In the history of human civilisation,
there have remained only four ways for a particular ideology or movement
to attain the position of political supremacy in a country:
Firstly, the exponents of the
ideology seize power through an armed struggle.
Secondly, the supporters of
the ideology are made to turn against the existing government in the form
of a popular uprising and the government, as a result, is forced to withdraw.
Thirdly, the process of elected
representation is used by them to attain this goal.
Fourthly, those in authority
in a country after being influenced by the ideology and impressed by its
philosophy accept and adopt it.
The first two methodologies,
in Islamic terminology, are called khuruj (revolt against the government).
Since Islam stresses that the life of a person can only be taken when he
is guilty of either murdering another person or of spreading disorder in
the society and since it lays emphasis on the fact that no amount of disruption
can be allowed in the political set-up of a country even if it is plagued
by numerous flaws and since it asserts that a person even if he is of the
calibre of Abu Bakr or ‘Umar cannot assume political authority if he does
not enjoy the support of the masses, therefore, it only allows the first
two methods ---allows and not considers them obligatory or desirable in
any condition--- when the following three conditions are necessarily fulfilled:
Firstly, the government should
be guilty of openly denying the shari‘ah in any way.
Secondly, the government should
be a despotic one, which neither came into existence through the opinion
of the people nor is it possible to change it through their opinion.
Thirdly, the person who leads
this uprising should have a clear cut majority of the nation at his back
and they are willing to accept him as their future ruler in favour of the
existing one.
The reason for the first condition
is that as long as the rulers of the Muslims are from among them and in
settling any difference of opinion are not rejecting the verdict of Allah
and His Prophet (sws), it is imperative for the believers to obey them.
No one among the believers should adopt a different attitude. The Qur’an
says:
Obey Allah and the Prophet and those among you
who are in authority, and if you disagree among yourselves in any matter,
refer it to Allah and the Prophet. (4:59)
While explaining this Qur’anic
directive,
the Prophet (sws) said:
You can only refuse their submission if you witness
outright kufr in any matter from them, in which you have a clear evidence
from God. (Muslim, Kitab-al-Imarah)
Similarly, on another occasion,
he remarked:
It is imperative on the believers to obey their
rulers whether they like them or not except when they are ordered to do
something against the shari‘ah. If they are commanded so, they should neither
hear nor obey this command. (Muslim, Kitab-al-Imarah)
The reason for the second condition
is that if the principle of amruhum shura baynahum*,
which governs the formation and removal of a government, is fully implemented
in a system and the government has come into being on its basis and can
be changed according to it, then changing it by a revolt amounts to a violation
of this principle; consequently, it is tantamount to revolt against the
masses and not the government. This, according to the shari‘ah, is spreading
disorder in the land and is punishable by death in the most exemplary manner.
The Prophet (sws) is said to have said:
If your majority consent to the authority of
your ruler and someone tries to disrupt or dismantle this system, execute
him.** (Muslim, Kitab-al-Imarah)
The reason for the third condition
is that since according to the Qur’anic principle of amruhum
shura baynahum a government comes into being due to a majority mandate
and remains in existence on this basis, therefore, only that person has
the right to revolt about whom it can be safely said that the majority
of the nation is with him and is willing to accept his leadership instead
of the existing ruler. ‘Umar Faruq, while he was once delivering a speech,
remarked:
If a person pledges an oath of allegiance to
someone without the opinion of the believers, both of them shall have to
face execution. (Bukhariy, Kitab-al-Hudud)
If takes the form of an armed struggle,
there is a fourth condition as well: the rebels first must establish their
political authority in an independent territory.
The reason for this condition
is that the Almighty had never allowed any of his Prophets (sws) to wage
war unless after migrating to an independent piece of land they had established
their political authority there. It is evident from the Qur’an that The
Prophet Moses (sws) was directed to wage war only after he had fulfilled
this condition. Similarly, the Prophet (sws) and his companions were allowed
to launch an armed struggle only after the second pledge of ‘Aqabah they
were able to establish a state in Madinah. The reason for this is that
without political authority, Jihad amounts to spreading disorder in the
land. How can a leadership which is not able to punish criminals be allowed
to wage an armed struggle? All the scholars of this Ummah have strongly
advocated this fourth condition. To quote ‘Fiqh-al-Sunnah’:
Among Kafayah obligations, the third category
is that for which the existence of a ruler is necessary e.g., jihad and
administration of punishments. (Sayyid Sabiq, Vol 3, Pg 30)
In the words of Imam Farahi:
In ones own country without migrating to an independent
piece of land, Jihad is not allowed. The tale of Abraham (sws) and other
verses pertaining to migration testify to this. The Prophet's life (sws)
also supports this view. The reason for this is that if Jihad is not wage
by a person who holds political authority, it amounts to anarchy and disorder.’
(‘Majmu‘ah-e-Tafasir-e-Farahi’, Pg 56)
My mentor Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi
has explained this in the following words:
The first reason for this is that the Almighty
never approves of dismantling even an evil system unless there is a chance
that those who are endeavouring to destroy it will be able to implant a
right one in its place. The conditions of indiscipline and anarchy are
unnatural and so alien to human nature that an unjust system holds priority
over it. Consequently the Almighty has not allowed any party (mubham majhul)
whose power and authority is doubtful and unknown , over which there is
no ruler possessing political authority, whose sincerity and obedience
has not been tested, whose members are indisciplined, who though may have
the ability to dismantle a system but have not presented any evidence of
setting order in a disordered system. Such a trust can only be reposed
in a group which has actually assumed the shape of a political party and
which in its own circle of authority possesses so much order and discipline
that the term of Al Jama‘ah (political system) can be applied to it. Before
a party attains this position, it though has the right to struggle to attain
this position and its struggle can be termed as Jihad (JS) but it has no
right to launch an armed struggle.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion
that in the existing democratic set-up of Pakistan both these methodologies
cannot be adopted according to the Shari‘ah. Consequently, those who are
trying to topple the government through an armed struggle or by adopting
the method of nahi ‘anil munkar bil yad (forcibly eliminating evil) are
doing something which is against the Shari‘ah.
The greatest exponent of an
Islamic revolution in present times, Abu-al-‘Ala Mawdudi, while he was
addressing his workers in a historic session at Machi Goth, said:
While living in a constitutionally democratic
state, the shari‘ah does not allow you to adopt any unconstitutional means
to change a government. Precisely, because of this reason the constitution
of your party binds you to adopt constitutional and democratic means for
the envisaged change. (Tahrik-e-Islami Ka A’inadah La’iha-e-‘Amal, Pg 205)
As far as the third method, i.e.
assuming the reins of power through the process of elected representation,
is concerned, the shari‘ah does not object to it. However, a little deliberation
shows that keeping in view its nature, there are three pre-requisites to
it:
Firstly, such a struggle should
be led by a person who is actually a politician and possess the qualities
of leadership. People like Iqbal, Azad and Mawdudi who are basically scholars
and thinkers should not lead such an endeavour. People like Mohammad Ali
Jinnah, Muhammad ‘Ali Jawhar and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who have a natural
inclination towards statesmanship are the suitable leaders of such enterprises.
No doubt, if such people lead the struggle for an Islamic revolution in
the field of politics, extraordinary results can be achieved, but if researchers
and scholars tread this path, all their efforts would inevitably end up
in vain.
Secondly, if, for this purpose,
a set-up is formed, it should be a political party like the Muslim League
or the People's Party. The party should regard the bringing about of an
Islamic revolution as its object and should try to win over people in its
ranks who possess a political position and as such can become natural supporters
of this movement. Religious parties are neither appropriate for this struggle
nor will they ever be. The are destined to suffer successive set backs
and to eventually lose their identity.
Thirdly, whatever strategy is
adopted during the elections, it should be based on capitalising on the
existing position of political affiliation of the masses. Elections are
not contested for the propagation of one's ideological views or as an introduction
for the party; they are only contested to benefit from the realities which
exist and they are contested for victory. In such matters, remaining indifferent
to victory or defeat is against human nature, and nothing against nature
can persist in this world for long.
These are the pre-requisites
of this methodology. If a movement or a party does not fulfil them, its
fate will be no different from that of The Jama’at-e-Islami whose
struggle spans more than five decades. Consequently, it is apparent to
every keen eye that the Jama‘at’s quest for success in this struggle
has:
--- almost totally deprived it of its ideological
identity, its goal of reforming the Muslims and its zeal of disseminating
the truth.
--- transferred the leadership within the various levels
of the party from scholars and intellectuals to people who are not only
devoid of these abilities but are also politically ineffective. Consequently,
an atmosphere of gloom prevails at its various frontiers.
--- gone a long way in eliminating the integrity and
nobility its ranks once possessed and whatever little remains of them seems
to perish soon.
It is, therefore, certain that this
methodology is appropriate for a scholar or an intellectual only if his
message has influenced the masses so much and they agree to his leadership
to such an extent that elections merely become for him merely a constitutional
need for a political change, and whenever he intends he can obtain the
public mandate in his favour through them.
The fourth method, i.e. to preach,
educate and influence people in favour of an ideology has though become
an alien concept, yet for this object it is the most congenial to the shari‘ah
and can produce the most desired results. All the Prophets of Allah adopted
it. In every period of time, whenever they were sent to their people, they
vigilantly stuck to this methodology. True that many a time was their message
rejected, they were exiled from their territories and many a time they
were even killed, but they never changed this modus operandi. The Almighty
always bade them to remain steadfast on this cause for this is their real
duty. They have to reform and educate the society. They are not to force
ideas and concepts on their people.
Consequently, it is a historical
fact that whenever the Prophets have been able to bring about a revolution,
it has been through this methodology. It is through this way that the mission
of the Prophet Moses (sws) was accomplished and it is by adopting this
course that the rulers of the Prophet Jonah's nation accepted faith. Above
all, the first Islamic state was founded in Madinah by the Prophet
Muhammad (sws) by working on these lines.
It is known that the chiefs
of Mecca did not respond to the Prophet (sws) in almost eleven years of
his preaching. The Prophet (sws), on the Almighty's bidding, then presented
his message to other tribes. Consequently, a few people of Madinah accepted
faith and through their efforts of propagation and preaching, within a
short period of two years, the whole leadership of Madinah was subdued
by the call of this faith. The last pledge at ‘Aqabah decided that the
Prophet (sws) could migrate to Madinah as its leader whenever he wanted.
On this occasion, one of the Companions of the Prophet (sws) composed the
following couplets:
‘For more than ten years you delivered the truth
to the Quraysh expecting that they you would win over some companions and
supporters [from their rulers].’
‘And you presented yourself on the occasions of Haj to
people but you did not find anyone who was willing to give you refuge nor
could you find anyone who could help you in your mission of delivering
the truth.’
‘But, after this, when you came to us, the Almighty gave
supremacy to His religion. Consequently, you became pleased and happy with
this city.’
If someone from among the political
scene of our country intends to launch a struggle in order to bring about
an Islamic revolution, he would indeed, be advised to adopt the methodology
of elected representation, but this fourth methodology is the only proper
way for scholars and intellectuals. It is about them that the Prophet (sws)
is reported to have said: ‘They are the heirs’ of ambi‘ah. Consequently,
whenever they shall deviate from this path, they shall deviate from their
legacy. The only result of this would be that by becoming the political
rivals of various other parties, they will lose their original and real
identity. In fact, the ‘ulama’ and scholars have no option in this
regard; the Qur’an explicitly tells them that it is only through
da‘wah education and exhortation should they convince the rulers about
the changes which, according to Islam, should be brought about in the individual
and collective spheres of our lives. The Qur’an says:
It was not possible for all the believers to
undertake [this job]. So why did not a few from every group among them
come forward to gain sound knowledge in religion and warn the people of
their [respective] nations, when they returned to them that they may also
take heed. (9:122)
The Qur’an clearly determines
the bases of the strategy which should be adopted for this undertaking.
However, its details can be different in different conditions and set-ups.
In our opinion, the following strategy should be adopted as far as Pakistan
is concerned:
Institutions which can carry
out research and Ijtihad in the various domains of religious thought and
educate and train people on these lines, should be established . The
Qur’an
should occupy the position of final authority in all its undertakings and
the basis of Islamic thought should once again be linked to its two original
sources--- the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Centres, which aim at purifying
the souls and reforming the thoughts of the Muslims in general and their
intelligentsia in particular, should be established countrywide.
The basis of propagation in
these centres should be Tazkir-bil-Qur’an i.e., reminding people
of the truth through the Qur’an. Instead of calling people towards
some sect or personality, they should be called towards a manifesto in
which is clearly stated the changes which must be brought about in the
affairs of this country at the political, economic, social, educational
and penal levels.
A network of general educational
institutions up to F.A. F.Sc. should be set up throughout the country in
which the message of the Qur’an is inculcated within the minds of
the students so that in subsequent years they are able to truly follow
their religion in letter and spirit.
Scholars who take up the mission
of propagation and da‘wah, should once and for all adopt the strategy that
unless the majority of the country supports them, they shall not adopt
any measure beyond da‘wah.
O
If such a da‘wah movement
is initiated in this country, there are four possible outcomes which may
result:
One outcome of this movement
could be that during the course of this endeavour, its exponents are overtaken
by death and like most of the Prophets of the Children of Israel, they
will leave their unaccomplished task to their successors.
A second outcome of this movement
could be that the rulers of this country get influenced by its message
and subsequently adopt it.
A third outcome of this movement
could be that the majority of the nation consents to the leadership of
this movement and as result they are able to assume the reins of power
whenever they like through whichever means possible.
A fourth outcome of this movement
could be that some political personality of this country adopts the ideology
of this movement and in the democratic set up of Pakistan is able to assume
power through the process of elections.
(Translated by Shehzad Saleem)
|