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.

Abbottabad Operation shatters remnants of Pakistani Sovereignty

The US Abbottabad operation of 2^nd May 2011 has destroyed what was left of the tattered sovereignty of Pakistani after years of American drone strikes and CIA operations. The Pakistani and American leaderships are making a mockery of the world by claiming that the operation against the compound allegedly housing Osama Bin Laden was done unilaterally by the US without Pakistan’s knowledge. We are expected to believe that Pakistan’s army is able to hold the million man Indian army at bay but it cannot realise that American helicopters loaded with US personnel are flying around 35 miles from the capital, next to the elite training centre Kakul?

This is a ridiculous notion. Pakistan’s secular leadership including COAS Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, DG ISI Ahmad Shuja Pasha, their cronies in the military and the politicians have willingly all agreed to produce this drama and help America create a narrative whereby Pakistan is backed in to a corner by world public opinion. Pakistan, or more specifically the Pakistani military and intelligence services, will be accused of harbouring Bin Laden right under their noses and only direct intervention by US Special Forces has resulted in the man being eliminated.

This entire piece of theatre allows America to do two things

One, it is allowed to withdraw from its disastrous and costly war in Afghanistan by saying it got its target, thereby attempting to preserve the prestige of the US armed forces and boost public opinion at home. The withdrawal is necessary as the US can no longer sustain its military occupation and can attempt to ‘hand over control’ to Afghan forces. This will give it the opportunity to refocus its energies on the Middle East to prevent the popular uprisings and toppling of its puppets from loosening its grip on the region. It is critical that America maintains control of the oil in the area and prevents an Islamic oriented power from emerging that could challenge it on an ideological and strategic level.

Two, it sets up the stage to not only continue drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas but also expand both the reach and magnitude of its military operations in the country. An incursion by troops in helicopters is an unprecedented act of war against Pakistan and will serve to push the line of what is tolerable for America to do in Pakistan further.

The reasoning for this is to pursue America’s real objective in Pakistan, which is to prevent real ideological change from occurring that will threaten its economic and geostrategic interests in Central Asia and the Middle East. America will continue to create strife in Pakistan so that the country becomes further divided amongst any lines possible – ethnic, provincial, sectarian, political and religious grounds. This will keep Pakistan weak and distracted, and the current and previous crop of leaders have facilitated America along this path.

Pakistan needs to stand up and issue a strong response to the US straight away if it is prevent this unprecedented incursion to be become a norm. Pakistan must not be pressured by Western Media for standing up for its independence as the issue of Bin Laden is involved. The country must draw a line and make it clear to the whole world that no country can simply fly in wherever and whenever it wants to and kill its people.

Pakistan’s secular rulers are leading the country down an alarming path of destruction. The current political set up cannot lead Pakistan out of this crisis. The secular democratic parties are all in cahoots, along with Kayani, Pasha and their cronies, with the US in helping achieve its objectives in exchange for dollars.

Real change can only come by the establishment of the Khilafat system, which would not allow one inch of territory to be comprised to foreign aggressors. Pakistan has the means; it merely lacks the political will to exhibit its strength in the face of aggression. America has shown its weakness, not its strength, by putting on this theatrical show in order to save face from what is a humiliating and fruitless exit from Afghanistan.

The people of Pakistan must come together and call upon the sincere elements of the military establishment, that form the vast majority of the military institution, whose hearts are no doubt being torn apart just like those of the common man to remove the treacherous leadership that is leading the country in to a dark abyss. Both elements must take inspiration from the events unfolding across the Middle East where our brothers and sisters are rising up to rid themselves of Western sponsored puppets.

America and her allies care not for the people of these lands just as in Pakistan and similarly, have supported and continue to support those rulers that oppress the people as long as it is in their interests. Secular rulers, with their desire to slavishly obey America as dictators or democrats, have pushed Pakistan to the edge. The Khilafat must be established quickly if the country is to be saved from destruction.

Muhammad Asim

mammuhammadasim@gmail.com

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.