Source/Credit: The News | Pakistan
By S Iftikhar Murshed | January 8, 2012
Politicians distort history as much as religious extremists distort the teachings of Islam. Imran Khan has vowed that he will establish an Islamic welfare state if he is voted to power. This pledge was made amidst thunderous applause at the Tehreek-e-Insaf rally near the mausoleum of the Quaid-e-Azam on Dec 25, the 135th birth anniversary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There could scarcely be a greater affront to the memory of the founder of Pakistan, who was bitterly opposed to the idea of an Islamic state.
Not once during his eventful life did Jinnah, “the cold and brilliant lawyer,” refer to Pakistan as an ‘Islamic’ state; nor did he allow the articulation of such a concept from the platform of the Muslim League. Just how strongly he felt about this is evident from a little-known incident narrated by the first Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, Sri Prakasa, in this book Pakistan: Birth and Early Days. The high commissioner had unusual access to Jinnah because the two had been members of the Central Legislative Assembly.
In one of his meetings with the Quaid-e-Azam, Sri Prakasa recalls that he had been indiscreet enough to say that non-Muslims would feel more secure if the leadership of Pakistan refrained from stressing that the country had been founded as an Islamic state. This had been affirmed by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan only the previous day. Jinnah looked sternly at the high commissioner and replied that he personally had never once used the word “Islamic,” and then retorted: “Have it out with Liaquat; why quarrel with me?”
Setting aside diplomatic niceties, the envoy insisted, somewhat impetuously, that Jinnah had referred to Pakistan as an Islamic state in his broadcast to the nation from Lahore on Aug 31, 1947. This was vehemently denied, and tension in the room soared, forcing the nervous Sri Prakasa to beg leave. He rechecked the text of the broadcast and discovered how wrong he had been, because “the word ‘Islamic’ had not occurred anywhere...I had mistaken the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘Islamic.’ “ He accordingly sent a letter of apology to the Quaid-e-Azam.
Yet, no other leader in pre-partition India had fought so relentlessly and so successfully for the rights of the subcontinent’s Muslims as Jinnah did. He was a man of faith and ended his address at the historic All-India Muslim League session in Lahore on March 23, 1940, with the exhortation: “Come forward as the servants of Islam; organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically, and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.” His struggle had been for a Muslim homeland, not an Islamic state, which he knew was unattainable because of the evidence of history and the basic teachings of the religion.
The distinguished Indian lawyer and author, A G Noorani, whose latest book Jinnah and Tilak has been widely acclaimed, equates the quest for an Islamic state with chasing a mirage, and identifies four reasons for that. First, it has no sanction in the Quran and the Hadith; second, it has never existed in history; third, it is incapable of realisation if it is conceived as a state for the entire Muslim ummah or community; and, fourth, the concept is totalitarian and deprives people of their right to rule and vests that right in an unelected clergy whose members alone decide what is Islamic and what is not.
The course of Muslim history demonstrates that with the exception of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen (the first four rightly guided caliphs) whose enlightened rule lasted less than thirty years (632-661), hereditary succession has been the norm. Some of the most outstanding Muslim thinkers, such as Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), not only firmly opposed this but also stressed the non-religious character of the office of such rulers.
In his great work, Muqaddimah, he wrote: “Islam does not consider preservation of (the ruler’s) inheritance for his children the proper purpose of appointing a successor. Succession to the rule is something that comes from God Who distinguishes by it whomsoever He wishes. In appointing a successor it is necessary to be as well-intentioned as possible. Otherwise, there is danger that one may trifle with religious institutions.”
The concept of an Islamic state first emerged after the Grand National Assembly of Turkey abolished the caliphate in 1924. Not only did Turkey’s secularists wholeheartedly endorse the abolition but even the ulema of al-Azhar University in Cairo considered it impossible to revive the caliphate. It was at this juncture that the Syrian-born reformer, Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935), sought to develop the idea of an Islamic state.
But the concept remained vague and nebulous despite the subsequent polemics aimed at imbuing it with a measure of clarity. It was not till the adoption of the Objectives Resolution by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, barely six months after the death of the Quaid-e-Azam, that the proposition of an Islamic state was resuscitated. This unleashed a chain of baleful political events and, contrary to what Jinnah had so forcefully articulated in his address to the Constituent Assembly on Aug 11, 1947, religion unfortunately became “the business of the state.” In his remarkably insightful work Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan, the lawyer Hamid Khan observes: “Once the state establishes a religion it leads to confrontation between various sects.”
Constitutions were promulgated only to be abrogated, until the adoption of the 1973 Constitution. Amendments to the basic law followed and in the process, particularly after the passage of the Second Amendment in 1974, under which the Ahmedis were excommunicated from Islam, the religious right became progressively stronger. With each concession, they demanded more and more “as if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on.” Nothing less than the imposition of their narrow, literalist interpretation of Islam was acceptable to them.
The hollowness of the demand for an Islamic state was laid bare in the 387-page Munir Report of 1954. This was the outcome of the inquiry conducted by Justice Muhammad Munir and Justice M R Kayani into the anti-Ahmedi disturbances in Lahore in 1953. It asks: “What is then the Islamic state of which everybody talks about but nobody thinks?...The ulema were divided in their opinions when they were asked to cite some precedent of an Islamic state in Muslim history.”
A telling comment was made by Maulana Maudoodi who, when asked whether he would permit Hindus to base their constitution on their own religion, replied: “Certainly, I should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of government as Shudras and Malishes and Manu’s laws are applied on them, depriving them of all share in the government and the rights of citizens.”
The ulema questioned by the Munir Commission were not even able to define a Muslim, which prompted the learned judges to observe: “Keeping in view the several definitions of a Muslim given by the ulema, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental?”
The constitution of an Islamic state has to be based on the Quran, but as early as 1952 the late A K Brohi, wrote: “It is not possible to derive from the text of the Quran a clear statement as to the actual content of the constitution of any state.” The Munir Report concludes that “the phantom of an Islamic state has haunted the Musalman throughout the ages...and our politicians should understand that if Divine commands cannot make or keep a man a Musalman, their statutes will not...and nor will an ‘Islamic state.’ “ This was also what Jinnah believed.
The writer is the publisher of Criterion quarterly.
Email: iftimurshed@gmail.com
Read original post here: Hankering after a phantom
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.