This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…

During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.

When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.

Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State:  The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.

Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.

Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.

Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy:  Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.

Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.

1. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
2. Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
3. Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
4. Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:  A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
5. Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.

The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”

It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.

Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.

When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.

(To be continued…)

This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…

During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.

When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.

Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State:  The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.

Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.

Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.

Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy:  Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.

Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.

1. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
2. Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
3. Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
4. Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:  A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
5. Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.

The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”

It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.

Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.

When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.

(To be continued…)

A couple of weeks shy of the scheduled presidential elections, Vice-President Abdu Rabbo Mansour Hadi announced in an official ceremony that he would run for president, adding that he hoped Yemenis would entrust him with the responsibility of running the affairs of the state.
On Tuesday, Yemenis across the country woke up to find that a number of posters advocating their electoral participation had been hung throughout their towns and villages, reminding them of their democratic, constitutional and civic duties. But since VP Hadi is the only candidate running for president, and no matter how few people decide to show up to cast their vote the veteran politician will still be pronounced the winner, many Yemenis are wondering whether the whole thing is a farce and if they should indulge in such a travesty of the democratic system.
From Sana’a to Aden, the eastern shore of the Red Sea to the leafy hills of Hadramaut, Yemenis from all faiths and political denominations are asking the same question: “What does this have to do with us?”

Flash Back

At the beginning of it all, when Yemenis decided during the ousting of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak to rise against their own dictator, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, they wanted to bring about real democracy, turning their country into a civil state where justice, freedom and equality would be revered notions, not just ink on paper. But as Saleh held on to his presidential seat and as blood started flowing through the streets of Sana’a, the capital and Taiz, a flash point of the Revolution, foreign nations scrambled to save Yemen from the precipice, too aware of its strategic importance within the region.

From that moment on, revolutionaries were put aside, ignored by the politicians, as diplomats and high ranking statesmen worked at finding a solution to the conundrum that had become Yemen. In between its many overlapping conflicts, widespread poverty and the threat of terror groups looming in the shadows, Yemen is unlike any other land. Very much like President Saleh put it himself, ruling over Yemen equates to “dancing over the heads of snakes”. But for one who truly understands the essence of Yemen, there is an order to the apparent chaos.

The GCC proposal that enunciated the terms of the power-transfer and its mechanisms never actually took into account the will of the people, but rather it was tailored around Saleh’s will, ensuring him an honorable exit with the promise of immunity. In other words, the fate of Yemen’s presidency was sealed by a group of technocrats and politicians, while the good people of Yemen were completely put on the back burner for it was “better this way.”

Democracy

VP Hadi, who is a member of the ruling party, was chosen by both the General People’s Congress and the Opposition as the candidate of the coalition, ensuring that no other contender would enter the presidential race.
And if even Western diplomats have argued that the move was intended to preserve the country’s unity and avoid a bitter battle for power from the various political factions, Yemenis saw no sense in it. Revolutionaries actually contested the legitimacy of the power-transfer deal from the very second it was inked in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, warning that they would continue to fight until Yemen power players would acknowledge their demands.

And although there was no further violent confrontation between the armed forces and the revolutionaries, at least not in the magnitude manifested before the agreement, hundreds of thousands of Yemenis across the nation are still demanding to be heard, rejecting as a whole “Saleh tailored plan.”

“Are you seriously telling me that a one-man-election can be called democratic? Are you telling me that after a year of suffering, blood spilled and all around misery, that the best the West and its minions could come up with is Hadi? Are Yemenis so stupid that the West does not trust them to choose their own leader? Why couldn’t we have a normal presidential elections like in Egypt based on the principle of political pluralism? Is it so hard to understand that Yemen wants a real civil state… not a make believe one where the old regime is still present but with a new face?” a leader of the Independent Youth argued.

Another sore point, which Yemeni are finding hard to swallow, lies in the fact that the United Nations, through its multitude of agencies, is currently throwing away several millions of dollars to organize the elections. “Millions of us are going hungry for we have lost everything in our struggle for freedom and rather than pull all the country’s resources together to bring some relief to war-torn areas, the government prefers to spend the UN money on stupid posters and presidential campaign? It is insulting to the nation. We don’t need posters but we need bread. So kindly Hadi, cash out your checks and feed your country,” said an English teacher in “Change Square”, the epicenter of the revolutionary movement.
Yemen is said to have spent 8 million dollars on Hadi’s campaign, with all the funds provided by Japan, Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Given that the majority of the population lives on under $2 per day, this money could have prevented 4 million of people from going hungry or could have provided 80,000 families with an average salary of $100 for a month. Many are warning that in spite of the coalition government’s claims that all will be fixed after February 21st with Saleh’s departure from power, one might want to have a look at who is leading Yemen’s military. With his sons, nephews and brother still very much in charge of the nation’s fire power, Saleh might not have yet said his last goodbye to Yemen. In which case, the GCC proposal will only allow the autocrat to regroup and plan his comeback.

Its been awfully long since I did a Friday Fashion Craving post, but with today’s craving, i just couldn’t resist.

Today its the Snakes on a frame cross-body bag from Marc by Marc Jacobs that caught my eye.

Since the 2001 launch of his secondary label, Marc by Marc Jacobs, celebrated designer and NYC-native Marc Jacobs has garnered global acclaim for his iconic designs. Decorated with the Parsons Design Student of the Year title and 7 prestigious CFDA awards, Jacobs’s unwavering knack for reinventing vintage trends and classics lends a timeless allure to his work.

This pebbled leather Marc by Marc Jacobs handbag features snake-embossed trim at the sunglasses detail. Antiqued gold hardware and detachable chain strap. Available at Shopbop.

Filed under: Friday’s Fashion Craving Tagged: Friday’s Fashion Craving, Marc by Marc Jacobs

If you have a Blackberry, then you’re probably anxious to know what design, application, interface and operating system solutions are headed your way. For one thing, Research in Motion, the company behind the development of the Blackberry line of products announced in late November that it will launch the Blackberry Mobile Fusion, which is essentially an enterprise mobility solution. The cool thing about the Blackberry Mobile Fusion is that it doesn’t specifically target one market. It addresses both Blackberry and Android smartphone and tablet users, and will even suit the products made by the competition, namely gadgets and mobile devices that use the iOS operating system.

What Does It Do?

This tailor-made solution for business and management addresses the ever-increasing reality of the fact that most operations and organizations make heavy use of smatphones and tablets. As such, it has become quite an effort and a hassle to manage all the devices under one’s supervision. In comes the Blackberry Mobile Fusion. According to Alan Panezic, the VP of Enterprise Product Management and Marketing at Research in Motion, Mobile Fusion “provides the necessary management capabilities to allow IT departments to confidently oversee the use of both company-owned and employee-owned mobile devices within their organizations.”

In brief, this platform, which makes use of the Blackberry Enterprise Server (version 5.0.3) will help you better manage your assets. Users of the upcoming solution will also gain access to the Blackberry Balance technology, which supports the use of the same device for both personal and professional use. In addition, configuring the settings on mobile devices will be all the more easier, while the definition and management of security norms and policies will also be simplified for all devices in one organization. If you’re looking for ways in which to secure and protect lost or stolen devices, by locking them remotely, for instance, or wiping all the data to prevent intelligence theft, Mobile Fusion will help you do just that. The platform allows individual users as well as groups to manage the settings, and is also capable of supervising more than one device per user. It manages applications, software and connectivity all via a centralized console and is also very scalable. The need for such a platform was triggered by the increase of the BYOD (bring-your-own-device) approach to business management. There are so many types of devices used within a single company that it can often seem impossible to manage them all efficiently and correctly.

Insure Your Blackberry Now!

An alternative solution, which is very affordable and highly recommended for private Blackberry users is Blackberry Insurance. Whether you own a Blackberry Curve, Bold or Torch, you know that your sleek, stylish and sophisticated phone will attract attention—and this attention won’t always be the kind you’re vying for. Consider losing or damaging your phone. Or even worse, what if someone steals it and instantly gains access to all your personal information and business data? You definitely need to do something to prevent such malfeasance, and a good, all-inclusive insurance policy is possibly the best solution available for you.

Similar Posts:

• Telenor Blackberry [Postpaid Service]
• Ufone Starts Blackberry App Store Yet Again
• Zong BlackBerry Discount Offer
• Mobilink BlackBerry Bold
• Ufone Presents Blackberry Curve 8520
• Ufone Brings out Recently Released Blackberry Bold 9900 in Pakistan
• Kurztest BlackBerry Curve 8520
• Mobilink Web Exclusive Offer – Buy BlackBerry(R) StormTM 9500 Online & Get 30% Off‏
• See the Lighter side of Life with the BlackBerry Torch from Mobilink
• The Best of Both Worlds Mobilink Infinity WiMAX & Blackberry Bundle Offer
• BlackBerry Bold – Kurzer Eindruck (GERMAN)
• BlackBerry intoruced in Pakistan by Ufone
• Mobilink BlackBerry
• Mobilink indigo introduces BlackBerry PlayBook in Pakistan!
• Mobilink indigo Sends Lucky Winners to South Africa