On Goes the Circus

The upcoming twin Marches on 14^th August, ostensibly there to remove corruption from Pakistan, are nothing more than distraction. Leaders of the two parties Imran Khan of Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf and Tahir Ul Qadri of Pakistan Awami Tehreek are working to establish confidence in the existing system by attacking an individual and not the mechanism of law making.

Imran's most notable achievement to date is the infusion of life in democracy, a system that by repeatedly failing the people was on life support after the Zardari regime. By mobilising the youth and selling them the slogan of Naya Pakistan he reversed the chronic apathy that had taken root and by then taking on power in KPK legitimised PML-Ns hold on power, not to mention endorsing democracy and its ways of placing legislation in the hands of corruptible law makers.

TuQ's container antics last time were in a similar vein, appealing to a more religiously inclined and generally older conservative demographic within the population to that of Imran’s. With much the same noise and fanfare TuQ, a long term resident of Canada, returned all of a sudden in Jan 2013 with suspected military blessing to demand the dissolution of the Electoral commission and early dissolution of the National Assembly ahead of the General Election of 2013. At the time he called for the military to be involved in picking a caretaker government, a sure fire way to spook anyone wanting to avoid another dictatorship out of their apathy and to take part in the democratic process. Yet a mere month later all of these demands were dropped, given that much pent up steam within the population against the antics of politicians had successfully been released in TuQ’s march. TuQ, 7* container and all, departed the scene once more only to return a few ago.

The objectives of these marches are to once again cement faith in the faltering democracy in the face of pathetic results. A recent survey of 84 countries by the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research service found that in 2012 Pakistanis were spending 47.7% of their income on food, the highest ratio of any of the countries surveyed. Inflation is set to rocket once more as CNG, used in more than 4 million vehicles in the country, is set to be replaced by costly LNG which. This will lead to an estimated increase in fuel costs of Rs 170 over the standard cost of filling a CNG tank of Rs600, an approximately staggering 28%. This will not only affect the individual consumer but have an inflationary effect across the entire economy as the costs of transportation affect all goods that need to move from one place to another. To top this off debt stock as a percentage of GDP, which was 29.2pc in 2009, rose to 42.2pc in FY13 and there is no indication of this trend reversing. 

It has always been lamented that there are no institutions in Pakistan and the electoral commission is seen as a key body that can be projected as making the democratic set up 'accountable'. But Nawaz is going on nowhere on 14th August; he is corrupt but then so is every other party. He is following the foreign agenda both on the economy and on foreign policy. Economically he is slavishly following the agenda of the IMF in selling off huge amounts of govt assets ranging from areas in Oil and Gas, Telecoms and infrastructure in exchange for paltry bailouts. As for foreign policy he is happily pursuing America's war in Waziristan, an operation which has long been desired due to NATO admitting to the problem resistance fighters put up to its occupation of Afghanistan from Pakistan.  Therefore to remove Nawaz is to put these endeavours at risk, something which America and its stooges in the military top brass would not allow. There is no appetite for the army to take over in any area of influence for said reasons, so you won't see 'Mere Azziz Humwatno' from Raheel any time soon.

The drive for all this is ultimately to keep a circus going that distracts people from the main issues of being engaged in America's war in Waziristan, structural problems with the economy driven by a Capitalist agenda and fundamental problems in the law making process which continually enables thieves to occupy politics through acts like NRO. With an eye on the Middle East where people are beginning to question and are struggling against their secular overlords, it would be most untenable for the secular military/political establishment if public opinion is for the establishment of an Islamic System which would challenge not just their petty thrones but also the geo political objectives of their Western masters. The most realistic outcome of this charade is a reformed Electoral Commission of sorts, so that people will again wait with baited breath for the next election of the circus that is politics in Pakistan.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 14th August 2014 on Asia Times Online as Parades in Pakistan's Political Circus

Pakistan's Constitution Conundrum

Published on 21/02/14

Recent talks between the Pakistani government and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have ignited a discussion regarding the Islamic legitimacy of the country's constitution. The TTP's claim at the start of the talks that the constitution is not Islamic and the government's assertion of the opposite have spawned debate in talk shows and in livings rooms throughout Pakistan this topic has been dissected.

The present discussion is framed within the context of bringing an end to the violence plaguing Pakistan since the United States arrived in the region post-9/11, and the topic is of interest not just to the parties involved in the talks but to those who have a genuine concern for the Islamic nature of the country.

The chief defense of the constitution's Islamic credentials is that it cites Islam as the state religion and has provisioned for the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) to examine whether all laws are in accordance with Islam.

This logic implicitly assumes that the process of developing laws within the democratic framework as afforded by the constitution is nearly identical to that of extracting laws from Islamic texts in the process of jurisprudence, with a little something on top to "Islamicize" the democratic process. Yet the reality of both procedures produces stark contrasts.

In a democratic process, elected lawmakers come together to develop laws as they see fit. There are no constraints as to what they can legislate for, with only a majority of some sort required to pass any particular law. There is no requirement for the legislators to have previous legal experience, nor that they be experts on the subject matter at hand, though technical advice can be sought if required.

In Islam, many matters are clearly defined as being legal or illegal, such as the consumption of alcohol, adultery and interest-based transactions. In areas where definitive rulings do not exist or new realities are encountered, a legal expert is required to extract a ruling from Islamic texts. If the legal expert does not possess technical expertise in understanding a particular subject matter, then he or she is allowed to call upon the help of specialists to apprise them of the reality - for example, a doctor to explain the technical aspects of human-cloning. This process is known as Ijtihad.

In a situation where a numerous legal experts have extracted an array of opinions on the same matter, based upon either a variation of their understanding of the technical reality or use of different principles in accessing non-definitive Islamic texts, it is then up to the ruler of the state to adopt one opinion for it to become the sole reference point in law.

A problem therefore is apparent in the Pakistani law-making process: legislative chambers that are filled with individuals unqualified to extract laws from Islamic sources from a jurisprudential perspective are enacting laws for the country to follow simply according their own limited knowledge and experience rather than turning to divinely revealed guidance.

Further, the powers of the executive are ill-defined between the president and the prime minister, while according to Islam these should be vested in a single ruler and thus enable him to adopt laws extracted according to Islamic texts. This is crucial, as under the current democratic system even if both legislative chambers of the National Assembly and Senate were filled with qualified jurists, the mechanism to enact an extracted legal opinion into law would be missing, leading to confusion and potential conflict.

Additionally, political parties enact laws upon the basis of populism, pragmatism and imitation of the West rather than looking to Islam for solutions. The political context of law-making cannot be ignored, as laws are made by the corrupt to serve their own personal interests, without the restrictions that divine Islamic texts would impose, as well as to serve the economic, military and political agenda of foreign colonial powers.

This political backdrop, combined with conceptual deficiencies within the constitution, has created a secular state in Pakistan that goes against the beliefs of the people and their desire to live by Islam. A cursory look at some key areas of governance reveal how different Pakistan is to what an Islamic state should be.

The Economy

Whether it is banks that serve the individual or businesses with loans, political parties that promise micro-finance schemes for the poor or the government that borrows from home or abroad, interest is a key component of all major financial transactions. Yet the Islamic prohibition of interest is clear:

Those who consume interest cannot stand [on the Day of Resurrection] except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into insanity. That is because they say, "Trade is [just] like interest." But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest. So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with Allah. But whoever returns to [dealing in interest or usury] - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein. TMQ 2:275

At the behest of foreign lenders such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and as a result indoctrination in capitalist economic theory, governments of all political hues have set upon a program of privatization for decades in areas such as energy, telecoms and other key infrastructure. In a hadith narrated by Imam Ahmed and Ibn Maja, Muhammad (saw) states, "The Muslims are partners in three, water, pastures and fire."

While private ownership is permitted in Islam public resources such as mines, energy utilities and infrastructure are to be owned by the state to enable the people to benefit, rather than the private sector to profiteer. The result of pursuing this policy under various governments has led not only to rising prices in all areas of the energy sector but shortages due to the greedy pursuit of higher profits.

Foreign Policy

Pakistan's alliance with the United States post 9/11 is an example of policy making devoid of Islamic guidance. Pakistan has not only harmed itself economically and militarily as a result, but it has facilitated the killing of tens of thousands of Muslims civilians on both sides of the Af-Pak border. Muhammad (saw) said as narrated in Sahih Bukhari:

A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection.

The provision of bases and supply lines to America, the tacit approval of drone strikes and the conduction of campaigns by the Pakistan military all stand as contradictions to this guidance.

The Legal System

The legal system is based upon British common law. Regardless of some incorporation of Hudood, it is inconceivable that justice as an Islamic concept could be established within Pakistan when the judiciary judge according to other than that what Allah has revealed:

And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient. TMQ 5:49

Pakistan is being ruled on a non-Islamic basis, backed by an Islamically deficient constitution. The laws and policies that are created as a result of this situation benefit the corrupt elite and foreign powers immensely, as it leaves the people and resources of the country open to exploitation and abuse.

The fact that stakeholders in the existing system benefit from such a set-up and are attracted to it due to the potential to profiteer means that change cannot be expected to occur from within, no matter how long the masses wait.

This situation has arisen over a period of decades under the rule of various parties and military dictators. It stands as the greatest negation of the argument of gradually implementing change by working within the existing system; almost 70 years after its creation Pakistan not only remains un-Islamic as a state but is hurtling further in the direction of liberalism and decay. Surely the requirement of the times is to bring comprehensive and swift change to the political set up?

The Islamic nature of Pakistan is not the preserve of any one group or organization, nor is it restricted to certain political issues. It is related to the belief of people from all walks of life. It is therefore incumbent upon all to engage in the discussion of how meaningful change can be enacted to enable Pakistan to be a true Islamic State.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 21st February 2014 on Asia Times Online as
Pakistan's constitution conundrum

The toppling of Morsi is a blow for Secularism

“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black" – Henry Ford

The ouster of Mohamed Morsi as President of Egypt in a coup d’état by the military will reverberate not only across the political landscape of the ancient land but that of the entire Muslim world. Morsi, whilst viewed globally as a barely acceptable face of political Islam, represented but a segment of a wider movement in the Muslim world calling for the implementation of Shariah law by the State.

Numerous polls have shown overwhelming support amongst the global Muslim populace for making Shariah the official law of the land. The latest of such research is that of the Washington based Pew Research organisation entitled ‘The World’s Muslims; Religion, Politics and Society’ which was released on April 30, 2013. The poll found that in 25 of the countries surveyed the majority of Muslims supported Shariah being the law of the land. Notable findings were Iraq (91%), Malaysia (86%), Niger (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Jordan (71%) and Nigeria (71%). What is intriguing about these findings is not just the level of such support but the amount of diversity amongst the respondents gives pause for thought; whether one finds themselves in Africa, the Middle East, South or South East Asia, they would find a consistent political ambition amongst the people.

So why has Morsi been rejected in Egypt? To the uninitiated a bearded man from a party, whose name drips with Islamic symbolism born in the nationalistic aftermath that followed the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, which for many years adopted the slogan ‘Islam is the solution’ would be the realisation of anyone who desires Shariah law.

On a superficial level the Morsi government failed to address the economic malaise faced by Egypt leading to mass discontent. Yet there is also a deeper answer hiding in plain sight; the Muslim Brotherhood had not only forsaken Islamic politics decades ago but became the champion of democratisation, predicated on secular thought, across the Muslim world. Its actions subsequent to the demise of Hosni Mubarak epitomise its wandering political compass, which have compounded Egypt’s woes.

Early on in the revolution it was quick to distance itself from championing the mass movement, which many interpreted as a sign that it was projecting a moderated stance to the global media lest Western states decided to intervene against it. This was designed as much for the consumption of world as it was for the military, the real power behind the Egyptian throne.

Appropriate noises were made about wanting a civil state rather than an Islamic one which led the Brotherhood being allowed to contest the elections as the Freedom and Justice Party. Many supporters ignored this call due to a mixture of viewing it as political subterfuge and holding the idea that an Islamic state could be achieved from within a secular democratic setup by gradual implementation of Islamic principles. Once in power, rather than using this success at the ballot box as a mandate for political change, the Brotherhood ended up continuing many of the key policies and ideological direction of the Mubarak era.

Economically it was unable to address the issue of resource distribution, with the military and Mubarak era governments controlling up to 40% of the economy. As these elites moved wealth out of the country, the Egyptian Pound plummeted leading to a widening trade deficit as Egypt attempted to service its energy and food imports using a weakened currency. Out of ideas, Morsi turned to the IMF for interest based loans. All of these policies were born of the crucible of economic liberalism, with no Islamic economic policies such as the introduction of a bi-metallic backed currency, the abolition of natural resource monopolies or the shifting of the tax burden from income and consumption to capital and produce in sight.

In terms of foreign policy the army ensured that Egypt continued to support the goals of its benefactor, America, rather than reflect public sentiment in Egypt. This lead to the reaffirmation of the Camp David accords, blocking the tunnels to Gaza and mostly silence on the issue of the Syrian revolution. This ran counter to the expected dropping of national borders to unify with other Muslim countries to create a wider Islamic union and the removal of Western supported dictators in the Arab world by supplying political/military support to other revolutions in the region.

Despite unending compromise on practically every major issue to placate Western states abroad and secularists at home, the Brotherhood was still ejected from power. This will leave many supporters of not just the Brotherhood directly but the politics of gradualism and participation in a democratic process with much to think about. If democracy cannot tolerate the will of the people if it happens to be Islamic, then is it truly just a mechanism for representing popular opinion or is it a system unable to function without the values of secular liberalism being implemented? Is it really the political equivalent of Henry Ford’s choice of colour?

The ramifications of the answer to this question would be important not just to the fate of Egyptian politics but to that of the entire Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood has inspired many movements in the Muslim world which have espoused political participation in democracy rather than an attempt at radical change to establish an Islamic State. If the Brotherhood can be tossed aside, despite decades of work and masses of support on its home turf, how can such a system hold any hope for meaningful change?

Lessons learned from Egypt would suggest that any real change requires the backing of the armed forces rather than a conflict with them or a simple change of face on the political front. Further, it would seem that regardless of how much political Islam compromises it would never be perceived as sufficient by secular segments of society, so why try at all?

The coming months and years could see the biggest drop in adoption democracy amongst the proponents of Shariah law across the Muslim world. Ironically, this would have been precipitated by a coup backed by secularists and implicitly by Western powers to rid one country of any influence of political Islam.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 8th July 2013 in The Nation (Pakistan) as Morsi’s toppling: a blow for secularism

Ending Treachery in Pakistan

At least 24 soldiers have been murdered by America. The massacre took place at a well known base in Mohmand whose location was given to NATO. Clearly, this was a deliberate action, forged by American arrogance, to serve as a warning to the Pakistan Army to comply with American demands or this is the fate that awaits them. This message was for the bulk of the Army, as whilst the blood of such jawans is shed the military and civilian leadership collude with America, continually plotting to further the foreign agenda.

In terms of actual incursions by NATO and its Afghan origin forces, this is the eighth such event since 2008. Each time we have heard lies from Gilani, Zardari, Kayani and Pasha. Parliament has passed resolutions in 2008 and 2010 which pay lip service to punishing these foreign aggressors. With this latest outrage, it can be no doubt that the leadership will go through the same old disgraceful pack lies that it always does i.e. condemn in ‘strongest terms’, close supply routes for a few days, America will offer a token apology, the supply routes will reopen and the killing will resume.

Once again, in this latest episode the Pakistani authorities are now calling for Shamsi airbase to be vacated by the Americans (yes, the one that was asked to be emptied in June 2011) and have cut the supply lines to NATO which like before are expected to reopen after a brief period. Cunningly, no mention of banning the use of Pakistani airspace by drones has been mentioned leading to the conclusion that calling for the closure of Shamsi is designed to placate an angry public. Such actions, whilst the Army top brass and civilian leaderships are selling out the people and the army body for their own gain, are not incompetence but treachery. The officers in the Pakistan army are aware of this and have been applying huge pressure on the sold out Kayani, harshly accounting him for his alliance with America both after the Abbottabad raid and now this latest NATO transgression. The bulk of the Army, like the people, do not wish to continue this master to slave relationship that the secular liberal civilian and military leadership have forced upon the country.

This is not Pakistan’s war. Pakistani opinion is against this American misadventure in the region. A Pew Global poll shows 62% opposing the war, 69% wanting the removal of American forces from Afghanistan and 69% viewing American military presence as a potential threat against Pakistan. The cost to the country has been huge. The Pakistan Economic Survey 2010-11 says that the economy has lost $68 billion and requires an early end to the war in order to recover. 35000 civilian lives have been lost since the start of the war, not including the thousands of soldiers killed and millions made refugees.

Before the America brought its war to the region, suicide bombing was unheard of in Pakistan with just one incident occurring in 1995 against the Egyptian embassy. Such attacks, which are common place now in markets and against the armed forces, were previously unthinkable. With CIA personnel like Raymond Davis being caught with images of sensitive military installations and having established close ties with outfits that Pakistan is at war with on behalf of America, it does not take much imagination to figure out as to who is orchestrating these bombings especially when hundreds of visas are being granted to the CIA.

The secular liberal elite, comprising journalists, civilian and military leadership plus the political parties are the only ones in the country who support the war. They are funded and given political patronage from foreign capitals. They have created a false image of dependency upon America in order to subdue public opinion against the war. In reality the secular liberals are the ones dependent upon American money and power for survival, hence their eagerness to promote American imperialism

It is in Pakistan’s strategic, political and economic interests to not only exit from this war but remove the American presence in the region. American meddling has removed Afghanistan as an ally on the Western border whilst empowering India, most notably showering it with nuclear legitimacy

Pakistan has the tools required to remove America from the region, it only lacks political and ideological will. The closing of bases, cutting of supply lines and ejection of CIA and mercenary forces such as Blackwater can all be achieved without firing a single shot. The American campaign in Afghanistan will wither and die the instant the vast amount supplies it receives through Pakistan are cut; it has little alternative regardless of the bravado and bluster that may come from Washington

It is said that when war is mentioned amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Regardless of the tools America has, be it drones, helicopter gunships, tanks or even soldiers all this is useless if it cannot obtain the airstrips, fuel or food to maintain these assets. With 49% of all supplies for Afghanistan coming through Pakistan, this war effort cannot be sustained if this support is withdrawn. The alternative of expanding supplies from America’s Central Asian supply route is dictated by simple economics and the desire not to be reliant on transit routes in Russia’s back yard, with whom America has a frosty relationship at the best of times

Even in more prosperous times this was too costly and this is evidenced by America being forced to deal with volatile Pakistan for supplies in the first place. This is problem is now compounded for America as it creaks under record debt levels of $15 trillion and decreasing confidence in its ability to service this debt as evidenced by fractious debate in Congress. It is in no position to pursue supply alternatives to Pakistan for a sustained war effort.

The solution is therefore simply and practical, yet we will not see this being implemented. This will be another incident in a long list of grave violations that America has undertaken such as the Raymond Davis fiasco, Abbottabad Operation and of course countless drone attacks.

The problem, though promoted by secular liberals, will not end by simply bringing someone perceived to be corruption free, conservative or right wing in to power. The current system in Pakistan will ensure that regardless of there being a military dictator or civilian democrat, the same policies will continue. The politics in Pakistan is so rotten that it is impossible to attempt to place a ‘clean’ figure at the top to fix things as the same old corrupt and sold out politicians, who hold sway and clout, will take senior positions in government.

The political will required to remove America from the region cannot come from the corrupt politicians who have competed with one another to impress America. Nor can it come from those who have no ideological direction, relying on pragmatism to attempt to chart a route out of a dangerous situation. Such political and ideological will can only come from a political group, such as Hizb ut Tahrir, that has a long track record of working globally with the Muslim Ummah for the establishment of the Khilafat (Caliphate). Such a group, not tainted by operating in the corrupt and murky political system of Pakistan, would by the backing of the sincere officers of the Pakistan armed forces be able to implement the will of the people of Pakistan and remove American hegemony from harming the Muslims as it does today unchecked

As we enter the month of Muharram, it is important to note that our Islamic Calendar begins from the day 1433 years ago when the Islamic State in Medina was established by Muhammad (saw). We remember his (saw) words on the issue of an Islamic ruler or Caliph, particularly relevant after the NATO strike, when he (saw) said,

"Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves."

Today the Muslims in Pakistan and rest of the Ummah lack this shield. Today, the place of this Imam is occupied by secular liberals who are slaves of America and NATO, being totally besotted with foreign ideals and philosophies. The secular liberal intelligentsia and the secular liberal political/military leadership is actively engaged in selling out the country in order to serve America’s agenda of gaining geo-political hegemony over the world.

They are using their full strength in order to support America in its attempt to crush Islam as a political and ideological force by attempting to purge the armed forces of sincere personnel who have locked Islam in to their hearts. They are using their full resources to abduct and torture those sincere workers of political change who call for Khilafat, such as Dr Abdul Qayyum of Hizb ut Tahrir, in a desperate attempt to prevent the Islamic revival and an effort to continue the slavish status quo.

Only a ruler governing by Islam, given explicit direction by the Shariah to defend the lands, lives and property of the people, would move unashamedly to pursue the required policies that would guarantee independence from foreign interference and aggression. Secular liberals, who never had an argument to start with, have no leg to stand on in terms of pushing for continued support with America and its war.

The masses of Pakistan are fed up and ready for real change. The sincere officers and troops of the armed forces, abused by the sold out top brass and civilian rulers, are able to bring this about in the form of the Khilafat..

Secularism – A Universal Value System?

Terrorism, sectarianism, violence against women and abuse of religious minorities amongst other things are blamed upon the influence of Islam upon the state in Muslim countries such as Pakistan. As a result there are some in society who see the only way of dealing with these problems is to confine Islam to the private lives of individuals and to leave the State free to govern, away from the influence of religion. Essentially, this is a call to secularism. The question needs to be asked: is secularism suitable for the people of Pakistan?

Secularism was established in Europe due to the specific historical experience that Europeans went through with the rule of the Church in Western society. The Church, led by the Pope, was instrumental in establishing the authority and writ of oppressive monarchies. Unlike in Islam where no such concept exists, clergy would claim to have a unique connection with God and would in turn use this to justify the rule of kings as being divinely decreed. During this period, the Western world was in darkness as Europe, split up in to various fiefdoms, and fought each other based upon political and religious sectarian grounds.

Martin Luther, a German priest, began to challenge the authority of the Pope with the publication of his famous treatise The Ninety Five Thesis in 1517. This lead to the Protestant revolution, which was a period of religious wars between European kingdoms which lasted for 131 years, being concluded with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The major outcomes of this treaty were two. A new political order was established in Europe based upon the concept of sovereign states, ruled by a sovereign. Secondly, the many hundreds of princes across Europe were granted the right to determine their own sect of Christianity to be implemented. This had the effect of weakening the control of the Catholic Papacy over Europe.

Shortly after, the Age of Enlightenment and the promotion of reason began in Europe. As Christianity struggled to cope with reason, its fate was sealed with the emergence of the scientific method and empirical thinking, something religious dogma could not match. As Christianity became more irrelevant in the face of scientific progress, society began to adopt secularism from which new values such as freedom and democracy were established. This eventually led to the emergence of Capitalism, an entirely new ideology which placed legislation of laws in the hands of man and the promoted the idea of private ownership of both property and means of production. Once Capitalism was adopted, the Western world set itself upon a trajectory that would see it rise out of its dark slumber in to technological advancement, economic progress and political domination of the world.

The West embarked upon the course of secularism in response to both the oppression and the inability of Christianity to unite and lead society. It is important to note that secularism emerged due to the particular common experience of European states with Christianity. At the same time in the Muslim world, though there were political conflicts that would at times break out in to military strife there were no wars based upon religious sectarianism. The Muslim world for the majority of its history has been led by a Caliphate, first established in Medina after the Hijrah. No Muslim centre of power disputed the necessity of having a Caliph, nor desired to rule other than by Islam. The Muslim world did not have the same experience of Islam as the Europeans did with Christianity.

Whilst Europe was engulfed in religious strife, Islam by being implemented through the Caliphate facilitated progress on all fronts. Countless inventions and discoveries in the fields of engineering, chemistry, physics, astronomy and medicine to name a few are well documented. The Muslim world with the total application of Islam in all areas of life had no problems with science or reason. Islam was able to facilitate material progress whilst providing detailed solutions for life which Christianity was simply incapable of providing.

The Islamic world was also home to people of other faiths such as Jews and Christians, with the descendants of such communities existing to this day in places like the Middle East and Turkey. Muslims who differed in their understanding of Islam were considered a source of strength, not weakness, as flourishing schools of thought such as Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Maliki, Jafri and others proved. It was due to the inability of Christianity to provide anything more than simple moral guidelines that the West had to turn to secularism and ideas of freedom and democracy to run society, something which the Muslim world never had a need for.

During history though Muslim power peaked and waned, it was never extinguished as Islam was implemented not as a ‘state religion’ but an ideology. This meant that Islam was the exclusive source of laws for all areas of life such as economy, judiciary, societal relations, ruling, governance structure, trade, company structures and so on. This was the case until the end of the First World War, when the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal and was succeeded by secular nation states. Today these secular states may implement aspects of Islam, such as parts of the penal code or family law, but place legislation in the hands of man either via dictatorships or parliaments. These secular states do not provide the mechanism which Islam provides, namely the authority of the Imam or Caliph, to resolve all disputes be they temporal or spiritual.

It would be incorrect to view any state in the world today as being Islamic due to snippets of Islamic law being applied in a sea of man made law and thus declare Islam’s ‘interference’ in the state to be the problem facing Muslims. The solution would rather be to return to the classical method of living by Islam, which is to implement it in the form of an ideological Caliphate which would be able to legitimately deal with both temporal and spiritual disputes.

Muhammad Asim

mamuhammadasim@gmail.com

The author is a freelance analyst and columnist

[From August 2010]

Secularistan

There has been a concerted push in recent weeks and months, culminating on 14^th August, by the chattering classes to denounce all things Islamic in Pakistan and call in earnest for secularism to be implemented. Religion was never supposed to control the State as it supposedly does today. Citizenry were supposed to be free to visit whatever house of worship they chose in pursuit of glorifying their deity, but the deal was they were to keep their beliefs out of running the country. This allegedly has not happened and now we have ended up with a failing backward State, with blame for this being laid on the door of Islam. Enter the secular crusaders, here to save the nation by the light of liberalism!

But before the noble forces of hedonism are unleashed on the people it is worth asking that is Pakistan a State based upon Islam? Yes we have the word ‘Islamic’ in the name of the country and yes there is something written in the preamble of the ever amendable constitution that says no law will be enacted that is ‘repugnant’ to Islam. However mere words do not make a State Islamic (legally non-binding ones too at that). Whether under dictatorship or democracy, Pakistan has always enacted laws which have served the will of the ruling class. When Islam has been dragged out of the mosques it is confined to, it has been by politicians seeking to win influence over the people or rulers taking decisions for the sake of political expediency rather than attempting to deduce the hukm of Allah on a matter.

The case of Raymond Davis is case and point; the CIA was let in to the country by the secular dictator Musharraf and allowed to stay and expand by secular democrats of the current regime. That Islam considers the presence of foreign military/intelligence personnel on its territory as forbidden is irrelevant. But when caught in a bind over the murderous actions of the spy of our ‘ally’, rules of diyat were used to get him off the hook. One wonders what happens to the Islamic enthusiasm of these rulers when it comes to cutting the hands of those corrupt thieves in power.

Indeed the few areas of the State where Islam is involved, such as family law, actually proves to reflect the true secular spirit; the rejection or selective adoption of God’s law based upon the judgement of man, thus resulting in the latter transcending the former in authority.

So what do our secular warriors cry out for? It isn’t as if though Islamic rules on private property or land distribution are shaping the economy. It isn’t as if the Islamic directive to have a currency backed by the gold standard instead of a weak fiat system is being adhered to. It isn’t as if though the rules of Islam of freeing your Muslims brothers around the world from occupation are guiding the foreign policy. It is not as if though the political system is based upon the Shariah model of the Caliphate. So what is it?

The secularists have long coveted the Western secular model which is failing before our very eyes for Pakistan. However due to ironically having blind faith in the West these secularists refuse to accept that events like the UK riots and the collapsing global financial system are results of the values that secular liberalism espouses. Concepts of individualism and consumerism are driving the decline of Western power in every sphere ranging from the societal to the economic. Despite this, the secularists are bent upon implementing such a bankrupt model on the country due to a combination of their desire to indulge their whims and lusts as well as their disdain of Islam.

At home, they are alarmed that the very political system which has made them rich, powerful and influential is also coming under threat. Pakistanis are increasingly disillusioned with the same old tired chants of democracy, democracy, democracy. The people have seen that there is no material difference in policies between a democracy and dictatorship; both secular systems subjugate the nation to America and sustain the same corrupt politicians and political parties. Both systems support a deeply unpopular war and support murderous drone strikes on their own kith and kin. Both fail to address serious problems in the economy such as crushing poverty, mounting national debt due to loan addiction, rampant inflation and a chronic shortage of energy. Both fail to establish rule of law in society where the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak are subject to same justice. Both fan the flames of sectarian hatred as a tyrannical few desperately try to hold on to power and wealth in places like Karachi, playing politics with lives and blood of innocent bystanders.

Pakistanis are increasingly turning towards ideological Islam as practiced by the Holy Prophet (saw), which the secularists condescendingly label as Islamism. They desire a true Islamic State, the Caliphate, on the model of the State the Holy Prophet (saw) established in Medina. This is something the secularists cannot stand, leaving them with no option but to engage in flippant discussion amongst themselves whilst shutting down any voices of dissent, with force if necessary. Peaceful political groups like Hizb ut Tahrir are subjected to abductions and shambolic bans; actions which apparently do not contradict their secular liberal beliefs. Large amounts of money are ploughed in to foreign sponsored projects and organisations which claim to combat extremism whilst leading the youth astray.

At the time of the Holy Prophet (saw) the Quraish would employ identical tactics in an attempt to crush the message of Islam. Amongst these included torture, boycott and even spending money to hire dancers to distract the people whilst the Holy Prophet (saw) proclaimed his message in public. There were those who would thrust their fingers in to their ears and told others to do the same just so the message of Islam could be ignored.

It is ironic how much these so called modernists have in common with folk who lived 1400 years ago, though sadly not those on the side of Islam. The secularists should be warned however that such tactics have never worked in history and that they cannot fight the message of Islam with incoherent babble or brute force. If they truly wish to prove themselves superior, let them publically debate those working for the Caliphate so people can see whose ideas are truly the strongest and worth following.

What do they have to fear in debate apart from losing?

Muhammad Asim.

The author is a freelance columnist.

 

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Who will be the Caliph?

The question is asked often when mentioning the establishment of the Caliphate. Sometimes it is asked out of genuine interest, in others it is asked more in terms of cynical criticism. The fact that those who push for secular democracy would be embarrassed to offer an answer of Zardari, Nawaz, Gilani and so on if asked who would be your secular leader is an irony lost on many of these kinds of questioners.

If one thinks about the question, the incorrect to expect and give is the name of an individual. The reality is the question is incorrect as the matter really being enquired about is how political unity will be achieved between various factions made up of differing races, provinces, Islamic schools of thought and so on. The incorrect question is asked as a result of living under a secular political system which places huge emphasis on the individual personality of a leader rather than the policies by which he would rule by.

Pakistani politics is characterised by cults of personality. Come election time, there are no policies to distinguish any candidate or party from the next. Indeed it is a rare event that anyone comes up with a coherent policy on any one issue, let alone a manifesto worthy of the name. People are left to choose based upon criteria such whether candidate in question offers any personal benefit to them. Whilst this ranges from bags of flour and other foodstuffs for the poor to huge kickbacks and corruption deals for the rich, the principle is the same across society.

Each leader builds their cult on the politics of division rather than unity. There is the Sindhi party, the Karachi/Muhajar party, the Punjab party, the Pathan party and so on. As soon as one leader dies the people are tuned to look towards the next cult to follow. Who is whose son/brother/nephew/uncle is more important than meritocracy. This same thinking is applied when mentioning the Caliphate as an alternative to current failing secular democratic system

What needs to be understood is that those calling for the Caliphate are not working to put one individual in power under a new title. If the objective were this shallow then instead of trying to establish a alternative political system those working for the Caliphate would simply set up a political party to take part in the existing political system. Yet this is not the case; it doesn’t matter who comes to power in the existing system as he will be able to do nothing for Pakistan.

The current system thrives on corruption and rewards it in a systematic manner. The NRO, which so brazenly and unashamedly allowed criminals to run for high office, and powers like Presidential pardons are examples of this. This is a fault of the system and not an individual as these laws are processed and implemented by the system in what is deemed a perfectly acceptable and legal manner. In the name of political expediency rule of law can, crucially, be legally suspended.

The process of getting to power is one where only the corrupt and the mega rich can take part in. The process of staying in power is a story of subservience to America and the West and pushing out the feeding trough to all those that help keep you in power domestically.

The Caliphate does away with this on a systematic level. Contrary to the claims of those who oppose the Caliphate, the Caliph need to not be an angelic figure in order to rule. The Caliph is kept on the straight path by a system of checks balances, comprising of defined limited executive powers and an active judiciary that monitors his actions.

The Caliph is unable to pardon those convicted of crimes, as he is not above the law, nor does he have the ability to legislates laws that suit his desires or political needs. The Majlis al Shura also only serves as a consultative body for the Caliph, representing the people, and it too does not have the power to issue pardons or enact laws.

The Caliph also does not have immunity from prosecution like current rulers do whilst in office, which may be rather unappealing for the likes of Rehman Malik and Zardari for obvious reasons. This in itself should also highlight the issue that the Caliphate is not to be a utopian state populated by angels who would do no wrong. Rather the strength of the State would lie in being able to keep such individuals from doing damage to the State and holding them to account, rather than rewarding and protecting them like the existing secular system of Pakistan does.

Another issues related to the question of who will be Caliph is the attempt to show that no matter who is picked, he will belong to one school of thought. This would mean people from other schools of thought will never obey a Caliph who is not from their own, leading to divisions and conflict.

Differences in understanding of legal texts and evidences are a natural and expected occurrence. It is not something that should be feared or thought of as a weakness. It is unthinkable that in any free thinking society and political system there the entire population would view every single matter in the same way. It is human to differ and a healthy political environment can only exist if people are free to express their differences in their understanding of Islam. What can lead to problems if there is no meaningful outlet for these differences and further no mechanism for society and State to adopt an opinion amongst many in order to move forward on an issue. In the secular system of Pakistan, there is no such management system which leads to frustration.

In the Caliphate, the Caliph is the sole authority that has right to adopt laws and from Shariah all others are obliged to obey. This is the practical mechanism by which all political differences are solved. This is something that no matter what laws a secular system establishes or who comes in to power, can replicate. It is irrational to expect people from various schools of thought to have to obey the edicts of a secular leader, whose leadership is based upon ignoring God’s laws and ruling by other than Islam, whilst Islamically it the right of the Caliph in his capacity as Imam of the society and State to settle disputes and differences. This is a tried and tested system which dealt with differences for centuries, settling disputes amongst heavy weight figure as Abu Bakar as Sadiq and Umar Ibn al Khatab.

An ancillary issue related to this point are instances of clerics engaging in violence against one another on the basis of their supposed differences. These clashes are in fact political differences being masked under the pretext of religious variance. This is actually a reflection of those who happen to posses beards engaging in the same kind of secular politics of division and violence as their non-bearded counterparts; the only difference is that the domain of these individuals are local mosques and villages instead of the Parliament and the Senate. This situation exists due to the absence of the rule of law in country which has been the result of implementing secularism and the resulting lack of legitimacy such as system brings.

The Caliphate relies upon the strength of various checks and balances of the system and operates within the confines of the Shariah. This enshrines rule of law and justice in society, something which secularism in Pakistan has failed to do. Whilst those who work for the re-establishment of the Caliphate would naturally be expected to have a leader in mind, who it is is of less importance for the public than the issue of what he would rule by.

It may be that this individual dies or for some other reason is no longer able to become Caliph. Should this mean that the effort to re-establish the Caliphate should cease? Clearly not, as the work to re-establish the Caliphate is a work to re-establish a system, not to bring an individual to power.

This is something that many find quite hard to fathom after decades of being subjected to a secular system which, whether in the guise of a dictatorship or democracy, has spectacularly failed to bring any semblance of the rule of law or justice to the country. This has produced mentality where a miraculous ‘chosen one’ is awaited so that he may come to lead Pakistan out of the spiralling abyss of corruption and backwardness that it finds itself in

When the correct system is in place, the country will become stable and this will result in prosperity and progress. Clearly only the Caliphate by implementing the Shariah can produce these results. The discussion should therefore focus on the solutions the Shariah and the Caliphate can provide to solve Pakistan’s raft of problems concerning areas of foreign policy, economy, judiciary, energy and so on which the secular system has not only be unable to solve but has created and exacerbated.

Muhammad Asim.

Twitter: @AsimWriter

The author is a freelance columnist.

Hizb ut Tahrir seeks to restore Caliphate in Pakistan

Recent events in Pakistan have brought the spotlight on to the group Hizb ut Tahrir and its activities. Hizb ut Tahrir, or HT as it is widely known, describes itself as a global Islamic political party that seeks to restore the Caliphate state in the Muslim world. Founded in 1953 by Palestinian scholar Taqiudeen an-Nabhani, HT is active throughout the Muslim world and in many non-Muslim countries.

Its membership varies globally and though no official figures exist it has a strong presence in Central Asia where it is rumoured to have up to 1 million members. In Indonesia it also has a significant presence having held large conferences in recent years, such as a 100,000 Caliphate conference in 2007 and a 10,000 strong global Ulema conference in 2009 where scholars from around the globe convened to sign a charter calling for the restoration of the Caliphate and Shariah law in the Muslim world. In some non-Muslim countries it has significant presence such as the UK where it draws a large number of its supporters from the Pakistani community.

HT has often been persecuted for its work, most notably in Uzbekistan where its members have been tortured to death and imprisoned for years on end. In Pakistan it was banned by President Musharraf in 2004 as he claimed it was a terrorist organisation, but this order was later declared defective by the Lahore High Court as it found no proof to support such a claim. In the UK HT has been threatened with a ban on multiple occasions by different Prime Ministers, however the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has said that it knows of no intelligence to justify a Hizb ut Tahrir ban.

HT has been campaigning for several years in Pakistan for the restoration of the Caliphate which it states is the model of governance as described by Islam. It does not take part in parliamentary elections as it believes the system is set up in a manner to empower and protect those who engage in corruption and seek patronage from foreign powers like America. It believes the current system rewards those who base their message upon sectarian and provincial differences and only those with huge wealth such as feudalists are able to compete for seats.

It is also opposed to democracy on a theological basis arguing that whilst elections themselves are legitimate in Islam, democratic elections are about giving power to those who would legislate laws according to their own whims and political interests. It cites the NRO as one such example where the rule of law was suspended using legal means in a secular Parliament, something which would be impossible in the Shariah based Caliphate. This would not prevent the Caliphate from being technologically progressive State, saying innovation and discovery was a hallmark of the Muslim world under the Caliphate system.

Elections in Islam, according to HT, are about establishing representative rule without affording the ability to elected officials to make laws but instead requiring them to govern within the confines of Shariah and legitimate difference of opinion with all differences being settled by the Caliph. It says current problems between religious groups arise because the mechanism of the Caliph does not exist to settle disputes. This it says leads to claims that there is no one Islam and there are too many differences that prevent the people from being united. HT points to the existence of multiple schools of Fiqh in Islam’s history as proof differences in jurisprudence do not lead to conflict.

HT has proven to be unique from other parties who would also assert to be based upon Islam. Whilst other religious parties in Pakistan have entered the system they have been left tainted by their association with maligned rulers. HT has instead focused its energies on publishing various reports and books on issues ranging from foreign policy to economy. It has also organised seminars and rallies to put pressure on what it terms are agent rulers working to implement the American colonialist agenda for Pakistan.

HT however does not see itself as a mere educational organisation and believes it is able to rule. It points to its body of research work in the fields of Capitalism, Communism and Islam and says that it is the only political party in Pakistan that has the intellectual wealth necessary to govern. HT says it is active in discussions with people from all sections of society including lawyers, politicians, journalists, youth and the military. It hopes that as a result of these discussions it shall eventually be swept to power peacefully on a wave of pro Caliphate public opinion.

As such HT presents an interesting dilemma for America and her supporters within Pakistan. Whilst it does not engage in violence it is striking a chord with many in society who have become disillusioned both with America’s role in the region and a political process which has shown no break in policy between dictator led or democratic regimes.

Some have been calling for HT to be banned or have its activities restricted in public places such as university campuses but have failed to offer justification further than simply disagreeing with HT’s message. Ironically this is further damaging the secular cause as secular champions within the media claim to stand for plurality and rational discussion yet are being seen calling for draconian measures to combat HT’s message rather than calls for constructive dialogue or debate.

HT claims that it has been growing despite stifling measures places against it by successive governments at America’s behest. This claim seems to be backed up by a similar statement recently by former COAS General Mirza Aslam Beg who believes former President Musharraf banned the group upon America’s request. America itself has officially remained silent on HT’s status; though many officials have expressed their fears at its growing influence in the fertile grounds of an increasingly disillusioned military establishment seething at America’s continued interference in Pakistan and violation of its sovereignty.

Muhammad Asim.

E-mail: mamuhammadasim@gmail.com

Twitter: @Asimwriter

The author is a freelance columnist.