Tweet
By Tayyab
(Source: sawatValley.org, 25 April, 2009)
It is an irony is that even amongst our educated elite, we find supporters of Taliban; most of them are supporting Taliban because they believe Talibanism/Talibani interpretation of Shariah is genuinely Islamic. It is precisely this point that I would dwell upon today.
First of all, it is believed that Taliban are doing Jihad. Let me clarify that Jihad means struggle whatever walk of life it may be in. It mostly refers to struggle for purification of soul in classical Islamic literature. The battlefield part of it is called Qital. But here I would use the term Jihad for Qital as it is more widely understood and used.
In Islam, it is not for every Tom, **** and Harry to stand up and declare Jihad.
Both the Quran and the established practice of the Prophets of Allah explicitly say that Jihad can only be waged by a state. No group of people have been given the authority to take up arms, because individual groups if given this license will create great disorder and destruction by fighting among themselves ( as the former Mujahideen did in Afghanistan also) once they overcome the enemy. A study of the Quran reveals that the Makkan Sūrahs do not contain any directive of Jihād for the simple reason that in Makkah the Muslims did not have their own state. One must remember that Islam does not advocate ‘the law of the jungle’. It is a religion in which both human life and the way it is taken hold great sanctity. Islam does not give us any right to take life unless certain strict conditions are fulfilled.
To support my contention, I would here quote some Ahadith and then from a few classical fiqh authorities:
Follow up:
1)A Muslim ruler is the shield [of his people]. A war can only be waged under him and people should seek his shelter [in war]. (Bukhārī: No. 2957)
2) Makhūl narrates from Abū Hurayrah who narrates from the Prophet: Jihād is obligatory upon you with a Muslim ruler whether he is pious or impious, and the prayer is obligatory upon you behind every Muslim whether he is pious or impious even if he is guilty of the major sins and the prayer is obligatory upon every Muslim whether he is pious or impious even if he is guilty of the major sins. (Abū Dā’ūd: No. 2533)
3) Ibn Qudāmah, a Hanbalite jurist, writes
The matter of Jihād rests with the ruler [of a state] and his Ijtihād. The opinion he forms in this regard must be obeyed by the citizens of his country (Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī, vol. 8, (Riyād: Maktabah al-Riyād al-Hadīthah,1981), p. 352)
Sayyid Sābiq, while referring to this consensus, writes:
Among Kafāyah obligations, there is a category for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., Jihād and administration of punishments (Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqhu’l-Sunnah, 2nd ed., vol. 3, (Beirut: Daru’l-Fikr, 1980), p. 30
(Fiqh As-Sunnah, which in the first writing of its kind brought the four major schools of thought (madhahib) together, in a comprehensive treatment of Fiqh matters)
Here I would quote in length from the late Maulana Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, :
“The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the dissolution and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those who are out to disintegrate the system will provide people with an alternative and a righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is preferable to them....this confidence [that a group will be able to harmonize a disintegrated system and integrate it into a united whole] can be reposed in such a group only as has actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline within the confines of its authority that the group can be termed as al-Jamā‘ah [the State]. Until a group attains this position, it may strive [by religiously allowable means] to become al-Jamā‘ah – and that endeavour would be its Jihād for that time – but it does not have the right to wage an ‘armed’ Jihād.
The second reason is that the import of power which a group engaged in war acquires over the life and property of human beings is so great that the sanction to wield this power cannot be given to a group the control of whose leader over his followers is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence on them [rather than being based on legal authority]. When the control of a leader is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence, there is not sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from fasād fi’l-ard [creating disorder in the society]. Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords [that is to wage an armed struggle] merely on the basis of his spiritual influence over them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Such radical groups as desire revolution and the object of whom is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games – and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous party must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the life and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances and to create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end. (Da‘wat-i-Dīn awr us kā Tarīqah-i-kār (Urdu; ch. 14, pp. 241-2))
I would also add an incident of the Great Imam Abu-Hanifa(RA)
In the reign of Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur ( the same Caliph who imprisoned Imam AbuHanifa because the great Imam refused to accept the post of Chief Justice/Qazi-ul-Qazzat) , Muhammad bin Abdullah ( Also known as Nafsuzzakkiaya or the noble soul for his piety) decided to organize a revolt against the government because of the tyrannical practices of Al-Masnur. Nafsuzzakkiya came to the Imam and asked for his support. The great Imam replied , “ I agree with your cause but I would not support you practically because I fear anarchy”. Here is a clear example that for fear of anarchy and chaos in the society, even a person as learned as Imam Abu Hanifa refused to support a very pious person.
Some of the supporters of Talibani Jihad also argue that Jihad is the responsibility of the state only if the state is Islamic. I don’t know if a state can have a religion. But If I accept this line for the sake of argument, then Pakistan is an Islamic state. It’s name is “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. It’s constitution in article 2 declares Islam as state religion.
Article 2A of the constitution says that the sovereignty of the ‘Majlis-i-Shura’ does not transcend the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. To clarify any doubt in this respect Article 227 (1) of the constitution provides as follows:
‘All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, in this part referred to as the injunctions of Islam and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions.’
Under article 228, the constitution has created a Council of Islamic Ideology which is to perform the following functions under article 230 (1) of the constitution.
‘(a) to make recommendations to the ‘Majlis-i-Shura’ (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies as to the ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives individually and collectively in all respects in accordance with the principles and concepts of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah;
(b) to advise a House, a Provincial Assembly, the President or a Governor on any question referred to the Council as to whether a proposal or law is or is not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam;
(c) to make recommendations as to the measures for bringing existing laws into conformity with the injunctions of Islam and the stages by which such measures should be brought into effect; and
(d) to compile in a suitable form, for the guidance of the ‘Majlis-i-Shura’ (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies, such injunctions of Islam as can be given legislative effect.’
The adjudicatory jurisdiction in this respect is conferred by Chapter 3-A of the constitution on the ‘Federal Shariat Court’ which has the following jurisdiction under Article 203-D(I) of the constitution:
‘The Court may, either of its own motion or on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, examine or decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (sws), hereinafter referred to as the Injunctions of Islam.’
Under the other provisions of article 203-D of the constitution any law or provision of law declared by the ‘Federal Shariat Court’ to be repugnant, to the injunctions of Islam is, to the extent of such repugnancy, to cease to have effect on a date fixed by the Court for the purpose. An appeal in this respect is provided before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 230-F of the constitution.
In the chapter relating to the principles of policy, the constitution gives top priority to the state’s adoption of a social policy in consonance with the state religion, i.e Islam. Article 31 of the constitution, laying down the first principle of policy, provides as follows:
‘(1) Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with t he fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.
(2) The state shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan:
(a) to make the teaching of the Holy Qur’an and Islamiyat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language and to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Holy Qur’an.
(b) to promote unity and the observance of zakah, ushr, auqaf and mosques.
Likewise, Article 37, dealing with the principles of policy regarding promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils, provides in its clauses (g) and (h) that the state shall:
‘(g) prevent prostitution, gambling and taking of injurious drugs, printing, publishing, circulation and display of obscene literature and advertisements;
(h) prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor otherwise than for medicinal and, in the case of -Muslims, religious purposes;
In the economic field, the constitution of Pakistan, in its Article 38(f), requires the state to ‘eliminate riba as early as possible’ and Article (31)(2)(c) thereof requires the state ‘to secure the proper organisation of zakah and ushr’ so that a truly Islamic welfare State could be established in Pakistan.
One can notice in the constitution of Pakistan an Islamic tilt even in the matter of foreign policy to be adopted by the state. Article 40 of the Constitution provides that:
‘The State shall endeavour to preserve and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries based on Islamic unity, support the common interests of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, promote international peace and security, foster goodwill and friendly relations among all nations and encourage the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.’
Now if the state is not functioning as laid down in the constitution, it is our duty to strengthen the constitution. But what has happened in the past? Why has a constitutional democracy not functioned in Pakistan?? Because army and mullah have allied to sabotage that. Whenever army has violated the constitution, it has found a readily available ally in the form of Mullah. If democracy , as laid down by the constitution of Pakistan, had been given a chance to flourish, today, our leaders would have been far better than Zaradari, Sharifs etc. But establishment ( Pakistani army, intelligence agencies and Mullahs) have never let that happen. Who has to be blamed and punished for it? Not the poor people of Pakistan , pukhtoonkhwa or Swat at least.
Let me look at it from another angle. Since the creation of Pakistan, religio-political parties like JI and JUI have been working through the parliamentary system to achieve their deigns ..( whatever they are-I am not going into that). Was that wrong? If that was , these parties should announce openly giving up parliamentary politics for Talibani violence. If not, then they should not support any islamization through extra-parliamentary mean. Why this dichotomy? And what about those famous Ulemas sitting in Lahore and Karachi ( Dr Israr, Tahir Ul Qadri, Maulana Rafi Usmani, Taqi Usmani etc) who had always maintained that the role of Ulema is only to to preach, persuade and educate. Were they wrong and Taliban are right?
I remember meeting Qazi Hussain Ahmad at Mansoora in 1997-98 with a group of Professors from a College in the Mohmand agency. During question/answer session, I asked him about the process of Islamization by Taliban in Afghanistan. His reply was, “ Taliban are uneducated and rustic people who are interpreting Islam in a very crude , tribal way. I have not been able to find a single instance of forcing people to grow beard or go to prayers in the pages of Seerah or life of Sahaba or Islamic History. Beard has to do more with culture. If we come to power, we would educate and persuade people to grow beard and offer their prayers but never force them.”.( This is a rough translation of Qazi Sahib’s reply in Pahsto)..
I believe that was the correct stance . For anyone who wants to bring about an Islamic ( or any other) revolution, education and persuasion of people is the only legitimate way.
Now let me give you some clear injuctions from the Holy Quarn that shows that there is no compulsion in religion, that the duty of the Holy Prophet is to warn, educate, give glad tidings and invite to the path of Allah with wisdom ( Hikmah) and high-quality preaching (Moizittil hasanah)
"Say: Oh you that reject the faith!
I do not worship that which you worship,
Nor will you worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which you have been accustomed to worship.
Nor will you worship that which I worship.
You have your way and I have mine." – Qur’an English Translation [109:1-6]
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things."– Qur’an English Translation [2:256]
Compulsion is defined by Dictionary.com as: the act of compelling; constraint; coercion. Again we see DIRECT evidence from the Qur'an speaking out against forcing faith on people.
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful high-quality preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." – Qur’an English Translation [16:125]
His job is not to force belief on anyone but to simply give admonition (advice, warning, and counsel) to those around him. The Qur'an is a mercy sent from God so that people may take heed of God's final revelation to mankind in order to benefit their own souls:
"And We have sent thee (O Muhammad) only as a bearer of good tidings and a warner. Say: "No reward do I ask of you for it but this: that each one who will may take a (straight) Path to his." - Qur’an English Translation [25:56-57]
"Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: but he that strays injures his own soul. And thou art not a custodian over - Qur’an English Translation [39:41]
"And those who take as protectors others besides Him,- Allah doth watch over them; and thou art not their warden." - Qur’an English Translation [42:6]
"Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message)." - Qur’an English Translation [24:54]
"And to rehearse the Qur'an: and if any accept guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any stray, say: "I am only a Warner." - Qur’an English Translation [27:92]
"Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. But if any turn away and reject Allah, -Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment," - Qur’an English Translation [88:21-24]
"Say thou: "This is my way: I do invite unto Allah,- on evidence clear as the seeing with one's eyes,- I and whoever follows me. Glory to Allah. and never will I join gods with Allah." - Qur’an English Translation [12:108]
"So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger. but if ye turn back, the duty of Our Messenger is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly. Allah. There is no god but He: and on Allah, therefore, let the Believers put their trust." - Qur’an English Translation [64:12-13]
"But if any reject Faith, let not his rejection grieve thee: to Us is their return, and We shall tell them the truth of their deeds: for Allah knows well all that is in (men's) hearts." - Qur’an English Translation [31:23]
"And let nothing keep thee back from the Signs of Allah after they have been revealed to thee: and invite (men) to thy Lord, and be not of the company of those who join gods with Allah." - Qur’an English Translation [28:87]
Clearly, if someone chooses the path of disbelief than that is their choice. As Muslims we are only responsible for our own souls on the Day of Judgment. As the Qur'an clearly instructs and as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) demonstrated; faith cannot be forced upon anyone. The repercussions of disbelief come from God alone, for as people we are not the disposers of other's affairs.
God tells us to actually forgive those who do no look forward to being near to God:
"Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah. It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each People according to what they have earned. If any one does a righteous deed, it ensures to the benefit of his own soul; if he does evil, it works against (his own soul). In the end will ye (all) be brought back to your Lord." - Qur’an English Translation [45:14-15]
"And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!"" - Qur’an English Translation [25:63]
Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! As to those who believe and work righteousness, verily We shall not suffer to perish the reward of any who do a (single) righteous deed. - Qur’an English Translation [18:29-30]
The author is a Management Professional based in Canada. He originally comes from Swat and his intellectual interests lie in Islam, Political-economy and Public Policy . He can be reached at tayyab@swatvalley.org
(Source: sawatValley.org, 25 April, 2009)
It is an irony is that even amongst our educated elite, we find supporters of Taliban; most of them are supporting Taliban because they believe Talibanism/Talibani interpretation of Shariah is genuinely Islamic. It is precisely this point that I would dwell upon today.
First of all, it is believed that Taliban are doing Jihad. Let me clarify that Jihad means struggle whatever walk of life it may be in. It mostly refers to struggle for purification of soul in classical Islamic literature. The battlefield part of it is called Qital. But here I would use the term Jihad for Qital as it is more widely understood and used.
In Islam, it is not for every Tom, **** and Harry to stand up and declare Jihad.
Both the Quran and the established practice of the Prophets of Allah explicitly say that Jihad can only be waged by a state. No group of people have been given the authority to take up arms, because individual groups if given this license will create great disorder and destruction by fighting among themselves ( as the former Mujahideen did in Afghanistan also) once they overcome the enemy. A study of the Quran reveals that the Makkan Sūrahs do not contain any directive of Jihād for the simple reason that in Makkah the Muslims did not have their own state. One must remember that Islam does not advocate ‘the law of the jungle’. It is a religion in which both human life and the way it is taken hold great sanctity. Islam does not give us any right to take life unless certain strict conditions are fulfilled.
To support my contention, I would here quote some Ahadith and then from a few classical fiqh authorities:
Follow up:
1)A Muslim ruler is the shield [of his people]. A war can only be waged under him and people should seek his shelter [in war]. (Bukhārī: No. 2957)
2) Makhūl narrates from Abū Hurayrah who narrates from the Prophet: Jihād is obligatory upon you with a Muslim ruler whether he is pious or impious, and the prayer is obligatory upon you behind every Muslim whether he is pious or impious even if he is guilty of the major sins and the prayer is obligatory upon every Muslim whether he is pious or impious even if he is guilty of the major sins. (Abū Dā’ūd: No. 2533)
3) Ibn Qudāmah, a Hanbalite jurist, writes
The matter of Jihād rests with the ruler [of a state] and his Ijtihād. The opinion he forms in this regard must be obeyed by the citizens of his country (Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī, vol. 8, (Riyād: Maktabah al-Riyād al-Hadīthah,1981), p. 352)
Sayyid Sābiq, while referring to this consensus, writes:
Among Kafāyah obligations, there is a category for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., Jihād and administration of punishments (Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqhu’l-Sunnah, 2nd ed., vol. 3, (Beirut: Daru’l-Fikr, 1980), p. 30
(Fiqh As-Sunnah, which in the first writing of its kind brought the four major schools of thought (madhahib) together, in a comprehensive treatment of Fiqh matters)
Here I would quote in length from the late Maulana Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, :
“The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the dissolution and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those who are out to disintegrate the system will provide people with an alternative and a righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is preferable to them....this confidence [that a group will be able to harmonize a disintegrated system and integrate it into a united whole] can be reposed in such a group only as has actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline within the confines of its authority that the group can be termed as al-Jamā‘ah [the State]. Until a group attains this position, it may strive [by religiously allowable means] to become al-Jamā‘ah – and that endeavour would be its Jihād for that time – but it does not have the right to wage an ‘armed’ Jihād.
The second reason is that the import of power which a group engaged in war acquires over the life and property of human beings is so great that the sanction to wield this power cannot be given to a group the control of whose leader over his followers is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence on them [rather than being based on legal authority]. When the control of a leader is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence, there is not sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from fasād fi’l-ard [creating disorder in the society]. Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords [that is to wage an armed struggle] merely on the basis of his spiritual influence over them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Such radical groups as desire revolution and the object of whom is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games – and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous party must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the life and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances and to create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end. (Da‘wat-i-Dīn awr us kā Tarīqah-i-kār (Urdu; ch. 14, pp. 241-2))
I would also add an incident of the Great Imam Abu-Hanifa(RA)
In the reign of Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur ( the same Caliph who imprisoned Imam AbuHanifa because the great Imam refused to accept the post of Chief Justice/Qazi-ul-Qazzat) , Muhammad bin Abdullah ( Also known as Nafsuzzakkiaya or the noble soul for his piety) decided to organize a revolt against the government because of the tyrannical practices of Al-Masnur. Nafsuzzakkiya came to the Imam and asked for his support. The great Imam replied , “ I agree with your cause but I would not support you practically because I fear anarchy”. Here is a clear example that for fear of anarchy and chaos in the society, even a person as learned as Imam Abu Hanifa refused to support a very pious person.
Some of the supporters of Talibani Jihad also argue that Jihad is the responsibility of the state only if the state is Islamic. I don’t know if a state can have a religion. But If I accept this line for the sake of argument, then Pakistan is an Islamic state. It’s name is “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. It’s constitution in article 2 declares Islam as state religion.
Article 2A of the constitution says that the sovereignty of the ‘Majlis-i-Shura’ does not transcend the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. To clarify any doubt in this respect Article 227 (1) of the constitution provides as follows:
‘All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, in this part referred to as the injunctions of Islam and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions.’
Under article 228, the constitution has created a Council of Islamic Ideology which is to perform the following functions under article 230 (1) of the constitution.
‘(a) to make recommendations to the ‘Majlis-i-Shura’ (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies as to the ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives individually and collectively in all respects in accordance with the principles and concepts of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah;
(b) to advise a House, a Provincial Assembly, the President or a Governor on any question referred to the Council as to whether a proposal or law is or is not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam;
(c) to make recommendations as to the measures for bringing existing laws into conformity with the injunctions of Islam and the stages by which such measures should be brought into effect; and
(d) to compile in a suitable form, for the guidance of the ‘Majlis-i-Shura’ (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies, such injunctions of Islam as can be given legislative effect.’
The adjudicatory jurisdiction in this respect is conferred by Chapter 3-A of the constitution on the ‘Federal Shariat Court’ which has the following jurisdiction under Article 203-D(I) of the constitution:
‘The Court may, either of its own motion or on the petition of a citizen of Pakistan or the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, examine or decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (sws), hereinafter referred to as the Injunctions of Islam.’
Under the other provisions of article 203-D of the constitution any law or provision of law declared by the ‘Federal Shariat Court’ to be repugnant, to the injunctions of Islam is, to the extent of such repugnancy, to cease to have effect on a date fixed by the Court for the purpose. An appeal in this respect is provided before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 230-F of the constitution.
In the chapter relating to the principles of policy, the constitution gives top priority to the state’s adoption of a social policy in consonance with the state religion, i.e Islam. Article 31 of the constitution, laying down the first principle of policy, provides as follows:
‘(1) Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with t he fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.
(2) The state shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan:
(a) to make the teaching of the Holy Qur’an and Islamiyat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language and to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Holy Qur’an.
(b) to promote unity and the observance of zakah, ushr, auqaf and mosques.
Likewise, Article 37, dealing with the principles of policy regarding promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils, provides in its clauses (g) and (h) that the state shall:
‘(g) prevent prostitution, gambling and taking of injurious drugs, printing, publishing, circulation and display of obscene literature and advertisements;
(h) prevent the consumption of alcoholic liquor otherwise than for medicinal and, in the case of -Muslims, religious purposes;
In the economic field, the constitution of Pakistan, in its Article 38(f), requires the state to ‘eliminate riba as early as possible’ and Article (31)(2)(c) thereof requires the state ‘to secure the proper organisation of zakah and ushr’ so that a truly Islamic welfare State could be established in Pakistan.
One can notice in the constitution of Pakistan an Islamic tilt even in the matter of foreign policy to be adopted by the state. Article 40 of the Constitution provides that:
‘The State shall endeavour to preserve and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries based on Islamic unity, support the common interests of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, promote international peace and security, foster goodwill and friendly relations among all nations and encourage the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.’
Now if the state is not functioning as laid down in the constitution, it is our duty to strengthen the constitution. But what has happened in the past? Why has a constitutional democracy not functioned in Pakistan?? Because army and mullah have allied to sabotage that. Whenever army has violated the constitution, it has found a readily available ally in the form of Mullah. If democracy , as laid down by the constitution of Pakistan, had been given a chance to flourish, today, our leaders would have been far better than Zaradari, Sharifs etc. But establishment ( Pakistani army, intelligence agencies and Mullahs) have never let that happen. Who has to be blamed and punished for it? Not the poor people of Pakistan , pukhtoonkhwa or Swat at least.
Let me look at it from another angle. Since the creation of Pakistan, religio-political parties like JI and JUI have been working through the parliamentary system to achieve their deigns ..( whatever they are-I am not going into that). Was that wrong? If that was , these parties should announce openly giving up parliamentary politics for Talibani violence. If not, then they should not support any islamization through extra-parliamentary mean. Why this dichotomy? And what about those famous Ulemas sitting in Lahore and Karachi ( Dr Israr, Tahir Ul Qadri, Maulana Rafi Usmani, Taqi Usmani etc) who had always maintained that the role of Ulema is only to to preach, persuade and educate. Were they wrong and Taliban are right?
I remember meeting Qazi Hussain Ahmad at Mansoora in 1997-98 with a group of Professors from a College in the Mohmand agency. During question/answer session, I asked him about the process of Islamization by Taliban in Afghanistan. His reply was, “ Taliban are uneducated and rustic people who are interpreting Islam in a very crude , tribal way. I have not been able to find a single instance of forcing people to grow beard or go to prayers in the pages of Seerah or life of Sahaba or Islamic History. Beard has to do more with culture. If we come to power, we would educate and persuade people to grow beard and offer their prayers but never force them.”.( This is a rough translation of Qazi Sahib’s reply in Pahsto)..
I believe that was the correct stance . For anyone who wants to bring about an Islamic ( or any other) revolution, education and persuasion of people is the only legitimate way.
Now let me give you some clear injuctions from the Holy Quarn that shows that there is no compulsion in religion, that the duty of the Holy Prophet is to warn, educate, give glad tidings and invite to the path of Allah with wisdom ( Hikmah) and high-quality preaching (Moizittil hasanah)
"Say: Oh you that reject the faith!
I do not worship that which you worship,
Nor will you worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which you have been accustomed to worship.
Nor will you worship that which I worship.
You have your way and I have mine." – Qur’an English Translation [109:1-6]
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things."– Qur’an English Translation [2:256]
Compulsion is defined by Dictionary.com as: the act of compelling; constraint; coercion. Again we see DIRECT evidence from the Qur'an speaking out against forcing faith on people.
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful high-quality preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." – Qur’an English Translation [16:125]
His job is not to force belief on anyone but to simply give admonition (advice, warning, and counsel) to those around him. The Qur'an is a mercy sent from God so that people may take heed of God's final revelation to mankind in order to benefit their own souls:
"And We have sent thee (O Muhammad) only as a bearer of good tidings and a warner. Say: "No reward do I ask of you for it but this: that each one who will may take a (straight) Path to his." - Qur’an English Translation [25:56-57]
"Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: but he that strays injures his own soul. And thou art not a custodian over - Qur’an English Translation [39:41]
"And those who take as protectors others besides Him,- Allah doth watch over them; and thou art not their warden." - Qur’an English Translation [42:6]
"Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message)." - Qur’an English Translation [24:54]
"And to rehearse the Qur'an: and if any accept guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any stray, say: "I am only a Warner." - Qur’an English Translation [27:92]
"Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. But if any turn away and reject Allah, -Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment," - Qur’an English Translation [88:21-24]
"Say thou: "This is my way: I do invite unto Allah,- on evidence clear as the seeing with one's eyes,- I and whoever follows me. Glory to Allah. and never will I join gods with Allah." - Qur’an English Translation [12:108]
"So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger. but if ye turn back, the duty of Our Messenger is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly. Allah. There is no god but He: and on Allah, therefore, let the Believers put their trust." - Qur’an English Translation [64:12-13]
"But if any reject Faith, let not his rejection grieve thee: to Us is their return, and We shall tell them the truth of their deeds: for Allah knows well all that is in (men's) hearts." - Qur’an English Translation [31:23]
"And let nothing keep thee back from the Signs of Allah after they have been revealed to thee: and invite (men) to thy Lord, and be not of the company of those who join gods with Allah." - Qur’an English Translation [28:87]
Clearly, if someone chooses the path of disbelief than that is their choice. As Muslims we are only responsible for our own souls on the Day of Judgment. As the Qur'an clearly instructs and as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) demonstrated; faith cannot be forced upon anyone. The repercussions of disbelief come from God alone, for as people we are not the disposers of other's affairs.
God tells us to actually forgive those who do no look forward to being near to God:
"Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah. It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each People according to what they have earned. If any one does a righteous deed, it ensures to the benefit of his own soul; if he does evil, it works against (his own soul). In the end will ye (all) be brought back to your Lord." - Qur’an English Translation [45:14-15]
"And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!"" - Qur’an English Translation [25:63]
Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! As to those who believe and work righteousness, verily We shall not suffer to perish the reward of any who do a (single) righteous deed. - Qur’an English Translation [18:29-30]
The author is a Management Professional based in Canada. He originally comes from Swat and his intellectual interests lie in Islam, Political-economy and Public Policy . He can be reached at tayyab@swatvalley.org
Comment