code, policing system is also the same which has miserably failed to provide justice and maintain law & order in the country. The economic system is utterly fraudulent, corrupt and oppressive capitalism which is based on interest/usury. The rulers are cruel and corrupt who do not believe in the very purpose this country was created for they are guardians of the status quo and don’t even fill the Islamic criteria to be the candidates for positions which they are holding. The constitution is full of contradictions on one side its says no legislation can be made repugnant to Quran and Sunnah on the other side gives immunity to (the corruption of) the President which is against the Quran. Laws which were against Quran & Sunnah had not only been presented, but also passed by the Parliament. At social level our society is full of contradictions, media is misusing its freedom by making mockery of Islam and even insulting Islam in one way or another, it is spreading a wannabe attitude by promoting Western and Indian culture, whereas the land of the pure was found to rid Muslims of unIslamic customs and trends of Hindu culture. This betrayal with Allah who blessed us with this beautiful and resourceful homeland and ignorant denial of Islamic Purpose of Pakistan’s creation has ruined Pakistan a lot in last 65 years.

 

In 1971, East Pakistan broke away as Bangladesh on the basis of secular linguistic Bangali nationalism and 1/3 of the people in existing Pakistan want to leave the country because of their plight. The country is rotten with corruption, lawlessness, bad-governance, terrorism, energy crisis, Imperial slavery etc. Beside other reasons the biggest reason for separation of East-Pakistan was that the ideology on the basis of which east Bengal joined Pakistan was negated. There was no common bond and affiliation apart from Islam amongst the people of East and West Pakistan to keep them united as one nation. Two different regions, different languages, different race, different culture but one faith Islam which made them one nation in 1947 but Islam was practically subjugated into Mosques by the ruling elite in West Pakistan, consequently now East Pakistan is Bangladesh, and in existing Pakistan which is multi-lingual, multi-racial, there is no common bond or affiliation to keep the people from Karachi to Khyber, Quetta to Lahore united as one nation except La Ilaha Muhammad ar RasulAllah,  but ethnic, provincial, linguistic divide is prevalent in Pakistani Politics and there are some separatist movements led by secular nationalists getting stronger in Baluchistan based on secular nationalism.

What was the purpose of partition if Pakistan was planned to be a secular state, when there are more Muslims living in India than Pakistan, they pray, fast and go for Hajj every year on special flights. The secularists say ‘‘economic rights of Muslims were the reason Pakistan was created for it was not made to be a Islamic State”. Before coming up with this lie to associate their fraudulent and corrupt ideology with Pakistan’s creation they forget that we had left half of the Muslims in India, and they knew there so called economic rights will not be protected but still they supported and even voted for creation of Pakistan and those who left everything in India were quite well-off but they migrated to Pakistan knowing the fact that they might be killed on the way. They sacrificed everything for nothing else but Islam.

If we are to save Pakistan we have to come back to the purpose of its creation wholeheartedly and build Pakistan accordingly. It is not just a national obligation but an Islamic obligation to follow Allah’s Deen which we claim to believe in otherwise the future would be even worse than the present in every sense.

May Allah protect Pakistan and Pakistanis. Ameen.

 

Islam and Rule of the People – III

The instinctual problem that arises with democracy is the belief that democracy originated in the west. The history of democracy is therefore presented as troublesome. The Ancient Greeks, who are told to be the founders of “democracy”, would probably be shocked and be dismissive of modern democracies. As modern representative governments are radically different in nature than the democracies of Greek city-states where all citizens would gather to make decisions. Democracy is a very fluid concept with radically different forms; direct, representative, functional, parliamentary, republican, federal, proletarian, and so on.

Modern democracy, however, from a conceptual standpoint, has a troublesome dynamic. In the west, it evolved in the background of the renaissance and the revolt against the authority of the church. It was in this sense a blow against religion and the ecclesiastical order. It was also a revolt against the European Monarchies, those of which claimed that they had the divine right to rule. While in actuality, as the slogan of the French Revolution went “We want neither a Lord nor a master”, the struggle was one of the masses against oppression of monarchy and theocracy at the same time, it became expressive in a revolt against the justifications presented by the regimes; Divine right and representation.  Hence, against the claim of the church of ‘the rule of God’, the movement demanded ‘the rule of man’.  The revolutionary notion of man’s independence from God manifested itself in form Secularism, Nationalism and Western Democracy.

Fortunately, however Islam does not endorse any religious class to begin with. While Islam does value knowledge and deeds, it does not give monopoly to either a scholarly or holier-than-thou class on the power-centers of society. Popular participation is a fundamental aspect of the Islamic socio-political order.  In this sense, an Islamic state is a civil state against what is understood as a “religious state” (a theocracy).

According to reputable Islamic scholar, Syed Maududi (RA), the Islamic ideal is unique in itself. But to describe it in its nearest terms for understanding and categorization, it can be called a “Theo-democracy”.  This is because while Islam recognizes the sovereignty of God alone, it gives the people the right to choose their rulers and be consulted.

The whole concept of Bay’et, or pledge of allegiance, in Islamic history, is a perfectly appropriate methodology to establish legitimacy based on public consent. The ballot system, and the whole electoral process, is just a more advance and modern way to achieve the same principle. For it’s time and circumstances, the Bay’et system was most suited and applicable. Now we simply have a more advanced and modern method to achieve the same end. Unfortunately, even this Bay’et system was misused by despotic rulers in our history. Forced Bay’et, or consent, became a method to justify monarchal rule in Islamic terms, which faced resistance, starting with the revolt of Imam Hussain(RA), from time to time. In modern times too, despotic rulers have used similar methodologies to justify their tyrannies by the illusion of consent, from Hosni Mubarak to Pervez Musharaf.

There are two main contentions left with the anti-democracy argument. The first refers to the failures of most Western democracies. The ‘corporations’ and ‘lobbies’ are the true parties that hold the strings in such so-called democracies, while public opinion is manipulated through mass media. While this may be true, there is an inherent admission of these democracies not being the real thing; a scam of sorts. In further response, one has to say that within an Islamic framework, monopolistic tendencies in corporations or interest groups are both to be contained. While an explanation of Islam’s socio-economic ideals and characteristics are too detailed to accommodate in this essay, one has to simply understand that they’re different from those of Western capitalist societies.

The second contention refers to the failures and the shape of democracies as ours in Pakistan. People at large are blamed for choosing the corrupt people again and again. This may be true but many other factors are involved, including the incessant shifts between dictatorships and democracies, the general moral and intellectual degeneration of our society, the gap between the elite and the masses, the colonial legacy, and the feudal structure of most of Pakistan. If we find the people today to be ignorant at large than it is the responsibility of the responsible few to create a critical mass that would reach out to the people. While this is another topic, I believe that the elite in Pakistan must take responsibility to engage with the masses. The professional and educated elite have generally been apolitical, while leaving the masses vulnerable to demagogues.

Democratization and Islamization in the Muslim world go together. This fact must be realized. For in true democracy, the consent, traditions, values, approval, customs and religion of the people must all be reflected. On the other hand, secularism in Muslim societies can, and has always, been imposed by force at the hands of despotic rulers. We must also understand that the greatest opponent to democracy in the Muslim world has always been the Western hegemonic powers. If true representatives of the people come to power, there is always the chance that they’ll reflect public aspirations.

 

Click here for Part I and Part II

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”