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.
No comments:
Post a Comment