11th May is the Election Day. Just
a week before, it is being claimed that, we will be seeing the first so called
peaceful transition of power from one elected government to another, if all
goes well. The religious political parties like JUI and JI are also campaigning
at full gear. In Karachi the banners of JI are all over the place, which asks
the public 'Aman ko Vote Dain', and
that if JI wins all the problems of Karachi or Pakistan will be solved. JI
claims to be an Islamic party and claims that the three signs of change are
'Allah, Rasool & Quran'.
For a moment if try to evaluate
the claims of JI in the light of Quran and Sunnah then we see nothing but
contradiction.
There are various verses of Quran which explicitly declare that it is the public’s evil deeds & bad character,corrupt behavior, disobeying of Allah's will, etc. which causes the circumstances to get rough for them in a variety of ways. It could be disturbance of law and order situation, natural disasters, tyranny of a corrupt leader etc. The Quran and Hadith also provides various examples from previous nations who were destroyed because they violated the commandments of Allah s.w.t. Along with this Quran and Hadith also provides solution, which is as simple as refraining from doing anything which violates the will of Allah s.w.t or makes Him angry.
So the equation is simple, the
circumstances are a function of collective deeds of the public, their level of Eman (faith), and whom they really bow
toward (un ka qibla kis taraf hai),
if all of this is in the wrong direction, things will get rough, and if they in
accordance with the will of Allah s.w.t, then everything will get better.
Furthermore Allah s.w.t also
tests His people to see how steadfast they are and once the public proves that they
are, and then Allah s.w.t rewards them in this world and in hereafter. It is
quite possible that the difficult situation of Pakistan is nothing but a test
from Allah s.w.t.
This is the position of Islam
on causes of calamities and their respective remedies. This is clear and
simple. And the most important part is it nowhere it mentions that by voting a
political party, which is trying to play God by claiming to have the ability to
fix everything once in power, would really solve anything.
It is not difficult to see the
contradiction in the position of the so called religious political parties have
taken to convince the public to vote for them. Nowhere in their campaign have
they asked the public to seek repentance of Allah s.w.t, or to correct their Eman,
character, dealings, and priorities, etc. but rather ask them to vote.
On the contrary if they really
had been sincere about improving the condition, it is not difficult to see in
the light of Quran and Hadith, what their strategy should have been! The
solution presented in Quran and Sunnah, and the entire history of Islamic
civilization, doesn't have any example of what JUI and JI are attempting to
do... i.e. attempting to bring betterment in the conditions through the so
called power of vote, and without attempting to eliminate the disease in the
hearts and minds of the people, which in fact is the real root cause of all the
trouble we see around.
Instead of inventing ways which
explicitly contradicts with the solution presented in Islamic scriptures, JUI
and JI should focus on utilizing their resources through the power of
repentance and spiritual salvation on a mass scale.
How this can be done, is
explained by Dr. Javed Akhar Ansari in clear details, click here to jump to his article.
May Allah guide us All...
I disagree with the author in certain respects.
ReplyDeleteHe writes " JI claims to be an Islamic party and claims that the three signs of change are 'Allah, Rasool & Quran'." Does he question the JI's being an Islamic party, or does he question the three signs of change?
He then goes on to say " if try to evaluate the claims of JI in the light of Quran and Sunnah then we see nothing but contradiction." This is an absurd assertion which will be proved later.
We all know the consequences of disobeying Allah, so it was a waste of energy in the next paragraph. What is the purpose of it, is beyond me.
The next paragraph also continues on the same theme.
Next paragraph too is a continuation of facts known to us and irrelevant to the subject.
The writer then makes two statements in one sentence "most important part is it nowhere it mentions that by voting a political party, which is trying to play God by claiming to have the ability to fix everything once in power, would really solve anything." The first statement is naive as shariah is not rigid. There are changes taking place in our environment, and we have to adapt to the circumstances. It is like saying that nowhere does it say that riding in a car is allowed. The current situation offers only the ballot box to come into governance. The only alternative is absolute rebellion, which I am sure nobody will propose at this juncture. Next statement is nothing but silly. Nobody is "trying to play God". Naoozobillah. Allah (subhanaho wa ta'ala) has clearly stated in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning) 3:110 Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah....." Earlier He has stated (translation of the meaning) 3:103 (Y. Ali) And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; ....". The rope is the Qur'an. If we hold on to it, and become the community that Allah is asking us to become, we can bring the change, as humans who are following taqwa.
In his next paragraph, he shows his ignorance of what the JI is doing regularly and with the only intention of guiding "public to seek repentance of Allah s.w.t, or to correct their Eman, character, dealings, and priorities, etc.seek repentance of Allah s.w.t, or to correct their Eman, character, dealings, and priorities, etc."
The next paragraph is simply re-statement of what he has already said, so there is nothing to respond to.
He goes on to say "Instead of inventing ways which explicitly contradicts with the solution presented in Islamic scriptures". They are not inventing ways. The way has been invented and is in vogue. It is the only means to bring a change. Otherwise, the secular forces will keep changing the Constitution and Laws to suit their needs, and will try to mislead the public into believing that secularism is the best thing for them. Unfortunately, majority of the educated people do not know the reality of secularists in regards to their faith. The attempt to change people and bring them to Islam is ongoing. People sitting on the sidelines are unaware of the distinguished service being rendered by JI workers, without any worldly compensation.
Bhai the article is exclusively criticising the election campaign, not everything what JI does... I am yet to see a scholar who explicitly says that democratic form of government is Islamic, including Mufti Taqi Usmani sb who has given a fatwa on voting. Islamic is not rigid but it has some prinicples upon which the democratic system and its details just doesn't fit in... Also read this what
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=448096451941231&set=a.446952748722268.1073741828.446950072055869&type=1&theater
Please also comment on Javed Akhbar Ansari's article whose link is given just at
the end of the article, let me post again here for you, besides Akbar Ansari sb is a staunch Jamaati, his only disagreement is with JI's support for democracy.
http://blog.criticmagazine.pk/2013/04/urdu-is-islamic-revolution-possible.html
Please take sometime out to read the above as well thanks
I have responded explicitly to the points raised, so I am not saying anywhere that he is against JI. If my response gives the impression, then he has criticized JI's other actions as well.
DeleteI believe you need to read my post again, specially where I have stated that "There are changes taking place in our environment, and we have to adapt to the circumstances." There is no requirement for a scholar to state that democratic form of government is Islamic. That is what exists, and if we want to change it, we have to participate, win, and then change the laws to shariah-based. Sitting on the fence will not get us anywhere. Undemocratic people will get elected, and will take us closer to secularism. Choice is yours. Do you want to support the best possible, or let the worst possible win, just because you do not agree with the rules of the game.
ok, a part form objective of the article, when I say "I am yet to see a scholar who explicitly says that democratic form of government is Islamic" I mean to say what Dr. Israr Ahmed is saying in the following clip
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=409123009195019&set=vb.339900456117275&type=2&theater
I apologize i choose the wrong words, I should have said scholars including Mufti Taqi Usmani explicitly rejects democracy because it contradicts with Islamic principles. Democracy is institutionalization of Majority's Will as sovereign, this directtly contradicts with the principle of tawheed, risalat and belief in Quran & hadith being the primary source of law. This also means that Pakistan's constitution is filled with such contradictions, whose practical manifestation we see now and then... and there are lots of more details which can be added here.
Now if we look at sunnah of previous Prophets, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w, our Aslaf, like Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal etc. You will notice a strong that they stood for the fundamentals whether someone agreed or not. Many Prophets were killed by the people for whom they were sent but they never compromised with their basics, irrespective of whether they achieved something or not. Democracy is a compromise as explained by Dr. Israr, and Mufti Taqi Usmani sb is also on the same lines, read his 'Islam aur Siyasi Nazariyat'...
What is the alternative: Read Dr. Javed Ansari's article which I posted in my comment above and then let me know if you have any reservations.
Apart from that the message of article is simple, when awam is doing evil, Allah s.w.t will impose corrupt leaders, when awam will repent and become fearful of Allah s.w.t and seek repentance, Allah s.w.t will Himself change the leaders or their hearts. This is as per a Hadith-e-Qudsi as per my knowledge.
So there is no need of elections. Without changing of hearts and minds, election will not change a thing. And all those who are promising a bright future are either ignorant of this fact, or are deceiving the public for some sinister agenda.
Wallah-o-Alam...
My first response to the article above, and to the one by Dr. Jawaid Akbar Ansari is very simple. Jama'at is a party that has embarked on a major struggle, which includes educating the masses, changing the structure of governance and bringing the laws in sync with the Qur'an and Sunnah, etc. Are there any doubts about these actions?
ReplyDeleteAs regards spreading knowledge about Islam, they conduct regular duroos and classes everywhere. It is for the public to join these gatherings, as they are the ones to benefit. Jama'at will not gain much.
Changing the structure of governance is a lengthy and difficult exercise as we all know. Both authors have criticized JI's modus operandi, but have not offered an alternative. I believe that when someone criticizes something, he MUST suggest an alternative. If he does not, he has done more harm than good.
The objective that both authors, you and I (I am not a JI member, just support them in whatever way I can) have in common with JI is that we consider aqamat-e-deen as our obligation. If one of us moves forward, the responsibility of the others is to assist in whatever way possible. May be we differ in something major, that cannot be reversed, then we should back-off on that particular point, and not make a public issue of it. The secular forces are looking for such differences of opinion to make a mountain out of a molehill. I constantly hear comments that we cannot even pray behind the same imam at times and have major differences. Unfortunately, we are the cause of this misinterpretation.
Dr. Jawaid's article is interesting, but Has many points I can contest in detail, but will not. His basic surmise is that democracy inevitably leads to secularism. This I challenge as belief comes from knowledge, and secularism comes from lack of knowledge. Democratic principles are not rigid, they can be converted to our basic beliefs. I believe JI has regular intra-party elections, where they choose various levels in their grid. I would imagine that the Ameer is elected by the top layer, and not by votes cast by every member. Isn't this process of election according to the practice of the Khulafa-e-Rashedeen? If my thinking is incorrect, or the practice is not in accordance with what I have stated, we should suggest the change.
Once voted into a position where they can effect the framing of laws, I am sure they will contribute to the change, and it is the obligation of every Muslim, who believes in tawheed and aakhirat to support them. ABstaining from elections, will help the secular forces to come into power as they have support from the devil, and their vote bank.
I also don't have any grudges against JI, just have reservations on the method.
DeleteI posted the following on FB about democracy, would appreciate your reviews:
A recipe to make a cake will result in a cake, a method of assembling a car will result in a car, a process to manufacture a shoe will result in a shoe, a process to stitch a shirt will result in a shirt, so on and so forth the quality of the ingredients will be evaluated by the quality of the outcome... but the most important thing is that each process has a definitive result.
Similarly Democracy is a process designed to achieve specific types of results for a society, and for this it needs specific type of ingredients. To understand this one has to go through 400 years of history of Europe and America...
In the European society the tyranny of the conflict between Church and Monarchy gave birth to protestantism, which later led to movement of liberalization and secularization of the society, meaning removal of religion from the political affair. After removal of religion as a determinant of Law, the European society needed an alternative mechanism to determine the basis to formulate constitution, to determine what's legal, what's illegal, what just and what's unjust, evil and good...
Therefore the intellectuals of the time (particularly before french revolution) formulated a mechanism which we now know as democracy. Whose primary ingredient is self-determined liberal (non-religious) individuals, who uses nothing but his reason to find out what is right & wrong, evil & good, good & bad, etc, if his reason tells him that Riba is good then be it, if his reason tells him adultery is OK then be it.. etc.
This is the basic ingredient of democracy, and when such individuals when forms a society, than their majority chooses their representatives which formulate a parliament, who again uses majorities will decide what's legal and illegal in the constitution.
Therefore Democracy is simply a recipe, process, mechanism to produce a secular and liberal government for a secular and liberal society, who just doesn't look toward any religious source for guidance, its key ingredients are secular and liberal individuals, who do not affiliate themselves with any sectarian, ethnic, racial or religious group... Expecting anything else from it, is fooling our own self...
Just imagine a recipe of cake uses chicken, and ginger powder... just imagine the results...
Some proofs on secularization spreads through democratic process:
Egypt has recently allowed alchohol and bikini on its beaches, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9302964/Fears-over-alcohol-and-bikini-ban-in-Egypt-dismissed.html
Also Iran is gradually getting secular despite a very strong hold of wilayatul faqih on governance, etc, just google to find out...
Why the two are connected, to understand more in depth you have to bring western style capitalism into the equation. Please read the following book extract (from a book by Molana Zafar Iqbal) in detail for further reference:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?13b1ikqd11ip7i0
The point I made earlier is that we must not sit on the sidelines when we disagree with the method. The method is not their doing, and that is what you have available to change the system. You have no other choice, other than going into total rebellion, which is not the desired option.
ReplyDeletePlease give me link to your profile in Facebook.
I like your analogies, and would like to add something. When you make something, it is not a cake or car, or whatever. Its quality is of great importance, and that depends on the ingredients. For example, Rolls Royce makes a car, so do many other manufacturers. But, you can differentiate on quality. Similarly, when people vote under a total secular society, the criteria for selection is totally different when a Muslim will vote for a candidate. Suggest you look at this post to see what I am implying https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=647864675240133&set=a.249678285058776.79139.249280968431841&type=1&theater.
I disagree that democracy is a recipe to produce a secular or liberal system. I firmly believe that in the present environment, not participating is a recipe to allow the same secularists and liberals to come into power. Do we want that? I don't.
The European experience is not necessarily what will happen in Pakistan. If we get enough members in the National Assembly to have the capability of changing laws to shariah, slowly and gradually, then we can show an opposite result.
You have placed a link to a British newspaper, that too one year old. I will give a link to a British paper too, but one and a half month ago. Please read about the latest situation on alcoholic drinks at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/24/egyptian-alcohol-sales-cairo. I believe Egyptian society is more open than Pakistan's, Alhumdo Lillah. But things should change there.
I do not see why western capitalism should be part of the equation. It is already the guiding force for the economy in Pakistan. Once we have the strength, we can change the structure to Islamic. I am a finance professional, with some knowledge of Islamic concepts. I believe it is a simple exercise to gradually convert the structure.
FB: javaid.omar
DeleteApologies I posted the wrong link of, check the following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/05/egypt-tourism-booze-bikinis?CMP=twt_gu
you are talking about a pragmatic approach, however pragmatism can never be at the cost of principles or sacred values, allow me to explain how democratic philosophy contradicts with the very fundamental of Islams once again... in democracy you will have to obey the majority, sovereignty belongs to the people, otherwise its not democracy it's something else, In Islam sovereignty belongs to Allah s.w.t... and no matter how pragmatic the approach may be it would not be acceptable if it violates this very principle. This is a no brainer,
The fatwa of Mufti Shafi damat barkatuhum, is only creating confusion in the minds of those who knows that Ulema-e-Deoband categorically rejects democracy as un-Islamic primarily because of the reasons explained by Dr. Israr Ahmed (referring to the link I posted in my above comment) for example see Mufti Taqi Usmani's book "Islam aur Siyasi Nazariyat", and on the other hand they have given a fatwa in favor of voting...
its like saying rotating a steering wheel of a car is allowed, but driving a car is not allowed... this compartmentalized approach of shariah implementation just doesn't make any sense to me, and to lots of other people as well check the responses on the following post: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=524003737656499&set=a.469408683116005.108614.152907758099434&type=1&theater
besides when you are voting you are giving a gawahi, shahadah, testimonial that you will accept majorities will over Allah's will, as this is exactly why the democratic system was invented, and this is exactly how laws are passed in the parliament, and with your action you agree that in case if majority decides against you, then you will accept it as well, this wa categorically said by a JI member on a talk show that if MQM is brought to power in a free and fair election then they will also accept MQM.
For connection of capitalism and democracy, you have to read the link which referred in my previous comment.
DeleteFurthermore: Institutional structure is considered by many as value neutral and having no influence on the dynamics of the people tied with that institutional. Democratic system has a set of institutional framework designed for the specific secular and liberal objectives I mentioned in my last comment.
Considering these institutions as value neutral is like saying a very pious and honest fellow will be able to drive a tractor faster than a corrupt fellow. The tractor is a structure with its limitations, it cannot be used as an ambulance and it would be foolish to assume that it would perform better in case the driver is a nice person.
Political institutions are similar, they are structure of rules, they have a hierarchy of collaborative and competitive contractual relations, this structure is more like a ghost, which in fact drives the people attached to it... I was shocked to read the criticism of parliamentarian system by Adolf Hitler, i felt like as if he is talking about Pakistani parliamentarian system. Check this out and see how a set of rules in parliament influences the process of governance, read and get surprized http://blog.criticmagazine.pk/2011/01/adolf-hitlers-critique-on.html
so assuming that if all pious religious people somehow reaches to the parliament, then they will eventually be able to create different results... this assumption completely ignores that role of peripheral institutions Army, Judiciary, Bureaucracy, Free market enterprises (private corporations), Business, Financial System, Private Media, civil society (the most important one) etc which have their own interests with democratic system, and influences the so called representative politicians, and in most cases they have the capacity to over power the public opinion and political decisions made in the parliament. For details please read the link I pasted above http://www.mediafire.com/view/?13b1ikqd11ip7i0
kind regards
There is no pragmatism in my posts. I have referred you to ayaat in the Qur'an and to ahadith to prove that voting is not against Islam, and the title of the blog is incorrect when it says "secular strategy". The author is misleading the readers, either intentionally or from lack of Islamic knowledge. Voting is in accordance with Islam, and any attempt to mislead Muslims results in helping the secularists to win.
ReplyDeleteInstead of discussing the topic, you are referring me to books, articles and lectures of others. Can you not discuss in your own words, without analogies and vague examples?
There is no way that we have to listen to the majority. You are either not understanding, or deliberately misleading the readers too. The majority elects the members of the Assembly, and it is then the members who choose their leader. If the leader is corrupt or incompetent, it is the members who take action. They are virtually the majlis-e-shoora.
As for the peripheral services are concerned, they will all be reporting to the Assembly. They will be subservient to it.
When we get muttaqee in the Assembly, we can be sure that our governance will be online with that of Madinah in the early days of Islam.
your arguments are about the procedure which you think are neutral and can be molded for any purpose, where are as my arguments are seeing these procedure in the context of the unIslamic fundamentals, principles, philosophies, spirits which are deriving the show... I think enough has been said above to prove the democratic philosophy as violation of Islamic prinicple of Tawheed etc.
DeleteU think procedures are value neutral (correct?), where are I think procedures are not value neutral, means every procedure leads to different results. The parliamentary representative democratic system of government is a set of procedures, evolved for a very different kind of a society to achieve very different kinds of results (secular and liberal)...
I accept one thing, that in order to stop the secular members of the parliament from passing a bill which is explicitly against Quran and Sunnah, there must be some members in the assembly who would resist this. This is a very specific agenda, however assuming that while using a democratic approach would actually some day produce a system similar to Khilafah is simply against the very nature of democracy, its like saying that to extinguish the fire you will use petrol instead of water.
I am referring to other links to save my time. Also read this :)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450866175006796&set=a.363883857038362.86551.100002502518625&type=1&theater¬if_t=comment_mention
I think I have tried enough here, and apparently you haven't countered any of my arguments, only repeating the same thing over and over again since the beginning.
Please visit the following link if you really want more info, otherwise we will be moving in circles.
http://criticmagazine.blogspot.com/p/la-demokratia.html
Thank God you agree with some thing. I have presented dalayil from the sources, while you have given links to other writings and speeches. You believe you have tried enough, while I have countered none of your arguments. That brought a smile to my face. The first thing is that I did not consider it an argument at any stage. Secondly, you personally lack Islamic knowledge and rely heavily on other people. Thirdly, and more importantly, I pay more emphasis to content and you to the form. You do not agree with the method, so you will sacrifice the progress that can be made when muttaqee enter the Assembly. My approach is positive. Insha Allah, we will bring shariah to Pakistan, despite opposition from secularists, those who not vote by choice, and those who discourage other people not to vote as they incorrectly believe that this would be against the will of Allah.
ReplyDeleteMay Allah give us hidayat. Ameen.
Only Allah can judge who we are and what we know... and I pray to Allah s.w.t may open our hearts to accept the truth and convince us on the right strategy... Ameen
ReplyDelete