Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Mullah, Mosque & State

14 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Mullah, Mosque & State

One of the serious surmises that is being proliferated by most of the Muslim vocal clergy is their long-drawn-out & fatal misconception. They believe firmly that they alone as a community have the exclusive right to rule. What is the logic for this fallacy? Simply because they assume they are better Muslims than the others. Perhaps they have developed some chronic perplexity given the constraint in their minds about themselves as well as about Islam.

To comprehend the mystery and chemistry of a mullah it is necessary to scan this species in history. So the prime question is; what is a Mullah? The most vocal & choral species in our decaying society; generally a crude, rude, alienated, customary & quasi literate person, lacking knowledge - wrapping their head with some head cover, wearing loose trouser, disorderly over the ankles and is supposed to perform some routine type religious rituals, mostly by default, is known as a Mullah. And those, among them who have procured some sanad (viz certificate) from any quasi-teaching seminary they conceit themselves as great thinkers. A Mullah as we observe in the society has nothing to do with knowledge ordinarily, for he grows in quarantine. A person whose religious knowledge is acknowledged is called scholar (viz Aalim) and never a Mullah.

The biting wit is; that if one tries to argue with them; that none among the human community has the right as a community to claim ruling as prerogative. And that overall competence is a must for a person to rule - and that limited expertise in some religious rituals is no qualification to rule a nation. They, on this would skip by saying that there was no concept of separation of State and Mosque - as had been according to them was the case of Church & State in Christianity. But this is also one of the misperceptions (viz hypothesis) they have been selling wittingly. In Islam right from the first Prophet Adam (PBUH) to our last Prophet, Mohammad (PBUH) - all of them were the Highest Righteous, the Greatest Statesmen and the Outstanding Highbrows Personas - and none of them were a Mullah. All the Prophets (PBUT) were caused to live in inclusion with others, so as observe, experience, comprehend and taste all the ground realties of life practically. Likewise none of the four ‘Caliphs the Righteous’ were a Mullah and similar was the case afterwards. Poles apart, from Mullahs who born, grow and live in seclusion and thus suffers from worthlessness, senselessness, tastelessness and mindlessness. It is through leading a practical life alone which can lead you to practical knowledge and practical world.

And above all, so far the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as well as the four Caliphs the Righteous were concerned, they were exceptions in all round brilliance and nobody can either catch or match them in any excellence. Moreover, those whose skill were believed to have restricted to performing the rituals; they had never interfered in the state affairs.

So much so that ‘Ashab-e-Suffa’ albeit they were the highest and luminous religious scholars and they had devoted, confined and spared their entire lives for learning and spreading the religious knowledge - nonetheless none of them had ever tried either by themselves or through others to be indulged in politics as of right even in the lifetime of Mohammad (PBUH). Allah Almighty has commended their devotion towards the knowledge and endorsed their selflessness, moral fiber and sincerity in Holy Qur’an in the words: “(Charity is) for those in need, who, In Allah’s cause are restricted (from travel), and cannot move about in the land, seeking (for trade or work): the ignorant man thinks, because of their modesty, that They are free from want. Thou shalt know them by their (Unfailing) mark: They beg not importunately from all the sundry. And whatever of good ye give, be assured Allah knoweth it well.” (Surah Al- Baqarah: 2-273)

And similar was the case afterwards in period of ‘Caliphate the Righteous’. Thus if none among the scholars of that high caliber had ever claimed to be the exclusive community who alone should rule the Muslims - then how a Mullah who with a little exception, can’t do anything, can aver to be the exclusive right holder of power?

It is an admitted fact that the overwhelming number of our current day Mullah lot is simply uncouth incarnate - and they are not different from our quacks, for most of them are Mullahs simply because they happened to be from Mullahs background. Similarly as quacks are quacks because they happened to be hailed from such background. Thus if a quack is not competent to meddle with public health then how a habitual Mullah may be allowed to play havoc with the nation’s national, physical, political as well as spiritual being? Who else other than Allah Almighty can know better that governance has been inclusively a peerless art and is entirely a different assignment? And this is why that statecraft always requires the extraordinary all-round skill and competence as prerequisite. And that’s why that all the Prophets were the most chosen adroit and practical personas in terms of all round talent. Ergo in the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty Order has been, “VERILY ALLAH COMMANDS THAT YOU TO MAKEOVER TRUSTS TO THOSE WORTHY OF THEM”. (Surah Nisa: 4 -58). The milieu under which this verse was revealed makes the meaning of this verse further glistening. If a person is believed to have learned riding a motorbike, this does not mean to maintain that he can cruise the ship of over 140 millions Muslims on board without prerequisite thereof. Similarly if a Mullah has learned performing a few religious rituals this does not mean that he alone has been privileged to rule.

What is the importance of competence for he who would govern is evident from this Holy Verse as well: “THEIR PROPHET VIZ SAMUEL (AS) SAID UNTO THEM: LO! ALLAH HATH RAISED UP SAUL (VIZ TALOOTH) TO BE A KING FOR YOU. THEY SAID: HOW CAN HE HAVE KINGDOM OVER US WHEN WE ARE MORE DESERVING OF THE KINGDOM THAN HE IS, SINCE HE HATH NOT BEEN GIVEN WEALTH ENOUGH? HE SAID: LO! ALLAH HATH CHOSEN HIM ABOVE YOU, AND HATH INCREASED HIM ABUNDANTLY IN WISDOM AND STATURE. ALLAH BESTOWETH HIS SOVEREIGNTY ON WHOM HE WILL. ALLAH IS ALL-EMBRACING, ALL-KNOWING” - (Surah Al-Baqarah 2-247). This verse establishes the fact that given the old age of the Prophet Samuel PBUH, Allah Almighty preferred to choose some one else for the political arena of those Muslims.

According to my humble opinion it was from the early Muslims whom ‘they’ (most of the non-Muslims of the west) learnt from, the worthiest secret of statecraft that by keeping their clergy (viz Church) away from the state (viz state affairs) thereafter alone a state could be set to prosper. And to keep them away, it was necessary to keep them busy in purely religious rituals - and be paid for handsomely.

But one must bear in mind that I don’t mean to say that religion has nothing to do with the helm of affairs of a state so far as the religion of Islam is concerned. What I mean to convey more articulately is; that in Islamic polity, the religion of course shall be the heart of the politics. For, by doing so there will be all virtues within on one hand and no harm whatsoever outside on the other. But so far the helm of affairs are concerned they shall be run by those who are worthy thereof. Meaning thereby that acquaintance which would be limited simply to religious rituals shall not be the credential to rule - and that including the Islamic Knowledge, all round competence in all the relevant and contemporary fields shall be germane for those who will be in the helm of state affairs. In other words that mind setup of a person who would be the leader shall be the yardstick and not the getup of a person.

The quirk of fate of most of Muslim folk has been the misconception that if a person is not within the aforementioned getup of a Mullah - or particularly one who use to wear some rational apparel then he can’t be considered a person who can understand Islam. Whereas in fact I have never ever seen any Mullah at least in our country whose attire is according to the Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). And this is why that you won’t observe two Mullahs in similar attire or even in similar head cover. Each Mullah wears his own designed head cover and appears in his own style of attire. Thus howsoever a person may be well skilled in ideology of Islam but if he is not in the getup of Mullahs, is hardly be accepted as cerebral in Islam by Mullahs and their cohorts.

If supposed, a politician is deficient in religious ritual knowledge, he can be boosted up by a scholar consultant of high integrity easily - but so far Mullah’s over all deficiency is concerned it has no cure whatsoever. But so far the overwhelming majority of our Mullahs are concerned they are neither scholars nor politicians - they can neither understand the substance of Shariat nor the spirit. Similar is their caliber vis-à-vis the worldly affairs given the limited and restricted origin they have been coming up from.

Furthermore, the more a cleric would be genuine the more it would be hard for him to take part in the smeared game of politics, given his constrained and well ordered orthodox life. To be good politician flexibility is a must for him - but quite counter is the case with a true cleric. To perform rituals needs quite different capabilities as compared to performing a political role. And this is why that all emphasis of the Allah Almighty in making over portfolios has been upon the competence of the incumbent. A true cleric is not supposed to maneuver according to the contour of the attending circumstances, for he interprets the sirathum-mustaqeem (viz straight path of Shariat) as walking all along straightly. While, every political persona conversely, always needs to run the vehicle of his nation according to the emerging outline of the political boulevard. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) by choosing the meticulous intricacy during the Holy Journey of Hijrah (migration) from ‘Mecca the Blessed’ to ‘Medina the Radiant’ proved the importance of raison d’etre. Similarly was His (PBUH) stratagem throughout the Islamic Movement.

To illustrate my opinion I would like to say that one must not forget the difference between the maneuvering of Omar bin al Aas (RA) (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abumusa Ashary (RA) (may Allah be pleased with him) at the most crucial juncture of the Muslim history during the Jang-e-Saffain (viz War of Saffain fought between Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) & Muavia bin Abi Safyan (RA) and its aftermath. A politician can afford altering the gear of the political vehicle according to the intricate voyage - whereas a true cleric cannot think or afford to do so. And this is why that JUI Supremo, Maulana Fazl-e-Rehman chosen a non Mullah for the highest slot of chief ministership of NWFP - isn’t that?

If a Mullah is genuine and say he may be gold even but gold cannot be molded into weapons or wares and if a Mullah is not genuine then he is called fake, means of no use for any sake. No genius is required to appreciate and differentiate between the demands which are inevitable for a fighter and the demands which are inescapable for a true cleric. Similar is the case and pace between a politician and a cleric. If even a player of ping pong is not supposed to play wrestling then how a cleric can claim that he, given his clerical background simply has the right to rule - and outclass any other person simply for the reason that his outfit is not of a cleric? But one must not misconstrue my conclusion, for I don’t mean to convey that all those persons who have been winning glory for Muslims were not good Muslims by themselves - or who would be a cleric, politics shall be tabooed for him merely because he is cleric. Likewise a cleric can’t claim the right to rule simply because of his clerical background.

All the four Caliphs the Righteous were the best Muslims on one hand and were the best strategists on the other. Successors of four the ‘Caliphs the Righteous’ were also the best in terms of strategies and thus were successful leaders in the world. So far the question of their Islam is concerned; Allah Almighty alone has the measuring tape to gauge one’s inner being.

The world has witnessed a number of huge Muslim Empires of assortment throughout the history e.g. Umayyad Empire, Abbasid Empire, Mamluk Empire, Seljuk Empire, Mughal Empire, Afghan Empire and Ottoman Empire but none of them had been a cleric empire or Mullah Empire. Similar has been the case of non-Muslim Empires viz Nubian Empire, Persian Empire, Ancient Greek Empire, Ancient Roman Empire, Mauryan Empire, Mongolian Empire, Russian Empire and British Empire but none of them had been a clerical empire. So it is a historical fact that lot of clerics has been like a wild plants self sown and self grown entity and have never been a lasting tree.

The most formidable loss due to the Mullahs addiction of politics to the Muslim Ummah has been the overall sectarianism and divergence among the Muslims throughout the world. Pros and cons, and to be follower or resister towards the ruler is very much normal phenomenon – hence sectarianism and divergence among the Muslims shall be the direct outcome if a Mullah would be the ruler. Because Mullah carries out everything in the name of Shariat hence any slip of a Mullah is equated to breach of Shariat and hence defiance by other clerics. Conversely, in case of a non-Mullah ruler, no Mullah is blamed for the error and thus that does not warrant any religious defiance but at the most some political defiance only.

As an individual every one does have the right to yearn for serving the nation - but as community none of them has the right to claim politics his/her hereditary right. Thus what I want to convey is; that getup as well as setup of mind of a true cleric is such which can not be supposed to find it conducive to be indulged in every affairs comfortably like any other person who has the competence to lead. For instance; a scholar could not be supposed to play football, boxing, wrestling or any other sport in a tournament but this does not mean that sports are tabooed for them however if they don’t play the better. Similarly a film actor could not be supposed to be a Mullah unless and until he adopts the prerequisites. Exceptions are everywhere of course - but one must not forget that exceptions always prove the rules.

Now, I submit a plain illustration as food for thought simply. What is the significance of hygiene, generally and in our Islam particularly? Our Grand Prophet Mohammad (SAW) has declared purity as half faith in Islam. But how the Mullahs have been running the Mosques in Pakistan particularly in terms of purity as well as in terms of unity? The answer is very second-rate. Whenever one is going around in our different streets, it would be revealed that we have made the nose-drilling stink of urine as the hallmark of our Mosques. So far unity is concerned - Mullahs have shaped us everything but Muslim, given their venomous fanaticism against one another. They alone are responsible absolutely for all the divergence among the Muslims. For, in a recently held survey the overwhelming majority of common Muslims all over the world have held that they prefer themselves to be described as Muslim only and with no suffix or prefix of any sectarian origin.

After having mutilated our Mosques Mullahs are now relentless to deform our state. I have never heard any Mullah who has tried ever to emancipate entrances of our Mosque from the urinals, let alone taking some serious exception from this longstanding pest. If this has been the track record of Mullahs regarding the Mosques – and regarding the divergence among the Muslims - and if they have failed miserably to mange the Mosques purity or Muslims unity then they must not thirst their soul for running a state!!!

Throughout the history Mullahs have never been in power, nor are they supposed to make a fuss of that. This tragedy occurred for the first time in Afghanistan - and Mullah’s rule ruined the whole region. The bottom line in precision is that the we, the Muslims must choose between the Mullah and Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You need to give the source as to who wrote and where it came from, otherwise, this should be deleted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You need to give the source as to who wrote and where it came from, otherwise, this should be deleted

Khan Saheb,

It may not be from a publication. This could very well be Mr. Abisafyan's own thoughts. There is some truth in the post unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Khan Saheb,

It may not be from a publication. This could very well be Mr. Abisafyan's own thoughts. There is some truth in the post unfortunately.

Very well written piece. I would like to more read from this writter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Khan Saheb,

It may not be from a publication. This could very well be Mr. Abisafyan's own thoughts. There is some truth in the post unfortunately.

Ture sir. Very sad example is Qazi Hussain's Jamat Islami. They called them self a religious/political Jamat but In reality they are Murderers and killers. I have persoanlly have seen their members murdering fellow student and a friend of mine. But no justice was served. Sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It is highest confusion, author is trying to make a sharia observing people a community whereas it is desired that everyperson should be sharia observing.There is no concept of clergy in islam but why we have them is simplly

1.Old hindu traditions of brahmin respect (like mullahs in villages are just to perform rituals)village mullah is repected in the same way with no influence in politics.

2.Mostly they are the people with nothing else to do and no education or skill.

3.people are away from religion and religious education that is why they instead of performing religious rituals themselves try to higher a mullah.whereas burial,marriage etc there is no ritual involved at all.

Your point about mullah in politics can you tell what are the qualifications for your PHILOSOPHER KING?I have my reservations about your opinion that wisdom only comes through westeren education system there is world where people do not speak english or chose not to speak it and still they are doing fine in politics.Islam has a standred of morality for state officials including head of state.In Islam supreme ruler is Allah and hadood allah has to be observed,state in islam is a moral enterprize who exists to create a society basing on justice with in the sepheres of sharia and combind economical well being of the subjects who all including rulers have same status once it comes to shariah.It is welfare state and ruler is selected on the basis of taqwa not qualifications.The performance of babus since last 60 years is evident that the westeren education and politics has contributed negatively in the state but we need to bring the madrassa graduates into mainstream jobs so that people should start religious education in places like atchison college etc instead of the charity based madrassa,s where we prefer

to send our handicaped childeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You need to give the source as to who wrote and where it came from, otherwise, this should be deleted

Mr. HK,

Why do you asking in this weird & outlandish manner? What is written, is the voice of my faith as a Muslim and I am proud of, without shilly-shallying!!! Do you be aware of now?

One thing more, you are asking about source. My principal sources are two; firstly, The Holy Qur’an, secondly, The Holy Sunnah, have you gone through ever? I mean to give you the reference by mentioning the name of the Holy Surah & number of the Holy Verse; I am relying upon, so as to avoid the drawn out posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Khan Saheb,

There is some truth in the post unfortunately.

dear pshamim,

Why can't there be some truth in a post fortunately?My googness!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Assalam-O-Alaikum wa rahmatullah hi wa barakatuh

Abu sufian how are you? I am not sure if it is proper of me to post a reply to your article but religious matters are sensitive and a proper representation of a religion as pure as Islam is very important. So my intent here is not to put your effort or you down but to mention a few points that i feel are important in regards with Islam and the nation of Islam. Let me go ahead and also mention that I was unable to read the whole article as it was too long (look who is speaking) so my comments are limited to what i did read.

Let me first begin by mentioning a few point that I am sure you would be interested in, in order to expand your research. First the distinction you make b/w the scholars and the leaders is simply incorrect for all the 4 caliphs where considered the greatest of the scholars. Even today we know the opinion of, for e.g., Omer ® regarding marriage with the women of people of the book that had nothing to do with his role as the leader of the believers. Good number of the sahabah ® accepted his opinion in this regard without any second guessing while few others rejected it as is the case with any of the other scholars. Again, this did not become the law of the land rather it was accepted as the scholarly opinion of Omer ® and was/is taught as such even today. And again this is just one of the examples.

As far as the ritualistic authority is concern, as mentioned earlier by someone, this sound like a concept from hinduism not Islam. Two points in this regard, first even though linguistically one may use the word "ritual" to describe prayers (for ease of explanation only that is); in true meaning the concept of worship and the essence of prayer (salah), zakah, fasting and hajj and others cannot be described as ritualistic, as should be obvious from this very list of acts of worship. Second, there is no hierarchy in islam and a "ritual" may be performed by anyone that is more capable, as I am sure you are aware, so much so that at times even young boys carry out these duties in the mosques around the world. I feel that your intention is to single out the appointed imams of the mosques but unfortunately, your emotions and your explanation is getting tangled up and the final message is truly very different. Yet going back to the point of the separation b/w leaders and the scholars though, even if you were to disagree with the aforementioned points, it should be clear that the first caliph Abu Baker ® was appointed to lead the prayers (so a ritual according to your definition) in the life of the Prophet (SW) and indeed all four continued to lead the people in prayers and deliver khutbahs all through their tenure as caliphs as well.

You also seem to limit the scholars to ashab-us-suffah which is grossly incorrect. Ibn Massod ®, Ibn Abbass® and Ziad-ibn-thabit ® are considered THE authority in the mattes of Quran, at the same time we know a great deal about the manners a husband must maintained towards his wives (and many other matters) from Aishah ® and people would travel from far to learn from her®. Ziad-ibn-thabit ® on the other hand use to record the verses of Quran in the life of the Prophet (SW), he was also a translator for the Prophet of Allah (SW) and was on the committee which collected Quran from cover to cover. Yet to my knowledge neither him ® nor any other ® mentioned above are among ashab-us-suffah. On the other hand, consider Abu Hurairah ® he is one of the prominent members of Ashab-us-suffah and from him we've learnt tremendous amount of knowledge yet he also served as a governor in his later life. So again I feel there is no such distinction b/w the scholars and the leaders as you seem to indicate.

Finally, from an authentic narration, to give you one example, we know that the Prophet (SW) chose a leader for an expedition based on how much he ® had memorized Surah Al-baqarah. I mention this here not to counter your point regarding competence rather to impress upon you that the authentic knowledge of Islam should be gained and used to FORM ones values not to prove them. For in the latter case you limit yourself to only the relevant knowledge and indeed great ignorance. While I also understand your frustration towards the "mullahs" (this I find to be a generational phenomenon), if one analyzes the situation justly he will find that their influence on the society, for one reason or the other, is rather limited. The greatest harm to our society has come from the "intellectuals" who have helped grow a generation of intellectually challenged individuals who are at best a bad imitation of the west. Their creative skills, for the majority, simply does not exist and even their choices, likes and dislikes, remain enslaved to their psychological masters. For whatever its worth this statement truly represents my personal experiences and observations not my emotions. While I may not agree with the attitude and may be even the knowledge of the "mullah", I assure you that i do find them making more sense than most intellectuals may be just not as eloquently.

Lastly, my post, if you can believe it, was a reflection rather than a challenge. I hope you are able to understand my point of view and I certainly hope that I did not end up offending you or any other person especially from another religion. That certainly was not the intention. Please accept my apology in advance for my ignorance.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Mashallah what a nice reflection. I never could have come up with such words to express these points. Very well expressed and i hope Abisafyan will take these points into consideration when writing about this issue which in my personal view is also an outcome of our populations own ignorance. Religion has long been used as a tool since medieval times for controlling people. Niccolo Machiavelli also hinted towards using religion for political gain and ever since all over the globe it has been widely used and abused. Pakistan is no exception. This is why I donot totally agree with the Islamic political parties as they focus on bringing Islamic law first and then try to make people follow it. The result will be the same as Taliban in Afghanistan. When people themselves are not ready and donot want Islamic law no matter even if they say they do, then it just cannot happen. People say they would like Islamic law but as today it will require sacrifice , and no one is ready to make them. These will first of all be controlling ones self, coming to the right path( not five times prayer and roza but 24/7 all amals including especially interaction with others the islamic way ) and then trying to influence others, the way Sahaba taught Islam. So I would recommend they work on the people first and preach Islam and the society will transform into an Islamic one Inshallah. But what Musharraf sahib is doing with the Madrassas will only give the political Mullas good reason to sow seeds of discontentment among the illiterate masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Quote: “if one analyzes the situation justly he will find that their influence on the society, for one reason or the other, is rather limited. The greatest harm to our society has come from the "intellectuals" who have helped grow a generation of intellectually challenged individuals who are at best a bad imitation of the west. Their creative skills, for the majority, simply does not exist and even their choices, likes and dislikes, remain enslaved to their psychological masters. … i do find them making more sense than most intellectuals may be just not as eloquently.”

Thanks Minhaj for setting the record straight. Let us be fair and blame Mullah for his rightful share of troubles he causes in our society; nothing more, nothing less.

Seculars have much greater influence through Mass Media, NGOs, etc. Their relentless non-stop brainwashing is to convince us that the only way to look ‘Cool’ is if we act, look, and think like ‘White Trash’ or sympathetic local ‘Brown Trash.’ They may not even be Seculars; just a Charade and what they actually want is that we move away from our religion while they may remain ‘true believers.’

In our neighborhood or in City we can always compare the number of people in the Mosques during prayer time or walking outside. These numbers may change during the month of Ramadan but not throughout the year. I don’t think we even have enough Mosque Space to accommodate everyone.

Majority of our problems are due to extremists and not Mullahs. An Extremist is a person who is 100% sure; so sure that even violence may be used to further their cause. What we do forget is that these Extremists may be Secular, Non-Secular or anything in-between! For example, we know all the violence caused by Russian Communists, Japanese during WW II, etc.

These Mullahs are also sometimes criticized because either these Mullahs challenge their life style, or steal their votes, or simply because these Mullahs belong to a certain group; expecting a free ride for their own Mullahs to practice and preach whatever they want! Thus they have ulterior motives and aren’t honestly interested in either to analyze or solve all ills in our country. In a civilized society even a Mass Murderer’s rights can’t be denied.

Some Mullahs aren’t literate enough but their critics aren’t all full of wisdom either. If we want ‘Ulema’ to replace these Mullahs then there should be more Mainstream and Standard ‘Madrassas’, not less! We need to prioritize; why should the disabled child become a Mullah while others become professionals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It is highest confusion, author is trying to make a sharia observing people a community whereas it is desired that everyperson should be sharia observing.There is no concept of clergy in islam but why we have them is simplly

1.Old hindu traditions of brahmin respect (like mullahs in villages are just to perform rituals)village mullah is repected in the same way with no influence in politics.

2.Mostly they are the people with nothing else to do and no education or skill.

3.people are away from religion and religious education that is why they instead of performing religious rituals themselves try to higher a mullah.whereas burial,marriage etc there is no ritual involved at all.

Your point about mullah in politics can you tell what are the qualifications for your PHILOSOPHER KING?I have my reservations about your opinion that wisdom only comes through westeren education system there is world where people do not speak english or chose not to speak it and still they are doing fine in politics.Islam has a standred of morality for state officials including head of state.In Islam supreme ruler is Allah and hadood allah has to be observed, state in islam is a moral enterprize who exists to create a society basing on justice with in the sepheres of sharia and combind economical well being of the subjects who all including rulers have same status once it comes to shariah.It is welfare state and ruler is selected on the basis of taqwa not qualifications.The performance of babus since last 60 years is evident that the westeren education and politics has contributed negatively in the state but we need to bring the madrassa graduates into mainstream jobs so that people should start religious education in places like atchison college etc instead of the charity based madrassa,s where we prefer

to send our handicaped childeren

What is Taqwa ? Can u please explain ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What is Taqwa ? Can u please explain ?

poisness litraly means if you are walking through thorny bushes and you save your clothes from thorns like you dodge them carefuly same way a poise person is suppose to save himself from sins against Allah as well as sins aginst human beings.To be percise Ameer ul momineen,s or head of states previous life has to be scandal free as well as his officials lives too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Is the Mullah-Military nexus crumbling?
 

MUBASHIR ZAIDI
 

The latest statement from the military blasting chief of the Jamaat-i-Islami Munawar Hasan for undermining the sacrifices made by the soldiers fighting terrorists has shocked many in the capital. The JI traditionally, has been the mouthpiece for the military during the 1980s Afghan jihad and fighting in Kashmir. It’s also established that the army had used the Jamaat’s street power to put democratic governments under pressure through controlled or sometimes out of control protests. It is also believed that there is a huge following of JI in the armed forces. Even the arrests of Al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from the residences of JI activists has not affected the military-JI relations in the past.

So, is it a signalling of sorts that the military is trying to portray itself as a national army now as compared to its earlier image of an ideological force whose notion of jihad is similar to Jamaat-i-Islami?

But what prompted this strong reaction by the military needs to be examined. Even pragmatic military rulers like Pervez Musharraf had to seek help from the JI to prolong his tenure. Then why is it that the Jamaat and the military are finding themselves at the crossroads today?

The issue of missing persons that began in 2006 started the rift between the traditional partners when JI followers that included lawyers approached the courts for the release of what they claimed were innocent civilians who were arrested by military intelligence agencies on the allegations of supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The courts took up the cases and started questioning the role of the military behind these forced disappearances. JI-backed lawyers were pressurised by the military to drop these cases and to stop pursuing the matter. But the cases continued, despite the fact that they did not reach their logical conclusions.

The issue of drone strikes has been the main issue which alienated the powerful establishment from hardcore religious parties. The Jamaat has always been protesting US-backed drone strikes, claiming that the strikes kill civilians. But covertly, the military had a verbal standing with the US over the drone strikes. During 2004-2008, drones struck on Pakistan’s request. This was even testified by Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani who claimed in his new book that the former Taliban chief, Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a drone strike requested by the Pakistan army.

The last time the Jamaat acted in support of the military was on the Raymond Davis issue, when the military is believed to have used the religious activists to hype up the matter so as to trigger nation-wide protests. But many believe that in the end the army itself showed the US how to get their man in Pakistan custody by using an Islamic law of Qisas and Diyat. And so it happened that the Jamaat was left red-faced.

Just like the Pakistan military transformed into a national army in the past few years rather than the ‘Pak fauj’ as it still is fondly called in Pakistan for decades now, the Jamaat continued to lose its political ground as people in general started to question the Jamaat’s policy and its refusal to transform into a political force rather than a hardcore religious outfit.

Come Munawar Hasan, the incumbent chief who is known for his rigid views and little political insight as compared to his predecessor Qazi Hussain Ahmed. The Jamaat continued to find it hard to connect with the people. The elections in 2008 and 2013 proved that the people of Pakistan are not thinking the same way as the Jamaat leadership. But the new Jamaat leadership did not alter its way and things eventually came to a head.

The killing of Pakistani Taliban Hakeemullah Mehsud in a US drone strike alienated the Jamaat and even other political parties including the PML(N) and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf from the response from the people in general which approved the killing of the TTP chief if not the drone strike by the US.

On the other hand, the military which was believed to have been already fuming at the peace overtures by the incumbent government to the Taliban despite the killing of their Major General Sanaullah Niazi, the recent statements of political leaders were not taken well. The JI chief Munawar Hasan stepped up the rhetoric by first declaring Hakeemullah Mehsud a martyr and later questioned whether the soldiers fighting against the Taliban were martyrs. This prompted the military to issue a stinging response not only condemning the JI chief’s statement as misleading and irresponsible but also accused him of insulting the sacrifices of Pakistani soldiers.

Although it is too premature to say that the military is signaling the end of its long standing policy of using religious parties to silence logic and vibrant political thought process in the country, but, at least, the realisation in the military to support mainstream political parties instead of hardcore religious parties is beginning to sink in.

Whether it remains the case when the change of guard in the army takes place later this month or else, is yet to be seen. All indications are that the military is in the process of reviewing its support for such parties but only after they came back to haunt the military after decades of clandestine support.

Is the mullah-military nexus crumbling? - DAWN.COM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0