Tuesday, March 25, 2014
March 23, 2014
By Saeed Qureshi
The God of Muslims is extremely sensitive or we Muslims have portrayed him sensitive. He is described as to be incessantly prying and watching every move, intention and act of Muslims for the last 15 centuries. The almighty God and his appointed angels are always compiling and updating a record of good and bad believers among the Muslims.
Ostensibly, for the non- Muslims the maintenance of such a record is not necessary as they are out of the pale of Islam and definitively would be the fodder of the hell-fire.
The steadfast practicing Muslims are always geared towards pleasing and placating God in every possible manner: from wearing a dress to performing wudu (ablution), to saying prayers and observing other elements of faith. They are fearful of God lest he gets offended and on the Day of Judgment dispatches them to the hell whose torment is beyond description.
For orthodox and less knowledgeable Muslims, God can be annoyed even for not covering the head while praying or putting the left step first while entering the mosque. Islam’s religious edifice is patently premised on the fear rather than love of God. If there is a mention of love or mercy of God then it is invariably bracketed with fear and rage of God.
The Muslims’ entire life is dedicated to praying to the creator of the universe to earn his (God is a male or has masculine traits) pleasure and mercy. From cradle to grave round the clock, a Muslim’s life is governed by countless prayers and rituals.
On the birth of a Muslim, a religious obligation of uttering a prayer in his ears and on the death another prayer is observed for forgiving the sins of the deceased and to give him or her abode in the paradise.
The body decays in the grave or blown to pieces in case of a bomb blast or sunk in water. Yet the belief ordains that the soul resides in a limbo (Barzakh) till it returns to the body on the Day of Judgment. This is the inexorable power of belief based upon the fear of hell and allurement for the paradise.
The Muslim clergy, clerics and preachers keep frightening the Muslims about wrath of God who according to them gets annoyed on a slight negligence of the Muslims towards the basic obligations and attendant surfeit of rituals alike. Now the number of prayers, beliefs and obligations differ from sect to sect within the fold of Islam. A Wahabi detests veneration of the saints, the spiritual godfathers or graves or even tombs for being frivolous and out of the pale of Islam.
On the contrary the followers of Qadria or Naqshabandi or Chishtia and Brelvis sects would harbors beliefs that run counter to the beliefs and articles of faith of other sects in Islam. They repose divine powers in the mediums, mystics and shamans that range from healing the sick to exorcising the bewitched persons and to having a child.
In our religious books and in sermons of the clerics and preachers delivered in mosques, the emphasis in invariably on hell and heaven. The burning and torturing of sinner in hell is graphically described almost in every sermon.
The torrent of words and flurry of the phrases of the fiery narrators is spine-chilling and create indescribable fear in the minds of the listeners as if
God was very touchy, revengeful and extremely barbaric lord of the world.
The Muslims preachers’ day in and day out dwell on the limitless fury, revenge and displeasure of God and reminding the faithful the hellfire and the torture to be administered in that most horrific place. A religion can preferably prosper and would be more acceptable if its foundation is not laid on enticement or punishment which means heaven and hell.
The pictorial and minute illustration of the doomsday is terrifying as well. The Muslims believe that the soul leaves the body at the time of death and lives in a purgatory and would enter the body on the Day of Judgment or the final day of human existence. The purgatory is a temporary abode of soul where it would stay to reenter the dead body of a Muslim on the last day.
Historically, the Christians of the second century borrowed and integrated into Christianity Greek philosophy and terminology like Trinitarian doctrine (three dimensional God) and immortal soul. The Greek immortal soul implied a need for various destinations for the soul: heaven, hell-fire, purgatory, paradise limbo.
But manipulating such teachings it became easy for the priestly class to keep their flocks submissive and in fear of the hereafter and to extract gifts and donations from them. Finally after a long time it was accepted. Same manipulative tactics have been adopted by the Muslim preachers to tame the Muslims to this day for personal clout and benefits.
The scrutiny and test of a Muslim starts from the grave no matter how pious and righteous one may have been throughout his life. According to the dogma both males and females will have to face a tough pre-questioning session with two horrific looking angels. The angels would beat him if he gives wrong answers.
Is this belief not superfluous and could be introduced to instill fear of grave: a dark and narrow ditch? There doesn’t seem to be any need of interrogating the deceased in the grave when there will be the main Judgment Day with almighty God sitting upon the throne of justice. It connotes that man will first be reborn in the grave and for the second time when an angle will blow the bugle.
On the day of the Judgment (Dooms Day) for exclusively Muslims (no other religious followers are mentioned) would come alive and run towards a limitless vast field to receive the good or the bad award from the almighty God. Now God is described to be sitting on a throne (like a mighty king) and the judgment would be administered during a long day which would be unbearably hot and indescribably suffocating.
Why a day is chosen when sun is supposed to be above the heads equal to the length of a pole and quarter? The judgment as matter of grace could be handed out in a serene and pleasant climate.
Now the science has proven that if the Sun comes down even by a fraction of a millimeter, the solar system would come to a naught. It surmises that it is the replay of the spectacle of a worldly king sitting on a throne and making the decisions.
Why the monarch would be under the canopy and the subjects exposed to roasting sun? After all the Muslims faithful who had forsaken their mundane and worldly comforts and pleasures during their transitory sojourn upon the planet earth ought to be treated kindly and within an environment of order and serene conditions.
The luxuries and enjoyments of the world are mostly forbidden for Muslims as these are supposed to be immoral and make one sinful in the eyes of God.
The Islamic traditions hold that there will be an unimaginable chaos in the colossal ground and every one would be in a state of panic and utter agony to receive the final verdict: favorable or unfavorable. I personally believe that God is kind and compassionate and cannot dispense justice in roasting heat and stifling suffocation.
Despite receiving the final orders from God to live either in paradise or hell, the faithful will have to cross a bridge that the Muslim demagogues describe as sharper like a razor and thinner than the hair. Incidentally that strange bridge could be crossed by those riding over the back of a lamb that the intended dwellers of the paradise had sacrificed in the material world?
Underneath that bridge would be the inferno of hell and those who will not be able to cross will fall down in that despite having divine decree for the paradise. One wonders if it would be the same paradise where Adam and Eve and the chief of the angels Satan lived together before they were exiled to the earth. Does it make any sense?
Why a Muslim faithful has to wait till eternity for his deeds to be adjudicated? Why not immediately after his soul leaves his body? If man the favorite creation of God, can sort out unlimited data in computer in faction of seconds, is there no speedy system with the creator for automatically updating the data of good or bad deeds?
Is it not possible for the lord of the universe to deliver the awards to the recipients in a jiffy instead of handing over to them one by one? Doesn't it look like a monarch of olden times rewarding or punishing his subjects?
It is like belittling the omniscient and Omni-present creator of universe in which the light travels and the contours of the universe expand at a terrific speed of 186,000 miles per second? It looks odd that the God who can create trillions of galaxies in the vacuum will sit on a chair and hand over the judgment to the harassed people?
Instead of waiting for the final assemblage on an un-revealed day, a pious person should go to the paradise and the wicked in the hell immediately after the death.
The description of hell and heaven seem to be serving the taste and temperament of the Arabs than the rest of the human beings. The honey, the fruit, the sweet fragrant water, milk and nice dwellings have been deficient in the Arab peninsula. Yet these delicacies and luxuries were plentiful in other parts of the world for instance in the Mediterranean coastal regions.
The attraction of beautiful women and polygamy among the Arabs is well known and this aspect would be everlastingly taken care of in the promised paradise. But while other religions don’t emphasize upon the hell-fire or a horrific “dooms day: in Islam it is the cardinal belief as part of other six major beliefs for proclamation of faith.
During his life span in this world, a Muslim is ordained to remain a subdued, harassed and meek individual. One remains unaware that the rigorous religious obligations he or she was practicing were the right ones to please God and entitle them a place in the blissful paradise.
In the meantime the Satan is free to use his enormous powers to astray and misguide the humans from the path of God. According to the scriptures God has granted unlimited powers to Satan to mislead the human beings who are the favorite creation of almighty God.
The powers and capabilities of humans are colossally limited and are no match to the limitless powers of Satan bestowed upon that sinister being by God himself. It is like creating a lamb and leaving it before a leopard.
If this is a test to enter the paradise then it is between two grossly unequal rivals: one without powers and the other equipped with such amazing powers as to enter the mind and body and blood of the human beings. But this kind of tussle is exclusive to the Muslims only.
In Christianity The God ( also called father) is loving and compassionate and not a revengeful or indulgent lord who keeps constant vigil or unremitting watch over the human beings for a razor-thin judgment to be given on an appointed yet most agonizing day. In Islam the main emphasis is placed on God’s powers and unquestionable submission to him.
In Christianity God or Jesus’ love is a perquisite for salvation and to live in the everlasting blissful Kingdom of God. The resurrection and salvation would take place simultaneously. The reincarnated Jesus would establish the Kingdom of God on earth which is the exact prototype of the Muslims’ paradise to be situated somewhere in Heaven.
Christians believe in collective Resurrection of mankind and Kingdom of God on earth at the end of day. They don’t believe in hellfire, purgatory or immortal soul. As narrated earlier these beliefs entered Christianity under the Greek influence after 2nd century C. E. The belief in resurrection emanates from the resurrection of Jesus Christ after his death at the stake. The dead after resurrection will enter the Kingdom of God to be commanded by Jesus from heaven and figuratively from earth.
The entry into the Kingdom of God has one pre-requisite and that is to have belief in Jesus as the anointed son of God. For Christianity, salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ. In their beliefs there is no element of God’s surveillance on the human beings by way of placing two angels on both shoulders for perpetually writing humans’ good or bad deeds.
In Hinduism one of the principal beliefs is Moksha: liberation or release from the grinding wheel of rebirths and different existences. The second main belief is Karma that postulates that one reaps of what one sows in a supposedly former existence. The third paramount belief is the reincarnation that stipulates that each personal soul passes through many reincarnations and possibly hell.
It must strive to merge with the supreme reality called Brahman. For the Hindus hell and heaven are intermediate waiting places before the soul gets its next reincarnation. As such it means that during the process of reincarnation the soul passes through countless stages including hell and heaven.
The Doctrine of the resurrection of dead is considered as the central doctrine of Judaism. It is ultimate resurrection of dead at the end of time. Today while the immortality of soul is accepted by all factions of Judaism, the resurrection of dead is not. Some Rabbis hold that there will be a judgment day following the resurrection of the dead.
Others hold that there is no need for that because the Day of Judgment happens every year on Rosh Hashanah (Yom-Hadin). Yet others profess that this accounting and judgment happens when one dies. Other Jews factions believe that the last judgment only applies to other nations and not the Jewish people.
According to Talmud, God judges who has followed His commandments and who does not and to what extent. Those who do not "pass the test" go to a purifying place Hell (analogous to the Muslims’ Purgatory) to "learn their lesson". But this does not imply the eternal damnation.
However, “after the rise of the modern Judaism in 18th and 19th centuries, and holocaust, the Jews began to view messianic message as a liability and merely reinterpreted it as a new age of prosperity and peace”.
(Excepts from Mankind’s Search for God)
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
March 18, 2014
By Saeed Qureshi
Barring providential intervention, apparently Pakistan’s former strong man and president Musharraf is in deep waters. Justice Faisal Arab the head of the special court seems to be poised to send Musharraf either to gallows or long imprisonment for high treason charge. Musharraf’s decision to return to Pakistan was entirely ill-conceived.
Somehow he misjudged that in the eventuality of judicial proceedings against him, he would come out of the legal battle with flying colors. He brushed aside the horrific fact that he had countless enemies mostly the religious fanatical saber rattlers and even the vicious political rank and file.
The dismal situation in which Pervez Musharraf is caught reminds me of a Pashto couplet that eloquently echoes horrendous challenges Musharraf is faced with. It says, “I do not know what to do and where to escape. All round I am surrounded by thousands of enemies”. He would not have imagined that not to speak of participating in the elections, the government in power would be headed by his staunchest foe Mian Nawaz Sharif.
Logically why would Main Sahib brook an iota of compassion for a person who somehow is responsible for his humiliating expulsion from power for almost a decade? It is tacitly the most opportune time for Nawaz Sharif to go for a tit for tat hunt. He is a typical Punjabi and Punjabi ethos invariably returns the compliment the way it is received. “You got me out of power and you will have to pay for that call grievously” is the mindset of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Musharraf’s attorneys are baffled and look like blunt weapons. And my reckoning is that the army will not meddle into an affair that cannot impinge upon its self esteem or pride. There seem to be not enough grounds for the army to intervene and assert its domination over the established democratic order revived after a great deal of hassle and crises.
It is to be watched if General Musharraf would appear in the special court on March 31.The court directed the government to arrest and produce Musharraf if he refuses to appear before it on his own. Akram Sheikh, the head of the “prosecution team proposed indictment of Gen Musharraf through his counsels in which the physical presence of the accused was not required”.
That quirk plea was rejected by Anwar Mansoor Khan, the defense lawyer to indict Gen Musharraf through his counsels. Mr. Khan contended that “such a procedure was alien to the criminal law”.
In the latest plea filed before the trial court on behalf of Musharraf, the former president has implicated his erstwhile officers as co-conspirators for the imposition of Emergency on Nov 3, 2007. That is purportedly, a judicial standpoint and it devolves upon the trial court to accept or reject it.
If this plea is accepted then the case could drag for an unspecified period of time. In that situation it could open new dimensions that would necessitate hearing of all the persons pointed out as conspirators, by Musharraf and his team of judicial defenders.
Musharraf has maintained that he imposed the Emergency after consulting the then prime minister, the governors of all four provinces and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, the chiefs of the armed forces, the vice-chief of army staff and the corps commanders of the Pakistan Army.
His claim may also involve his political cohorts who in this scenario could be stalwarts from PMLQ and even MQM. There is a possibility that the former high profile army officers could debunk this claim of Musharraf.
Yet tragically this is not the only monstrous case against Musharraf in the court of Law. There is another pending case against him: the alleged murder of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti. A Pakistani anti-terrorism court based in Quetta, issued warrants for the arrest of two guarantors of Pervez Musharraf over his failure to appear before it in a murder case. The proverb is true in case of Musharraf that “tribulations never come alone: these come in droves”.
The bare and yawning fact is that even if Musharraf is exonerated of all the cases, he would never be a free man to stalk and walk in the land of Pakistan. He will remain confined to his mansion. His political ambitions would be absolutely hindered for dire security reasons. The Baloch and the religious militants would always be after his life.
It is such an agonizing situation for a person who otherwise, has done a lot better for the people of Pakistan than politicians in liberalizing the society and adopting a generous approach and policy towards media, both print and electronic.
As for supporting America in the war on terrorism: did he have choice? The answer is emphatically in negative. The stark reality is that Pakistan would have been penalized with vengeance in many ways by America and that could have spelled disaster for Pakistan. It was not a bad option for Pakistan siding with the American and NATO forces against a band of terrorists who were neither friends of American nor that of Pakistan.
American aid and support by way of Kerry-Lugar financial Bill granting 7.5 billion dollars to Pakistan as non-military aid from the period of 2010 to 2014 was a huge economic relief for Pakistan. It was indeed a blessing not in disguise but a candid windfall. Although the bill was passed in 2009 when Musharraf was no more in power, yet this aid was the result of his cooperation and maneuvers with the United States.
Friday, March 7, 2014
March 7, 2014
By Saeed Qureshi
The suspension of 66 Kashmiri students and slapping them with sedition charges for celebrating Pakistan cricket team’s victory against Indian team is patently an uncalled for and outrageous action. Although the sedition charges were later dropped but the local administration is still intent on “investigating other offenses”. It was a knee jerk reaction and could have been avoided by the Utter Pradesh government.
In such situations the tempers usually run high and show of unguarded exuberance cannot be ruled from the supporters of the winning side. The sentimental expression of national ego is always at the bottom of game competitions between India and Pakistan.
As part of the Asia Cup series 2014, this 6th group match was played at Sher-e- Bangla Stadium Mirpur Bangladesh on March 2 between two bitter contenders. The Pakistani team won this thrilling match by one wicket with still two balls remaining.
The credit for this stunning victory goes to all time hitters of six Shahid Afridi. The cricket matches between India and Pakistan are invariably tense and excitement ridden. This victory for Pakistan came after a serious of defeats of the Pakistan team at the hands of Indian team.
Despite being a pacifist and a votary of abiding friendship between India and Pakistan, I am not ready to buy the argument that Pakistan and India can ever sincerely become peaceful and tolerant neighbors as one can bear out from the latest appalling action by the Meerut police. It is a far cry and rather an impossibility that there was an earnest desire even at the peoples or masses’ level for peace and friendliness between the two neighborly nations.
Notwithstanding their off-repeated sweet nuances and profuse pious planks to live in peace, they would not hesitate to lambast each other for minor irritants followed by revenge and battle cries.It is primarily a thousand years’ historical bitterness and deep seated animosity between Hindus and Muslims that pop up during even a mild conflict and transform into bloody communal riots.
Hindus think that Muslims were primarily aliens and intruders into the sacred Hindustava or “Bharat Mata” and that they have no right to live and survive in the Indian subcontinent. The Muslims, though, ruled India until the British took over, seldom indulged in the persecution or ethnic cleansing of the religious minorities. The Muslim rulers like Akbar married with Hindu women and invariably treated Hindu population well and on equal level.
In the present times we are witness to a sequence of communal conflicts in India in which minorities were murdered with extreme vengeance and utter callousness. The genocide of Sikhs in 1984 and Muslims in Gujrat riots (2002) and occupation and demolition of Babri Mosque in 1992 by Hindu fanatics and ensuing bloodletting are of the recent origin and are awash with the blood of the countless innocent minority victims.
Over a million Muslims were killed during the partition of India in 1947 by both Hindu marauders and Sikh armed gangs. The Muslims too whipped up the horrific orgy of blood of the Hindus and Sikhs emigrating from newly born Pakistan to India.
Let me reproduce some portions of my previous articles on this theme to further expound my view about the murky nature of relations between India and Pakistan even in the future.
Pakistan and India can never be good friends and neighbors because there is no good will or an earnest desire that comes from heart to resolve the contentious issues bedeviling their relationship for over six decades. At people’s level, the deep-seated animus can be witnessed when a match is being played or a situation of tension like the attack on a Bombay hotel arises between the two countries.
The bitterness and antagonism are spawned by the hardliners and fanatics of all sorts on both the sides, most notably the religious outfits. As such in a festering animus-loaded environment, it is difficult to presage if Pakistan and India can forget their strife ridden past and embark upon a path of enduring friendship.
The peace between these two neighbors would remain elusive until they come to a genuine and sincere realization to bury the hatchet and come to terms with each for finding a solution of the contentious issues bedeviling their relation for almost seven decades now. Unfortunately thus far, India and Pakistan have failed to sort out their mutual disputes for lasting peace and good neighborliness.
There is no precedent in the past that they worked out and practically implemented bilateral agreements with regard to such thorny issues such as the demarcation of borders, mutual trade, the apportionment of water from rivers flowing down into Pakistan or the paramount lingering Kashmir issue. The Indus Basic Treaty was breached by India being the upper riparian.
There is no record of sitting down and coming up with a recipe of veritable peace and friendship by the two neighbors liberated from the British colonial yoke in 1947. India will not give up her hold on Kashmir, nor will Pakistan or Kashmiri nation relinquish or forego their claim about holding a pledged plebiscite to elicit the local population’s opinion as to which country they would prefer to join.
Indian deems Kashmir as an integral part of Indian federation while Pakistan’s standpoint is that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status has yet to be determined by the people of Kashmir though a plebiscite.
Both the countries have not been able to smoothen and ease flow of cross border travel because of stringent visa rules that bar the travelers from either country to go beyond the cities specified in the passport. The intelligence operatives chase and keep a strict watch on the visitors until they depart. There have been many instances when a visitor was apprehended on mere suspicion and languished in Indian or Pakistani jails for years.
The three wars, in 1948, 1965, and 1971 followed by brief skirmishes in Kargil in July 1999 have failed to bring about change of hearts on both the sides. India’s military intervention in Bangladesh in 1971 led to the dismemberment of Pakistan and a humiliating defeat for the Pakistan’s armed forces. The Simla Agreement signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan, binds both the countries to settle all contentious issues via parleys to be conducted in the framework of the UN Charter.
Besides, since the inception of both the states in 1947, Pakistan has remained under unrelenting diplomatic, military, economic, and psychological pressure from India. So the talk of CBMS (confidence building measures) is a mere ploy to obfuscate the real issues. Both countries have varying and different interpretation for CBMS.
For Pakistan, primarily it is the easy movement of citizens of both the states without much of harassment and strict conditions. For India, it is to allow India to export her goods to Pakistani without any let or hindrance. While Pakistan has ever remained ready to talk on substantive issues India’s priorities and prerogatives have been focused on pushing them to back burners or keeping in a state of limbo.
Now building of 22 barrages by India on rivers emanating from Kashmir apart from being a violation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, would give a complete control to India to stop or release water to Pakistan, which is a lower riparian. India agreed to sign Indus Basin Treaty because it deprived Pakistan of three rivers.
If Pakistan doesn't get enough water, it would be exposed always to a looming threat of drought and famine. Tacitly India’s preference has been to turn Pakistan into a market for disposal of her products both industrial and agricultural.
The fact is that primarily it is Pakistan that would be the major beneficiary of the illusive settlement of the outstanding issues between India and Pakistan. For that matter, India would not let Pakistan off the hook lest it can move forward on a course of stability, progress, and prosperity. By facilitating cross border trade Pakistan would earn 12 billion dollars per annum.
Until and unless there is an overwhelming goodwill or an earnest desire to resolve the contentious issues bedeviling their relationship, the good neighborly relations and lasting friendship between Pakistan and India would remain elusive and hung up on tenterhooks of belligerency and deep distrust.
While Pakistan is caught up in the throes of a civil war at home front besides fighting a prolonged proxy war for the west, it cannot afford to ignite a crisis situation that can lead to another war and military confrontation with India. Given the Indian expanding role and interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan is genuinely worried that it night get a push both from the eastern and western fronts once the foreign occupation troops leave Afghanistan.
But in view of the emerging scenario after exit of NATO and American troops from Afghanistan, the race for dominance in that war ravaged country would alarmingly heighten. That would add up to another conflict for a foothold in Afghanistan embittering their already tense relations. Can they agree to work together for the reconstruction and uplift of Afghanistan? It is a moot question.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
March 1, 2014
By Saeed Qureshi
The statement of the Chief of Jamaat-I Islami Syed Munawwar Hasan in favor of Taliban is unpatriotic and tantamount to endorsing the terrorism against the people and armed forces of Pakistan. This is not the only time that JI has acted as the fifth columnist and keeps a dagger under its cloak.
It opposed Pakistan when it was being conceived and fought for by the Muslim leaders under the inimitable leadership of Quaid-e-Azam. The founder of JI Maulana Maududi thought himself to be loftier than Quaid-i- Azam and ridiculed him as Kafir (infidel)
It is high time to decide if Pakistan wants to remain infested with radical forces or distinguish itself as a modern state. After all it is not the sole responsibility of Pakistan to defend Islam. This fundamental obligation devolves on Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Islamic countries where Islam was born and sprouted.
If Saudis are not ready to give a nomenclature to their country as Islamic Republic of Saudi Arabia why Pakistan a South Asian state located thousands of miles far away should brand itself as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. If the argument is and that was primarily pedaled by Jamaat-e- Islami and the ilk that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam then why they opposed the creation of Pakistan for its being Unislamic state.
Apart from the secular and pro Hindus parties like red shirts that opposed the creation of Pakistan, there were also Muslim organizations that were not in favor of an Islamic state within the British India. These were Khaksars, the Deobandi Muslim Movement (later JUI) and the Jamaat-e-Islami founded by Maulana Maududi in 1941.
Had these segments supported Quaid-e-Azam in that historic movement for carving out an independent state for Indian Muslims, the political strength and backing would have been formidable for the founder of Pakistan to claim Pakistan with greater confidence and tenacity.
Besides the religio-political outfits, the feudal of West Pakistan also stood in the way of Quaid-e-Azam striving for a separate independent homeland for the Muslims of India not on religious grounds but for their being a political entity or nation.
The Jamaat-e-Islami believed that a democratic state can never be Islamic because the power is in the hands of the people and not God. The pinnacle objective of Maulana Maududi behind founding a politico-religious party was the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law as was prevalent during 29 years of the caliphate of the first four caliphs.
Such a government would be run by chaste, pious, and righteous Muslims. Maulana Maududi did not want Pakistan to come into being because it collided with his concept of a universal Islamic empire with sovereignty resting in God.
Yet one paramount question that boggles the mind is that when Maulana Maududi opposed Pakistan and its founder Quaid-e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah tooth and nail, why he migrated to live in this state immediately after the partition. Later he said that Pakistan was destined to be become an Islamic state. What a volte face!
The fundamental argument of the Jamaat-Islami was that their concept of a universal or global Islamic empire did not fit into a territory-bound country of Pakistan. Maulana depicted Pakistan an un-Islamic state and the Quaid-e-Azam as the biggest infidel. Yet after partition despite blocking and bitterly opposing its creation, Maulana Maududi and his ideological companions had no other place to migrate except Pakistan.
They had come to Pakistan with a design to convert it into an Islamic state of their vision and bidding. That was a plan to hijack a progressive Pakistan that Quaid-e-Azam had visualized and that he had literally snatched it from both Indian National Congress and the British colonial masters.
The pinnacle objective of Maulana Maududi behind establishing a politico-religious party was to create a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law as was prevalent during 29 years of the caliphate of the first four caliphs. Such a government would be run by the chaste, pious, and righteous Muslims. It also meant transferring of the global leadership from evil, immoral and unjust to the hands of righteous and faithful servants of almighty God.
Now how an Islamic state on universal level could be established with God as its sovereign without a territory or place to stand upon? God deputed man in Adam to act and rule on earth as his lieutenant. Maulana Maududi ignored the historical fact that the prophet of Islam spread his divine mission from the territory of Medina. Even a providential empire cannot be founded in the air as the land is indispensable for carrying a mission such as preaching religion.
The Jamaat stalwarts and its founders were bitterly opposed to such titles as Muslim Nationalists or Nationalist Muslims that they perceived were like calling a prostitute a pious prostitute. Besides rejecting nationalism based on territory, they were also against socialism, capitalism, communism and even science.
How could JI (Jamaat-e- Islami) discard and root out these powerful movments and replace these with a universal caliphate? Would the respective states allow them to do so? It was thus a purely utopian doctrine which was hotly contested later by Maulana Maududi’s own dissident companions.
Now let us suppose that if Muslims lived in an undivided India, would that conform to the model of an Islamic state that Maulana Maududi wanted to create. In larger context even the whole of India would not be sufficient to realize the dream or goal of Jamaat-e-Islami to found a truly Islamic empire or state where only the prototype of Khilafat-e Rashida could be established.
Would the Hindu majority allow them to remain at large to campaign and strive for an Islamic polity and state within the undivided India? It was the kind of Pan-Islamism that was advocated by Syed Jamaluddin Afghani in the 19th century and which met with miserable failure as it could never be achieved.
The gigantic refugees’ problem, the building of national institutions and infrastructure, the framing of a constitution and establishing a democratic form of government were the formidable challenges to which the newly born state of Pakistan was exposed. The Jamaat’s strategy of turning it into a theocracy by opposing every government, in fact, triggered a process of destabilization and instability in the society.
From day one this party knew that it would be impossible for it to come into power through the democratic process of elections for realizing its myopic dream of ruling the world with Islam as the dominant religion.
The Jamaat’s lethal weapon has been its monolithic organization and staunchly committed cadres such as Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba. It was also adept in vicious rumor mongering, and vituperative propaganda to slander and defame its opponents.
The Jamaat’s anti-Ahmadyia movement in 1953 created immense chaos and upheaval. In order to curb those riots, the first martial law was declared in a nascent state that was passing through the crucial process of settling down.
One would question as to why the Jamaat did not launch an anti-Ahmadyia campaign in the British India as they were even then non-Muslims. For the countrywide agitations and writing incendiary and hate filled literature, Maulana Maududi was awarded death sentence by the court that was finally commuted.
The Jamaat gave a hard time to Ayub Khan by staging street agitations and taking out processions forcing him to intimidate and oppress the Jamaat cadres. The collision with Military regime of Ayub Khan started when Jamaat demanded the restoration of Islamic articles in the constitution of 1962.The Jamaat was banned in 1964 and its activists were sent to jails.That was the beginning of a process of destabilization which resurfaced from time to time in the subsequent periods.
However, The Jamaat was successful in putting the message across the country that it was a force to reckon with and that it could rock the boat by its street agitations and violent protests, inflammable literature and unrelenting vilification blitz.
As stated earlier, the committed and brain-washed Jamaat cadres particularly the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba were the militant wing of the party that aggressively and violently promoted the arm twisting agenda and belligerency of the Jamaat. Thus they succeeded in capturing the student unions in leading universities and colleges of Pakistan.
Rationally and honestly there should be no objection to Jamaat’s desire to promote its concept of Islamizing the whole world and reviving the pristine era of Khilafat-e Rashida. But the main impediments in its way are the other religious outfits that view the Islamic theology and precepts in a differ color. The sectarian cleavages in Islam specifically between the Sunnis and Shias have obviated any possibility of a common code to be followed by the Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere.
The Jamaat simply puts under the rug the Saudi Arabia monarchy that cannot be defined as an Islamic model because Islam does not allow family dynasties or priesthood (Rahbaniat). Moreover The Saudi Arabia too is a geographical entity that JI wanted to deny to the Muslims of the Subcontinent on the ground that it ran counter to the sovereignty of God on earth.
However, the Jamaat’s rabble-rousing ability brought to it the reward in the form of the 1956 constitution (23 March) written by a sympathizer of the Jamaat: the then prime minister of Pakistan and chief of the Nizam-e-Islam party; Ch Muhammad Ali. It was in that constitution that for the first time the name of the country was adopted as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
It was huge victory for Jamaat-i- Islami besides other religious political outfits. Bu that changes spurred a tussle between the secular and conservative forces that contuse to this day and that cuts across the unity of the people as one nation without religious categorization and identities.
The Jamaat has been shuttling between the two systems i.e. democracy and dictatorship in the political arena of Pakistan. It supported Fatima Jinnah as a candidate against general Ayub Khan in 1964 elections. That was in fact a negation and infringement of its own faith that democracy was not a substitute for an Islamic order whose head is always God himself. The Jamaat believes that the law in the shape of Qur’an is already there only to be implemented. In democracy, it contends, the laws are made by the human beings.
Again they participated in 1970 general elections disregarding that the Jamaat was against the western electoral system and believed in a Shoorai( consultation or collective decision-making) model in which only a body of pious Muslims is chosen to rule and implement the Quranic laws and traditions of Hadith.
Also in sheer breach of their Islamic constitution, they supported and sided with three dictators namely Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq and lately general Pervez Musharraf. To beef up the onslaught by Pakistan army in East Pakistan in 1971, they mobilized their militant outfits known as Al-shams and Al-Badr. These brigands indiscriminately and brutally killed the Bengalis who were fighting for their freedom against an army notwithstanding the contention if they were right or wrong.
That was certainly the rank opportunism and sheer betrayal of JI of its own professed creed that it would neither support western democracy nor the dictatorship but only the rule and sovereignty of God on earth and enforcement of Shariah.
Their spine-chilling atrocities through JI’s Bengali cohorts were returned by Mukti-Behni in gruesome massacres and barbaric slaughtering of the west Pakistanis including the men in uniform. For the cessation of East Pakistan, JI bears equal responsibility besides the chauvinistic and moronic military junta and political opportunists like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
It also projected itself as the strongest and most trenchant ideological, political supporter and steadfast ally of General Ziaul haq, the latter day self-styled crusader who wanted to Islamize Pakistan and impose a defunct, narrow and radical model of Islam on it by brutal means.
In their unconditional loyalty and unstinting capitulation to General Zia they were able to send Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the gallows. When Bhutto was in Rawalpindi jail they spread the rumors that the Palestinians guerrillas were planning to get him out jail.
Thereafter, Bhutto’s cell was fortified with concrete walls and placed under maximum surveillance. The night Mr. Bhutto was hanged; Mian Muhammad Tufail was in constant touch with General Zia.
The JI’s third show of support was for general Musharraf against an elected and constitutional government. But they see in the dictators an easy prey for their narrow demands and phony objectives to be realized As such they forget the virtues of Islamic caliphate and divine rule on earth and stand behind the ruthless and power hungry dictators.
The dictatorship is in fact close to the perception of fundamentalist parties like JI as a shortcut for the enforcement of an Islamic order of their choice. So let us call this an unworthy bid for attainment of base motives and grabbing of power under the guise of Islam: a religion that shuns such intrigues for self perpetuation and aggrandizement.
This party is now in coalition with Pakistan Tehrik-Insaf (PTI). What would happen to PTI with such a smart partner is a story in the making that would be unraveled in due course of time. But while the PTI thus far a robust supporter of TTP has of late, supported the military action against the Taliban, the Jamaat has openly denounced the Pakistan Air Force’s surgical strikes on Taliban dens.
It demonstrates the inner disregard of the JI towards the army and for that matter sheer apathy towards the people of Pakistan being brutally massacred by the later day monsters. It also shows that the JI supports the Islamic outlook of Taliban that is far from real Islam.
They have not condemned the Taliban for their war on Pakistan which means that JI is complacent on their savagery and terrorism that is destabilizing Pakistan. That means destabilization of Pakistan was at the core of JI’s policy that conforms to their original plank of either turning Pakistan into a hardcore theocracy or else its extinction.