Captain Safdar and the Mob Rule (Democracy)
Captain Safdar has been criticised for his diatribe against a non muslim minority where he called
“These people [Ahmadis] are a threat to this country, its Constitution and ideology. This situation is heading towards a dangerous point,”
“He further said ban on recruitment of Qadianis [Ahmadis] in the armed forces”
Above is reported in DAWN
I will also be addressing in this note some of the questions raised by respected author Shaukat Qadir in his weekly op-ed in Daily Times — Shame on us for all the Captain Safdars
What is my opinion in all of this? I think he has been deployed by PMLn to appease the vote bank and secure votes for upcoming elections in 2018. Nawaz Sharif has taken number of steps to show Washington and Western donners that he has liberal credentials trying to shed off his Ameer ul Momineen story from the 90s. His party has hanged Mumtaz Qadri amongst other liberal stunts to gain favours abroad. All this hasn't boded well with the masses which consider Ahamadis to be non Muslims and their faith a basic attack on the aqeeda of Islam due to they rejecting finality of the Prophethood of our beloved Prophet Muhammad PBUH. So this speech was an effort to show to this vote bank that PMLn is still a party you can count on.
My surprise however is at the surprise that many commentators like Shaukat Qadir and others have shown. We live in a democracy which by definition is about majority rule and which by definition means that minorities will be persecuted or rights denied. Look at US and the state of Blacks and now Muslims, look at Europe and the state of Muslims with minarte bans, niqab bans and all the speech about freedom of speech and about the irony of Muslims speaking termed extremism, look at India and State of minorities. Then look at Trump, look at Modi and the right of right wing anti immigration anti Islam parties across Europe. I mean these are mother of all democracies and what they are proving and which many informed people already know is that Democracy is the Tyranny of the majority. There is so MUCH that can be written on democracy e.g. In this system you ‘count people and do NOT weigh them’ etc. So then why so much surprise when a democratic legislator stood up in the House and did exactly what he is suppose to do?
This is the nasty reality of democracy which then had to be patched with what they called Liberal Democracy which further patched with the dose of Human Rights. So in the Western idealogical sense democracy had to be secularised as well as underpinned by the ideas of freedom of religion, ownership, speech and personal freedom — they then claimed that this will protect fundamental rights for all -so a healthy society can function. The State of Western democracies is for all to see under WofT and the abuse of Human Rights and hypocrisy we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if anyone thinks this is a modern phenomena then i will invite them to read up on European history since inception when while being democratic in Westminster they were brutally colonising and denying rights in the colonies — The Raj.
Now back to Shaukat Qadir article and some of the questions
“Throughout history more evil has been wrought on the human race by religious extremism than any other cause. Tragically, the perpetrators of religiously motivated hate remain proud of their unbelievable inhumanity” — Anonymous
Starting with an anonymous quote that religious extremism has been the source of much hatred -the same false propaganda that religion begets violence and wages wars. This notion built on European history and European experience with religious wars has been propagated once Secularism took hold and attacking Church became an open goal. To refute this notion one just need to look at the Western history since Enlightenment and look at the Wars waged by them in WWI, WWII, the Cold War, The killings of Mao, Killings of Uncle Joe, the WofT, Vietnam War, Korean Wars, McCarthyism (to understand secular/non religious Hate) etc — what astonishes me is this Western attack on religion is taken on face value. Secondly this then air brushes Islam with it. Since WWI there is no religious State in the world and every single State after or during Cold War has been secular or socialist especially in International Relations. So NO, religion has NO monopoly over hate or violence and secularism do not stand on a higher moral grounds. What is Islam views on all of this and Islamic history spanned over 1300 years is a separate topic which we can come to later on.
Our terrorists believe the same. By serving their manmade God of Wrath through the jihad that they preach
The Inquisitions in Europe were State lead and not by some non state actors or terrorist group so there is no comparison with modern terrorism. Secondly the Jews took shelter under the Ottoman Caliphate who were welcomed and settled. The Caliphate acted as a great melting pot for all nations and cultures.
Whats surprising is that author blames terrorist while what is being said is by Captain Safdar who is a democrat, a legislator in a secular parliament so why deflection from the actual perpetrator to the terrorists?
But what gave you, the so-called Ulema of today, the right to avenge crimes endured by the Prophet (PBUH); crimes that he chose to let go unpunished? Who appointed you the Guardians of a religion that you have never even tried to understand?
The problem here is that the author didn't appreciate that Islam when adopted in totality includes the State. Ahkam e Sharia are not limited to personal ibadat alone but expands into social and political areas of life too. Islam delegates these laws to be implemented via allocating authority i.e. to the Caliph or to Walis, some laws are further delegated e.g. to guardians of the house hold. All of this is done under the laws of Islam i.e. Sharia which should or will be the law of the land in any Islamic State. The father can discipline a child who do not pray and he has this authority from Islam, a husband can by authority given to him by Islam acts as a guardian to his wife — so on and so forth. So laws in Islam are not arbitrary and they have a source.
Rasool Allah SAW has two distinct phases under the Prophethood. One under Makkah where he was oppressed and his companions were oppressed and second phase in Makkah where he was Head of the State. He had no authority in Makkah whereas in Madina he SAW implemented law of the land(Sharia) and people had no choice but to submit. Numerous examples can be quoted.
Rasool Allah saw ordered the killing of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi’. On the conquest of peaceful takeover of Makkah Rasool Allah saw ordered the killing of those who insulted him “Even if they were holding the cloth of the Ka’ba”
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. — Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4349
There is a consensus in all schools of thoughts be it Shia or the Sunnis that anyone who insults Rasool Allah saw is to be punished by death. Muslim who denies the definit text is a murtad and punishable by death if do not repent. There is a Ijma of the Sahaba, of the four classical schools of thoughts and of the Ulema on this.
Rasool Allah saw after establishing the State in Madina implemented Sharia on people under the State according to the rules of Islam. This was followed by the rules of the Caliphs who continue to uphold the laws of Islam until the State was abolished in 1924 at the hands of British and French when Ottomons lost WWI.
Does this act of usurping the right that Allah Almighty has kept exclusively for himself — of deciding who deserves to call themselves Muslim and who doesn’t — not deserve to be called what it is? Namely, “Shirk”? The one single transgression that the Prophet (PBUH) and his Khulafadeemed punishable.
The one who is a Muslim is clear in Islam. One enters into Islam by accepting the aqeedah of Islam and Islam allows disagreement on branches but not on the definit text i.e. what is Qatai Dalala and Qatai Uthoobooth meaning what is clear in meaning and clear in source. Disputing this, disputes Islam and destroys Islam. No one can allow this to happen.
Would the West allow anyone to propagate that Secularism means mixing religion? or communism means ownership of private property? or giving different meanings to clear words? People will be locked away and violation of constitutions is usually lead to severe punishments up-to death.
So why there is a surprise when Islam which came to govern affairs in all aspects of life has elements beyond the individual? When Islam too has in the Sharia aspects which protects the Aqeeda of Islam.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but if my recollection of Islamic history does not err, Hazrat Bibi Khadeeja, the Prophet’s (PBUH) first wife, asked for his hand in marriage; right? So if this is the case why do you, the so-called learned Aalims of Islam, fail to turn your wrath towards the uneducated, unenlightened and dogmatic (yes, I use this word deliberately) parents who deny women family members the very same? Is it that you claim to know better? Careful, there, fellows.
There was no need for this paragraph which simply moves away from the subject into other areas of Islam, almost painting a picture that everything is wrong in Islam. In Islam father is a guardian i.e. wali of the girl however if the woman is divorced or mature then she is free to marry without guardian will. Islam again delegates rights and responsibilities and obeying parents is because of Islam.
To conclude: The problem that modern commentators faces regarding Islam is that they view islam from secular lenses. Only the Islamic State i.e. the Khilafah has the right to adopt Islamic laws, Islam cant be mixed with secular laws — doing this creates the situation we have in Pakistan where as a nation we have our feets in two boats.
Islam has clear laws on how to deal with the non Muslim citizens of the State. Rasool Allah SAW has said “The one who hurts the dhimmi hurts me” and in another Hadith “I will argue against him on the day of judgement who hurts the dhimmi” Islam protects non Muslims citizens and given them equal rights under the State as citizens.
However the contradictions we see today in Muslim world will continue until we have single source to adopt laws. We cant have part time islam and part time secularism, we cant have a Muslim population which holds Islam dear and rulers who are secular and corrupt.