Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and
practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more
freedom for their citizens than others. Justice, tolerance, equity and
moderation is hallmark of Islam, which accords great value to human life,
whether Muslims and non Muslims alike. The so called corrupt and incompetent
democratic governments in Muslim lands have shaken the confidence of people of
in democracy. Hence disillusioned people blame democracy for all the ills, some
demanding military dictatorship or Caliphate [Khilafa] while others talk of
Shari’a to resolve injustice, corruption and other ills plaguing society. Exploiting
the religious sentiments of the simple people, proponents of Caliphate declare
democracy as un-Islamic or Haram [forbidden] and Kufr [disbelief]. Establishment
of one global Caliphate is their final objective. Verses from Quran and Hadith
are quoted to advance their arguments. While there are many reputed Islamic scholars
who consider democracy with in bounds of Shari’a as a good system for Muslims. They
also think that instead of copying a particular Western democratic system, each
Muslim society should adopt a reformed democratic system suitable to its
people, faith, culture and environments. The diverse views demand an objective
analysis.
لفظ ’خلیفہ` کا مطلب نمائندہ یا نائب ہے اور قرآن اس لفظ کو حکومت کے معنی میں بھی استعمال کرتا ہے۔ حضرت آدم، حضرت داؤد (38:26) کو زمین پراللہ کا خلیفہ کہا اور حضرت سلیمان کو ملک (بادشاہ)۔ 632 عیسوی میں پیغمبر اسلام حضرت محمد صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے بعد یہ لقب ان کے بعد کے مسلمان حکمرانوں کے حصے میں آ گیا، پہلے چار خلفاء" راشدین خلیفہ" بنے۔ اسلامی دور کی پہلی تین دہائیاں چار "خلفائے راشدین" (رضی اللہ ) کے ادوار پر مشتمل ہیں-
چاروں خلفائے راشدین کا تقرر عوامی رضامندی کے نتیجے میں عمل میں آیا تھا۔ سکالر رضا پینکہرسٹ کہتے ہیں کہ خلفائے راشدین کے دور میں یہ نظریہ مسلم ہو گیا تھا کہ خلیفہ ’عوام کی مرضی سے مقرر ہوگا اور یوں مقرر کیے جانے والے خلیفہ پر لازم ہوگا کہ وہ اپنی رعایا کی بھلائی کے کام کرے، اسلامی قوانین نافذ کرے اور یقینی بنائے کہ ان قوانین پر عمل بھی ہو۔‘ رضا پینکہرسٹ کا کہنا ہے کہ ’سچا خلیفہ‘ کبھی بھی قانون سے بالاتر نہیں ہو سکتا۔
پیغمبرِ اسلام کے انتقال کے 70 برس بعد بنو امیہ اور عباسیوں کی قائم کردہ مسلمان حکومت سپین اور مراکش سے لےکر وسطی ایشیا تک اور وہاں سے لے کر موجودہ پاکستان کے جنوبی حصوں تک پھیل چکی تھی اور یہ اتنی بڑی حکومت صرف ایک خلیفہ کے تابع تھی۔ تاریخ دان پروفیسر ہیو کینیڈی کہتے ہیں کہ ’یہی وہ مسلمانوں کا اتحاد تھا اور ان کی خود مختاری تھی جو مسلمانوں میں خلافت کی کشش کا بڑا سبب ہے۔ اسلامی تاریخ کا سنہری دور ادب اور تہذیبی ترقی کا دور تھا۔ اسی لیئے مسلمانوں کے لیے خلافت پر مبنی ایک مسلمان حکومت کے خیال میں اب بھی بہت کشش ہے۔ خلافت میں اتنی کشش کی دوسری بڑی وجہ یہ ہے کہ خلافت مسلمانوں کو ان کی عظمت کی یاد دلاتی ہے۔
لیکن بنو امیہ اور بعد میں عباسیوں کی سلطنت اس قدر تیزی سے پھیلی کے بعد میں آنے والے سلاطین کے لیے اتنی بڑی ریاست کو یکجا رکھنا مشکل ہو گیا۔ جوں جوں سیاسی قوت تقسیم ہوتی گئی، نہ صرف مسلمانوں کو نئے نئے سیاسی امتحانوں کا سامنا کرنا پڑا، بلکہ خلافت کے نظریے کی مذہبی بنیادیں بھی کمزور ہوتی گئیں۔ اتحاد میں پوشیدہ طاقت اصل میں خلافت کے نظریے کے ساتھ جڑی ہوئی تھی، لیکن دنیا نے دیکھا کہ محض ایک سو سال کے اندر اندر مسلمان دنیا میں متوازی خلافتیں منظرعام پرآ گئیں اور خلافت ریاستوں میں تقسیم ہونا شروع ہو گئی۔یہاں تک کہ بعض اوقات متوازی خلافتیں ایک دوسرے کے خلاف صف آرا ہونا شروع ہو گئیں۔
آخری خلافت، خلافت عثمانیہ تھی جسے ختم ہوئے 90 برس ہو چکے ہیں۔ متحدہ انڈیا میں "خلافت موومنٹ" مسلمانوں کی اس نظریہ سے محبت کی مثال ہے جو وقت کے ساتھ ابھی بھی قائم ہے- جب سنہ 2006 میں گیلپ کے ایک جائزے میں مصر، مراکش، انڈونیشیا اور پاکستان کے مسلمانوں سے پوچھا گیا تو ان میں سے دو تہائی نے اس خیال کی حمایت کی تھی کہ ’تمام اسلامی ممالک‘ کو ایک نئی خلافت کے پرچم تلے متحد ہو جانا چاہیے-
Muslims may be weak in practice, but are deeply committed to
their faith, a phenomena not restricted to Indo-Pak subcontinent but applicable
universally. A new Pew Research Centre
survey of Muslims around the globe finds that most adherents of the world’s
second-largest religion are deeply committed to their faith and want its
teachings to shape not only their personal lives but also their societies and
politics. In all but a handful of the 39 countries surveyed, a majority of
Muslims say that Islam is the one true faith leading to eternal life in heaven
and that belief in God is necessary to be a moral person. Many also think that
their religious leaders should have at least some influence over political
matters. And many express a desire for Shari’a – traditional Islamic law – to
be recognized as the official law of their country.
The percentage of Muslims who say they want Shari’a to be
“the official law of the land” varies widely around the world, from fewer than
one-in-ten in Azerbaijan (8%) to near unanimity in Afghanistan (99%). But solid majorities
in most of the countries surveyed across the Middle East and North Africa , sub-Saharan Africa , South Asia and Southeast Asia favour the establishment of
Shari’a, including 71% of Muslims in Nigeria , 72% in Indonesia , 74% in Egypt and 89% in the Palestinian
territories.
At the same time, the survey
finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing for Shari’a,
most Muslims favour religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan Pakistan
The survey – which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face
interviews in 80-plus languages with Muslims across Europe , Asia , the Middle East and Africa – shows that Muslims tend
to be most comfortable with using sharia in the domestic sphere, to settle
family or property disputes. In most countries surveyed, there is considerably
less support for severe punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves
or executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. And even in the
domestic sphere, Muslims differ widely on such questions as whether polygamy,
divorce and family planning are morally acceptable and whether daughters should
be able to receive the same inheritance as sons.
In most countries surveyed, majorities of Muslim women as
well as men agree that a wife is always obliged to obey her husband. Indeed,
more than nine-in-ten Muslims in Iraq (92%), Morocco (92%), Tunisia (93%), Indonesia (93%), Afghanistan (94%) and Malaysia (96%) express this view. At
the same time, majorities in many countries surveyed say a woman should be able
to decide for herself whether to wear a veil.
Overall, the survey finds that most Muslims see no inherent
tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society. Nor do
they see any conflict between religion and science. Many favor democracy over
authoritarian rule, believe that humans and other living things have evolved
over time and say they personally enjoy Western movies, music and television –
even though most think Western popular culture undermines public morality.
According to the Pew Research Center
Relatively few Muslims say that tensions between more
religiously observant and less observant Muslims are a very big problem in
their country. In most countries where the question was asked, Muslims also see
little tension between members of Islam’s two major sects, Sunnis and Shias –
though a third or more of Muslims in Pakistan (34%) and Lebanon (38%) consider Sunni-Shia
conflict to be a very big problem.
Support for making Shari’a
the official law of the land tends to be higher in countries like Pakistan Morocco
In many countries, Muslims who pray several times a day are
more likely to support making sharia official law than are Muslims who pray
less frequently. In Russia , Lebanon , the Palestinian
territories and Tunisia , for example, Muslims who
pray several times a day are at least 25 percentage points more supportive of
enshrining sharia than are less observant Muslims. Generally, however, there is
little difference in support for sharia by age, gender or education.
According to another survey conducted by British High
commission in Pakistan published in April 2013more
than half of young Pakistanis believe democracy has not been good for their
country and nearly 40 percent are in favour of having Islamic Shari’a rule.
Just 29 percent chose democracy as the best system for Pakistan , a constitutional Islamic
republic, with 38 percent favouring Shari’a, saying it was the best for giving
rights and freedom and promoting tolerance. When asked to pick the best
political system, both Shari’a and military rule were favoured over democracy.
It is evident that the biggest issue facing Pakistan today is the lack of a
social consensus over the direction people want the country to go in. Should Pakistan , as a society and state, be
organized as a military dictatorship, a theocracy or should it head toward a
stronger democratic culture that respects the place of Islam in society? The
absence of this consensus is tearing society apart. Hence there is a need to
understand the difference between 'Sham, Pseudo democracy’, 'Western democracy' and true 'Islamic Democracy':
Democracy:
According to Wikipedia; Democracy is a form of government in
which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect
their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either
directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and
creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that
enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía)
"rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos)
"people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in
the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek
city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to
ἀριστοκρατία(aristocratie) "rule of an elite." While theoretically
these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been
blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example,
granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded
slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic
governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship
consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult
citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th
and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older
Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
A democratic government contrasts to forms of government
where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by
a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these
oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary
governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl
Popper define democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing
on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them
without the need for a revolution.
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic
forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens
executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all
eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making
of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible
citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly
through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The
concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions
that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and
the American and French Revolutions.
Most of modern societies and cultures have adopted various
forms of democracies according to their needs. Even in Europe there is not a single type
of Democratic system. England has Westminster type of parliamentary
democracy, while France , Germany have their own type. Some
countries follow direct electorate system while other have adopted
proportionate representation system. USA is following its own type
of presidential system and electoral procedure. Russia , China & CAR also claim
to be democracies. Understanding of some basic terminologies will facilitate to
comprehend the concept of Islamic Democracy:
The Law & Islamic Society:
Islam provides a legal code to govern the life of Muslims and
society, known as Shari'a. The peaceful
coexistence is the basic requirement of any community for its survival,
development and expansion. Law, may be defined as the discipline concerned with
the customs, practices, and rules of conduct of a community that are recognized
as binding by the community. The enforcement of the body of rules is through a
controlling authority. Total and unqualified submission to the will of
Allah is the fundamental tenet of Islam:
Islamic law is therefore the expression of Allah's command for Muslim society
and, in application, constitutes a system of duties that are incumbent upon a
Muslim by virtue of his religious belief. Known as the Shari’a (the path
leading to the watering place), the Islamic law constitutes a divinely ordained
path of conduct, that guides the Muslim toward a practical expression of his
religious conviction (rituals) and all aspects of life (social, economic,
political etc) in this world and the goal of divine favour in the world to
come.
Roman Law :
The Western Civilization has been following Roman Law and its
derivatives. Romans considered ritual law (fas) to be God-given and social law
(lex) as man-made. Hence it dealt with matters of succession (who was to
inherit what), obligations (including contracts, such as loans, entered into by
individuals), property and possessions, and persons (which included family,
slaves, and citizenship). The Roman law, as a legal system and as basis for the
law codes has affected the development of law in most of Western civilization
as well as in parts of the East. It was
the law of ancient Rome from the time of the founding
of the city of Rome in 753 BC until the fall of
the Western
Empire .
However it remained in use in the Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire until 1453 C.E.
The Biblilc Law:
The Old Testament include the Law given by God through Moses,
commonly referred as Mosaic Law, which was also confirmed by Jesus by saying:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come
not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota,
not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then
relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your
righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter
the kingdom of heaven.”(Mathew;5:17-20 also
the Beatitudes, Matthew; 5:3-12 and the Lord's Prayer Matthew; 6:9-13).
However Paul changed by saying; “BUT NOW WE ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE LAW, DEAD
to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code
but in the new life of the Spirit.”(Romans;7:6). The New Testament lays down
the general principles of good government, but contains no code of laws for the
punishment of offenders: “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt
not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt
not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in
this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”(Romans;13:9).
Punishment proceeds on the principle that there is an eternal distinction
between right and wrong, and that this distinction must be maintained for its
own sake. It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals, nor
for the purpose of deterring others from sin. These results may be gained, but
crime in itself demands punishment.
The Jewish law (Talmudic Law and
Jurisprudence):
It is considered to be of ‘divine’ origin. Thus, for example,
unfairness in labour relations was considered a religious sin and caring for
the sick a religious obligation. Though familiar with the concept of natural
law (ethical principles inherent in the nature of things and apprehensible
through human reason), the rabbis objected to making nature the basis of law.
Even rabbinic ordinances were regarded as having validity only because the
authority of the rabbis is sanctioned by the Torah. This however remained the
personal law for Jews for centuries, being a minority in various countries.
With the rebirth of a Jewish national state (1948) and the connected revival of
Jewish culture, the Talmud has achieved renewed importance. Orthodox Jewry has
always focused upon its study and has believed it to be the absolute Halakhic
("practice," "rules of conduct") authority. This belief
has now become even further intensified.
While rabbinic courts in Israel have jurisdiction only in
the area of family life, it has become one of the aims of religious (Orthodox)
Jewry there to establish Talmudic law as the general law of the state.
Canon Law :
In Christianity, the Churches followed Canon Law which in its
wider sense includes precepts of divine law, natural or positive, incorporated
in various canonical collections or codes; may be defined as that body of rules
and regulations (canons) concerning the behaviour and actions of individuals
and institutions within certain Christian churches, which have, through proper
priestly authority, defined and codified such rules. Canon law has had a long
history of development throughout the Christian Era. Not a static body of laws,
it reflects social, political, economic, cultural, and ecclesiastical changes
that have taken place in the past two millennia. During periods of social and
cultural upheaval the church has not remained unaffected by its environment.
Thus, canon law may be expected to be involved in the far-reaching changes that
have come to be anticipated in the modern world. The Western Civilization
separated the religion form state, by declaring the religion to be personal
matter of individual and initially depended on Roman Law, later on Civil Law,
also called ROMANO GERMANIC LAW, the law of continental Europe, based on an
admixture of Roman, Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal, commercial, and customary
law. European civil law has been adopted in much of Latin America as well as in parts of Asia and Africa and is to be distinguished
from the common law of the Anglo-American countries. The Common law is the
system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court
decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and
usages rather than on codified written laws.
Church and State:
The the relationship between religious and secular authority
in society is generally termed as Church and State. In most ancient
civilizations the separation of religious and political orders was not clearly
defined. With the advent of Christianity, the idea of two separate orders
emerged, based on Jesus's command to “Render unto Caesar what are Caesar's, and
to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17 ) and abrogation of Law of
Moses by Paul for the Chrisitians. The close association of religion and
politics, however, continued even after the triumph of Christianity as emperors
such as Constantine exercised authority over
both church and state. In the early Middle Ages secular rulers claimed to rule
by the grace of God, and later in the Middle Ages popes and emperors competed
for universal dominion. During the Investiture Controversy the church clearly
defined separate and distinct religious and secular orders, even though it laid
the foundation for the so-called papal monarchy. The Reformation greatly
undermined papal authority, and the pendulum swung toward the state, with many
monarchs claiming to rule church and state by divine right. The concept of
secular government, as evinced in the U.S. and post revolutionary
France, was influenced by Enlightenment thinkers. In Western Europe today all states protect
freedom of worship and maintain a distinction between civil and religious
authority. The legal systems of some modern Islamic countries are based on
Sharīah. In the U.S. the separation of church
and state has been tested in the arena of public education by controversies
over issues such as school prayer, public funding of parochial schools, and the
teaching of creationism. In Islamic system the total separation of religion
from state is not possible, however it does not imply theocracy, as there is no
concept of Pope in Islam. The ruler who should be well versed with religious
knowledge, take advice from scholars and jurists on various matters.
Islamic Law - Shari'a:
Since Islam is a complete code of life covering all aspects
including social, economic, political, military and other aspects of human
life, hence the Islamic law (Shari’a)
spells out the moral goals of the community, where state and religion
are not separate entity. In Islamic society, therefore, the term law has a
wider significance than it does in the modern secular West, because Islamic law
includes both legal and moral imperatives. For the same reason, not all-Islamic
laws can be stated as formal legal rules or enforced by the courts. Much of it
depends on conscience alone. The Shari’a duties are broadly divided into those
that an individual owes to Allah (the ritual practices or 'ibadat) and those
that he owes to his fellow men (mu'amalat). It is the latter category of duties
alone, constituting law in the Western sense, that is penal law. The other laws
include; offenses against the person, homicide, law of transactions, family
law, succession law, procedure and evidence etc. The Qur’anic revelations laid
down basic standards of conduct for the first Muslim community established
under the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Medina in 622 C.E. The Qur’an is the book of guidance for the
believers, it also lay down the parameters of legal code. The Qur’an contains
about ninety verses directly and specifically addressing questions of law.
Islamic legal discourse refers to these verses as Allah's law and incorporates
them into legal codes. The remainder of Islamic law is the result of
jurisprudence (fiqh), human efforts to codify Islamic norms in practical terms
and legislate for cases not specifically dealt with in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Although human generated legislation is considered fallible and open to
revision, the term Shari’a is sometimes applied to all Islamic legislation.
Modern scholars have however challenged this claim, distinguishing between
Shari’a and fiqh and calling for reform of fiqh codes in light of modern
conditions.
The common topic of discussion among modern scholars is that,
the government in the Muslim state should primarily be concerned with
maintaining peace, equitable justice based upon Islamic law and other matters
of statehood: “…those who do not judge by the law which Allah has revealed, are
indeed disbelievers.”(Qur’an;5:44 ). However as far as the
religious matters are concerned they think that state has the responsibility of
making arrangements to establish Salah (regular prayers) and system of Zakah
(obligatory charity), taking inference form verse : “…but if they repent and
establish regular prayers and practice regular charity then open the way for
them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.”(Qur’an;9:5), “These are the
people who, if We establish them (in power, authority) in the land, will
establish Salah and pay Zakah, enjoin justice and forbid evil; the final
decision of all affairs is in the hands of Allah.”(Qur’an;22:41 ), “Let there be no
compulsion in religion..”(Qur’an;2:256). They think that implementation in all
other matters, should be left to the individuals through persuasion to enjoin
good and forbid evil. Use of force like Taliban, forcing the men to keep beard,
women to cover face, not to attend schools and colleges etc is not considered appropriate. Similarly to the performing Hajj and many other matters are left to the
individual Muslims for which they is answerable to Allah. The Bible also emphasises
similar aspects: “For he that will love life, and see good days, let him
refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him
eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the
Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the
face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?”
(1 Peter; 3:10-13)
Differences of Shari’a from Western Systems of Law :
In classical form, the Shari’a differs from Western systems
of law (based on Roman Law) in two principal respects. In the first place the
scope of the Shari’a is much wider, since it regulates man's relationship not
only with his neighbours and with the state, which is the limit of most other
legal systems, but also with his Allah and his own conscience. Ritual
practices,(ibadat) such as the daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and
pilgrimage, are an integral part of Shari’a law and usually occupy the first
chapters in the legal manuals. The Shari’a is also concerned as much with
ethical standards as with legal rules, indicating not only what man is entitled
or bound to do in law, but also what he (obligatory) ought, in conscience, to
do (halal), something that is lawful and permitted in Islam, or refrain from
doing (haram) not permissible. Accordingly, certain acts are classified as
praiseworthy (mandub), which means that their performance brings divine favour
and their omission divine disfavour. There is an other category not halal or
haram but some thing doubtful, classified a Undesirable (makruh), it is divided
into Makruh Tahrimi "that which is nearly unlawful without it being
actually so," and Makruh Tanzihi "that which approaches the lawful or
undesirable yet is closer to the lawful." For example it is undesirable (makruh) for a person to
buy back what he has given in charity (sadaqah, or zakat), or "to wish for
one's death, or pray to Allah for it, due to poverty, distress, illness, or the
like. However in neither case is there any legal sanction of punishment or
reward, nullity or validity.
Thus the Shari’a is not merely a system of law, but a
comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public
activities. The second major distinction between the Shari’a and Western legal
systems is the result of the Islamic concept of law as the expression of the
divine will. Shari’a law though appears to be rigid in certain aspects but
there is room for flexibility in fiqha through Ijtehad to meet the challenges of growing and
changing needs of society. In Islamic jurisprudence it is not the society that
moulds and fashions the law, but the law that precedes and controls society,
however the legitimate changes and requirements of the modern society are kept
in view with in bounds of Divine Will. The Western Law, is not based on the
Bible, they have discarded the Law of Moses, which Jesus declared as his
mission, when he said: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. . . . Whoever
then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall
be called least in the kingdom of heaven;”(Mathew;5:17 -20). By contrast in the Western
Law, it is the society that moulds and fashions the law thus consumption of
alcohol, homosexuality, gay marriages (not permitted in Bible) have been made
legal, on the desire and public support of the Western Society, where as in
Shari’a, it is not possible to make such laws which are unnatural and clearly
against the Divine Will, manifested in Qur’an and Sunnah.
Ijtihad :
It means ‘independent reasoning’ as opposed to taqlid
(imitation). In the absence of direct guidance from Qur’an or Sunnah for a
given situation, the exercise of rational judgment by a competent authority is
termed as Ijtihad. It is a unique and important component of Shari’a.
Ijtihad started during the life of the
Prophet (peace be upon him), who while
sending ‘Muadh ibn Jabal’ to Yemen , asked him: "According
to what will you judge?" "According to the Book of God," replied
Muadh. "And if you find nothing therein?" "According to the
Sunnah of the Prophet of God." "And if you find nothing therein?"
"Then I will exert myself (exercise Ijtihad) to form my own
judgment." The Prophet was pleased with this reply and said: "Praise
be to God Who has guided the messenger of the Prophet to that which pleases the
Prophet." The rules of Ijtihad were framed by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph.
He laid down the principle that in deciding a case he would obtain guidance the
first instance from the Holy Qur’an. If the Holy Qur’an was silent in the
matter, he would look for guidance to the traditions of the Holy Prophet as
duly authenticated. If the traditions were also silent he was to decide the
case according to his best judgment He held: "If my decision is just then
it will be from God. If it is erroneous, it will be mine, and may God pardon
me." Ijtihad is fallible since more than one interpretation of a legal
issue is possible. It is possible that some thing declared forbidden at some
time later declared permissible by other scholars i.e. use of loudspeakers was
declared haram in India in early 20th century, but now all mosques are well
equipped with it. Due to non availability of clearly defined political system
as perceived at present, the concept of Islamic political system with in the
Islamic Shari’a parameters falls in to
domain of Ijtihad.
Islamic Political System :
Quran and Sunnah did not lay down any specific political
system, which political system Muslims should follow it has been left to the
people. However broad guidelines and principles are laid down. This is the
reason that Prophet (pbuh) did not nominate his successor, and each one of four
Rightly guided Caliphs were elected, or chosen or appointed in different
manner. According to my studies I agree with those scholars who consider
Democracy with in the bounds of Shari'sh as Islamic. Not the secular Western
democracy, where majority can make Haram [gay marriages] as Halal. Since
political system is Ijtehadi matter both schools of thought can be right as
long as the guiding principles of Quran and Sunnah , justice are adhered to.
PURPOSE OF SENDING MESSENGERS AND DIVINE BOOKS: "We sent
our messengers supported by clear proofs, and we sent down to them the
scripture and the law, that the people may uphold JUSTICE " [QURAN; 57:25)
Kings:
Some scholars justify kingship as Islamic, on the basis of verse:
“"Their Prophet said unto them: Lo! Allah hath raised up Saul to be a king
for you. They said: How can he have kingdom over us when we are more deserving
of the kingdom than he is, since he hath not been given wealth enough? He said:
Lo! Allah hath chosen him above you, and hath increased him abundantly in
wisdom and stature. Allah bestoweth His Sovereignty on whom He will. Allah is
All-Embracing, All-Knowing" (Quran;2:247)
In the Bible he [Talut] is called Saul. He was a
thirty-year-old Benjaminite youth. 'There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he; from
his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people' (1 Samuel 9: 2). He
went out in search of the lost asses of his father. During this search, he
passed through the house of Samuel and God informed Samuel that this was the
person who had been chosen to govern the people of Israel . Samuel brought Saul to his
house, took a vial of oil, poured it on his head,. kissed him and said: 'Has
not the Lord anointed you to be the prince over His people of Israel ? ' (1 Samuel 10: 1). Samuel
later called the people of Israel together and proclaimed
Saul to be their king (1 Samuel 10: 17 ).
This appointment of King was on demand of Israelites, the
negative aspects of Kingship were repeated & reminded but Israelites wanted
a King. So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking
a king for him. He said, 'These will be the ways of the king who will reign
over you; he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his
horsemen, and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself
commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plough his
ground and to reap his harvest, and to make the implements of war and the
equipments of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and
cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive
orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain
and your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will
take you men-servants and maid-servants, and the best of your cattle and asses,
and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall
be his slaves. And on that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you
have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.' But
the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said. 'No! But we
will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that
our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.' And when
Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of
the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, 'Hearken to their voice, and make them a
king.' Samuel then said to the men of Israel , 'Go every man to his
city.' (1 Samuel 7: 15; 8: 4-22.). The Biblical Kings like David, Solomon
(pbuh) were also prophets of God according to Muslim beliefs. There is no clear
sanction or practice of hereditary kings in the period of four rightly guided
caliphs.
Caliph :
Traditionally the Islamic state was be administered by a
Caliph (Arabic khalifah, "successor"), who is elected through mutual
consultation (bai’t), which may be called democracy in modern terms. The Caliph
hold temporal and sometimes a degree of spiritual authority, the empire of the
Caliphate grew rapidly through conquest during its first two centuries to
include most of Southwest Asia , North Africa , and Spain . The modern philosopher and
political theorist, Rousseau (1712-78 C.E) admits, the practicability of the
Islamic polity and records in ‘Social
Contract’, that; “Muhammad held very sane views, and linked his political
system well together; and as long as the form of his government continued under
the Caliphs, who succeeded him, the government was indeed on and so far good”.
After first four caliphs, the caliphate became hereditary against the original
democratic spirit of this institution, however some good aspects were retained.
The dynastic struggles later brought about the Caliphate's decline, and it ceased
to exist with the Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258 C.E. Later various
Muslim rulers emerged all over the known world but they were hereditary, never
even close to the first four caliphs.
The last and biggest of its time, the Ottomans rule ended in 1922.
Presently most of the governments in the predominantly Muslim countries are run
by either hereditary kings, dictators, or some forms of democracies. One thing
common to all types of Muslim governments in the history has been their
inclination towards Islam and revival of the golden era of the first four
caliphs, known as ‘The Rightly Guided Caliphs’. [For details read e-book by writer:
Caliphate: Redundant or Relevant? Freely available at http://aftabkhan.blog.com]
Modern Caliphate Revivalists:
There are many organizations working for revival of system of
Caliphate but they
consider democratic method of election as un-Islamic. They reject democracy
as a western system and un-Islamic despite such aspects as elections existing
in the Islamic political system. It is argued that democracy as a system is: “The
rule of people, for the people, by the people. The basis of the democratic
system is that people possess the right of sovereignty, choice and
implementation. ... it is a Kufr system because it is laid down by man
and it is not from the Shari’a Laws.
However, it is believed that the Caliph, i.e., the head of
the Caliphate state, should be elected and should be accountable to those who
have appointed him. The position should not be inherited through blood lines, or
imposed on Muslims, but elected by them, Muslims should then pledge their
loyalty to the Caliph.
The Caliph: "is the head of state in the Khilafah. He is
not a king or dictator but an elected leader whose authority to rule must be
given willingly by the Muslims through a special ruling contact called baya.
Without this baya he cannot be the head of state. This is completely
opposite to a king or dictator who imposes his authority through coercion and
force. It is argued that the tyrant kings and dictators in the Muslim world are
examples of this, imprisoning and torturing their populations and stealing
their wealth and resources."
The Caliphate supporters consider a system of elections for
Muslims to choose the Caliph. A Majlis
al-Umma for the Caliph, is an institution for consultation and accountability
of political rulers. The Shura differs from Western representative democracy in
that while part of "the ruling structure" of the Islamic caliphate, it's
"not one of its pillars." This is because they consider shura (consultation) in Islam to be for
seeking the opinion and not for ruling. This is contrary to the parliamentary
system in democracy. More over when the Majlis makes a decision after the
Caliph consults them it is binding on the Caliph to accept the decision; the
Caliph's powers outlined in one of the draft proposed constitution refer only
to foreign affairs when in a state of war that he considered existent during
his life. It may be noted that election of Caliph is similar to
election of head of state or governments in most of Islamic democracies where sovereignty
belongs to Allah and rule is considered to be within Shari’a.
Economy:
The economic system should allow private enterprise, but
reserves public ownership of utilities, public transport, health care, energy
resources such as oil, and unused farm land (similar to communitarianism). However,
it calls for use of the Gold Standard, gold and silver coinage:
“... it is the duty of the Khilafah State to make its
currency in gold and silver and to work on the basis of gold and silver as it
was during the time of the Messenger of Allah and his Khulafa'a after him... to
fix the weight of dinars equal to the Shari'ah dinar or 4.25 grams (of Gold) for
one dinar... the dirham has the weight of 2.975 grams (of Silver). The basis of
gold and silver as currency is the only way to solve currency related economic
problems and the high inflation rates that are common in the world, and to
produce currency stability for rates of exchange and progress in international
trade.... Only by taking gold and silver as the standard, can the American
control and the control of the dollar as an international currency, be
demolished in international trade and world economies.”
Foreign Policy:
With regards to foreign policy: "The State is forbidden
to belong to any organisation that is based on something other than Islam or
that applies non-Islamic rules". This includes organizations such as the
UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund and the Arab League. It
is permitted to conclude good neighbouring, economic, commercial, financial, and
cultural and armistice treaties."
Caliphate & Ayah Ishtikhlaf :
The concept of Khilafat is has been adopted as a maxim by
some organizations and groups in Muslim countries to seek support form the
masses to gain power. Some of them believe in peaceful struggle while the
extremist justify use of violence and terrorism to get in to power. It is
claimed that through establishment of Khilafat they will be able to implement
Shari’a, get rid of corrupt rulers, provide quick justice, end oppression of
Muslims and exploitation of their resource by super powers. Hence they will
regain the lost glory of Muslim Ummah by uniting them under a Khalifah.
Those advocating Khifah or Caliph also refer to verses from
Quran and interpret accordingly:
"He it is Who hath placed you as viceroys of the earth
and hath exalted some of you in rank above others, that He may try you by (the
test of) that which He hath given you. Lo! Thy Lord is swift in prosecution,
and Lo! He verily is Forgiving, Merciful." (Quran;6:165)
According to Abu Ala Modudi:
This statement embodies three important truths: First, that human beings
as such are vicegerents of God on earth, so that God has entrusted them with
many things and endowed them with the power to use them. Second, it is God
Himself Who has created differences of rank among His vicegerents. The trust
placed in some is more than that of others. Some men have been granted control
of more resources than others. Some are more gifted in respect of their
abilities. Likewise, some human beings have been placed under the trust of
others. Third, all this is indeed designed to test man. The entire life. of man
is in fact, a vast examination wherein man is being tested about the trust he
has received from God: how sensitive he is to that trust, to what extent he
lives up to it, and to what extent he proves to be competent with it. What
position man will be able to attain in the Next Life depends on the result of
this test.
The supporters of Caliphate also derive support form verse
55, of Surah Nur (24), commonly known as ‘Ayah Ishtikhlaf’ [The Verse for
Khilafat]:
“Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work
righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance
(of power), (yasta-khlif-anna -hum fe-al-'ard) As He granted it to those before
them; that He will establish in authority their Religion - the one which He has
chosen for them; and that He will change (Their state), after the fear In which
They (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and
not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, They are
rebellious and wicked.” (Qur’an;24:55).
Instead of taking this one verse in isolation, it may be
appropriate that it may be read and interpreted against the background of the
Qur'an as a whole. The general divine policy for grant of Khilafat in the sense
of power, rule, and kingship has been outlined in the verses of Qur’an
mentioned above.[Qur’an;3:26, 2:251, 22:40, 5:40, 48:14. 47:38, 4:133, 70:40-41,
35:15-16, 7:69, 7:74, 8:53, 13:11].
Majority of scholars including Syed Abul Ala Moududi and
Moulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi through Ibn Kathir, agree that the direct
addressees of this promise of Allah, were the Muslims living in the time of the
Prophet (peace be upon him). However indirectly it may also apply to the future
generations of Muslims under identical conditions. The promise of Allah for
bestowal of successorship (Khalifah) in the land is ONLY for those believers,
who are true in faith, pious in character, sincere in devotion and who follow
Allah's religion in letter and spirit eschewing every tinge of shirk
(polytheism). Allah warn the hypocrites that this promise is not meant for
those people who are Muslims in name only, lacking above mentioned qualities
and pay mere lip service to Islam, they are neither worthy of this promise nor
its addressees. Therefore they should entertain no hope of having any share in
Khalifah (successorship) in the land.
Background of This Revelation:
Imam Qurtubi has reported on authority of Abul 'Aliyah that
the Prophet (peace be upon him) stayed in Makkah for ten years after
commencement of revelation and declaration of prophethood, during this period
they remained under fear due to persistent threat to their life from the
infidels and disbelievers. Then after the Migration (Hijrah) to Medina there was also ceaseless
danger of attacks from the disbelievers. So, someone asked the Holy Prophet:
"Would a time come to us when we will be able to live in peace without
wearing our weaponry?' The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied 'Yes, the time
is coming very soon'. On that occasion these verses were revealed. (Qurtubi and
Bahr). Allah had made three promises to the Prophet (peace be upon him), that
1) his Ummah will be made His vicegerent on earth and will rule over it, and 2)
His favourite religion Islam will be made victorious, and 3)Muslims will be
given so much power and grandeur that they will not fear to face any threat.
Allah fulfilled His promise by conferring conquest over
Makkah, Khyber , Bahrain Yemen and the entire peninsula of Arabia Rome , Egypt Alexandria , Oman Ethiopia sent gifts to the Prophet
(peace be upon him), and gave him honour and respect. Then during his caliphate
Abu Bakr crushed all the menacing uprisings. He also sent out Islamic armies to
Persia , Syria and Egypt . Busra and Damascus fell to Islamic State
during this time. Just before his death, Abu Bakr in his wisdom nominated Umar
Ibn Khattab as his successor. The period of Caliphate of 'Umar Ibn Khattab was
golden period of good governance. During his caliphate the entire land of Syria Egypt and major part of Persia were overpowered. It was
during his time that the myth of grandeur of Byzantine and Persian empires was
shattered. After that period, during the caliphate of Uthman the Islamic
influence extended from the East to the Al-Maghrib (West) North Africa . In the west up to Cyprus , and in the east up to China . Besides, 'Iraq , Khorasan and Ahwaz (now in Iran ) all fell to Islamic State
during the time of third Caliph. What the Prophet (peace be upon him) has said
according to a Sahih Hadith that he was shown the entire east and west of the
earth by bringing them together, and that the rule of his Ummah will extend up
to all those places which have been shown to him; this promise was fulfilled by
Allah even during the time of caliphate 'Uthman. Once Adi Bin Hatim came to the
Prophet in a delegation, the Prophet told him that this Din Al-Islam will
extend all over and such peace will be established that a women shall travel
alone without guards and return back to Hera after circumambulating Kab’a, she
will have no fear. Adi Bin Hatim added that now women travel without any
fear. (Extract from Ibn Kathir)
According to another Hadith the Prophet (peace be upon him)
has said that caliphate will last for thirty years after him, then there will
be callous rule. Here, the word caliphate means the Rightly Guided caliphate
(Al-Khalifah Rashidun), which was run on the footsteps of the Prophet (peace be
upon him). It lasted up to the time of 4th Khalifah Ali. At this point Ibn
Kathir has also reported a Hadith from Sahih Muslim, that Jabir Ibn Samurah has
said that he had heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying that his Ummah
will continue ruling until the twelve caliphs last. After narrating this Ibn
Kathir has commented that this hadith is pointing that there will be twelve
upright caliphs in the Muslim Ummah, which is bound to happen. However, it is
not necessary that all twelve come one after the other and there is no gap in
between, rather it is more likely that they turn up with an interval of time.
Out of this lot, four Rightly Guided Caliphs (Khulafa) had appeared one after
the other immediately after the Prophet (peace be upon him) Umar Ibn 'Abdul
Aziz who came after a gap of some time. A few others also appeared in different
times after him and will continue to come until the last caliph Mahdi (Guided
one) comes. There is no mention in the Hadith of those twelve caliphs which the
Shiites have determined. Rather some of them are those who have no connection
with the caliphate at all. It is also not necessary that all of them would be
of the same status, and during their time there would be complete peace and tranquillity.
This promise is related to rectitude and firmness of faith, the righteous deeds
and total obedience, and any difference in their degree will naturally make
difference in the power and control of authority. Islamic history spread over a
period of 1400 years is a witness that in different times and different,
countries whenever and wherever there was a just and righteous ruler, he has
received his share from this promise of Allah based or, the extent of righteous
deeds he has performed. At another place, the Qur’an says that: ““for, all who
ally themselves with God and His Apostle and those who have attained to faith -
behold, it is they, the partisans of God, who shall prevail!”(Qur’an;5:56 ).
Islamic Democracy:
Muslim democrats, including Ahmad Moussalli (professor of
political science at the American University Beirut ), argue that concepts in
the Quran point towards some form of democracy, or at least away from
despotism. These concepts include shura(consultation), ijma (consensus),
al-hurriyya (freedom), al-huqquq al-shar'iyya (legitimate rights). For example
shura (Al Imran 3:159, Ash-Shura 42:38) may include electing leaders to
represent and govern on the community’s behalf.
".. and consult
them in the matter .. " (Quran; 3:159)
"who obey their Lord and establish Prayer; who conduct
their affairs by consultation, and spend out of what We have bestowed upon
them"(Quran;42:38)
Explanation by Syed Abul Ala
This thing has been counted here as the best quality of the
believers and has been enjoined in( Surah Aal-Imran, Ayat 159). On this basis,
consultation is an important pillar of the Islamic way of life, and to conduct
the affairs of collective life without consultation is not only the way of
ignorance but also an express violation of the law prescribed by Allah. When we
consider why consultation has been given such importance in Islam, three things
become obvious:
First, that it is injustice that a person should decide a
matter by his personal opinion and ignore others when it involves the interests
of two or more persons. No one has a right to do, as he likes in matters of
common interest. Justice demands that all those whose interests are involved in
a matter be consulted, and if it concerns a large number of the people, their
reliable representatives should be made a party in consultation.
Second, that a man tries to do what he likes in matters of
common interest either because he wants to usurp the rights of others for
selfish ends, or because he looks down upon others and regards himself as a
superior person. Morally both these qualities are equally detestable, and a
believer cannot have even a tinge of either of these in himself. A believer is
neither selfish so that he should get undue benefits by usurping the rights of
others, nor he is arrogant and self-conceited that he should regard himself as
all-wise and all-knowing.
Third, that it is a grave responsibility to give decisions in
matters that involve the rights and interests of others. No one who fears God
and knows what severe accountability for it he will be subjected to by his
Lord, can dare take the heavy burden of it solely on himself. Such a boldness
is shown only by those who arc fearless of God and heedless of the Hereafter.
The one who fears God and has the feeling of the accountability of the
Hereafter, will certainly try that in a matter of common interest he should
consult all the concerned people or their authorized representatives so as to
reach, as far as possible, an objective and right and equitable decision, and
if there occurs a mistake one man alone should not be held responsible for it.
A deep consideration of these three things can enable one to
fully understand that consultation is a necessary demand of the morality that
Islam has taught to man, and departure from it is a grave immorality which
Islam does not permit. The Islamic way of life requires that the principle of
consultation should be used in every collective affair, big or small. If it is
a domestic affair, the husband and the wife should act by mutual consultation,
and when the children have grown up, they should also be consulted. If it is a
matter concerning the whole family, the opinion of every adult member should be
solicited. If it concerns a tribe or a fraternity or the population of a city,
and it is not possible to consult all the people, the decision should be taken
by a local council or committee, which should comprise the trustworthy
representatives of the concerned people according to an agreed method. If the
matter concerns a whole nation, the head of government should be appointed by
the common consent of the people, and he should conduct the national affairs in
consultation with the leaders of opinion whom the people regard as reliable,
and he should remain at the helm of affair only as long as the people
themselves want him to remain in that position. No honest man can try to assume
the headship of a nation by force, or desire to continue in that position
indefinitely, nor can think of coming into power by deception and then seek the
people’s consent by coercion, nor can he devise schemes so that the people may
elect representatives to act as his advisers not by their own free choice but
according to his will. Such a thing can be desired only by the one who
cherishes evil intentions, and such a fraud against the Islamic principle of
consultation can be practiced only by him who does not feel any hesitation in
deceiving both God and the people whereas the fact is that neither can God be
deceived nor the people be so blind as to regard the robber, who is committing
robbery in the bright day light openly, as their well wisher and servant.
The principle of consultation as enshrined in amru-hum
shura baina-hum by itself demands five things:
(1) The people whose rights and interests relate to
collective matters, should have full freedom to express their opinion and they
should be kept duly informed of how their affairs are being conducted. They
should also have the full right that if in the conduct of the affairs they see
an error, a weakness or a deficiency, they can check it and voice a protest,
and if they do not see any change for the better, they can change their rulers.
To conduct the people’s affairs by keeping them silent and un-informed is sheer
dishonesty which no one can regard as adherence to the principle of
consultation in Islam.
(2) The person who is to be entrusted with the responsibility
of conducting the collective affairs, should be appointed by the people’s
consent, and this consent should be their free consent, which is not obtained
through coercion, temptation, deception, and fraud, because in that case it
would be no consent at all. A nation’s true head is not he who becomes its head
by trying every possible method, but he whom the people make their head by
their own free choice and approval.
(3) The people who are appointed as advisers to the head of
the state should be such as enjoy the confidence of the nation, and obviously
the people who win representative positions by suppression or by expending
wealth, or by practicing falsehood and fraud, or by misleading the people
cannot be regarded as enjoying the confidence in the real sense.
(4) The advisers should give opinion according to their
knowledge and faith and conscience and they should have full freedom of such
expression of opinion. Wherever this is not the case, wherever the advisers
give advice against their own knowledge and conscience, under duress or
temptation, or under party discipline, it will be treachery and dishonesty and
not adherence to the Islamic principle of consultation.
(5) The advice that is given by a consensus of the advisers,
or which has the support of the majority of the people, should be accepted, for
if a person (or a group of persons) behaves independently and acts on his own
whims, even after hearing the advice of others, consultation becomes
meaningless. Allah does not say: They are consulted in their affairs, but says:
They conduct their affairs by mutual consultations. This instruction is not
implemented by mere consultation, but for its sake it is necessary that the
affairs be conducted according to what is settled by consensus or by majority
opinion in consultation.
Along with this explanation of the Islamic principle of
consultation, this basic thing also should be kept in view that this
consultation is not independent and autocratic in conducting the affairs of the
Muslims, but necessarily subject to the bounds that Allah Himself has set by
His legislation, and is subject to the fundamental principle: It is for Allah
to give a decision in whatever you may differ, and if there arises any dispute
among you about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. According to
this general principle, the Muslims can hold consultations in Shariah matters
with a view to determining the correct meaning of a text or verse and to find
out the ways of implementing it so as to fulfill its requirements rightly but
they cannot hold consultations in order to give an independent judgment in a
matter which has already been decided and settled by Allah and His Messenger.
[Source:
Tafheem ul Quran: http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=42&verse=30&to=53]
Government by the people is not therefore necessarily
incompatible with the rule of Islam, whilst it has also been argued that rule
by a religious authority is not the same as rule by a representative of God.
This viewpoint, however, is disputed by more traditional Muslims. Moussalli
argues that despotic Islamic governments have abused the Quranic concepts for
their own ends: "For instance, shura, a doctrine that demands the
participation of society in running the affairs of its government, became in
reality a doctrine that was manipulated by political and religious elites to
secure their economic, social and political interests at the expense of other
segments of society,"
Much debate occurs on the subject of which Islamic traditions
are fixed principles, and which are subject to democratic change, or other
forms of modification in view of changing circumstances. Some Muslims allude to
an "Islamic" style of democracy which would recognize such
distinctions. Another sensitive issue involves the status of monarchs and other
leaders, the degree of loyalty which Muslims owe such people, and what to do in
case of a conflicting loyalties (e.g., if a monarch disagrees with an imam).
Philosophophical Views:
The early Islamic philosopher, Al-Farabi (c. 872-950), in one
of his most notable works Al-Madina al-Fadila, theorized an ideal Islamic state
which he compared to Plato's The Republic.
Al-Farabi departed from the Platonic view in that he regarded the ideal
state to be ruled by the prophet, instead of the philosopher king envisaged by
Plato. Al-Farabi argued that the ideal state was the city-state of Medina when it was governed by
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as its head of state, as he was in direct communion
with God whose law was revealed to him. In the absence of the prophet,
Al-Farabi considered democracy as the closest to the ideal state, regarding the
republican order of the Rashidun Caliphate as an example within early Muslim
history. However, he also maintained that it was from democracy that imperfect
states emerged, noting how the republican order of the early Islamic Caliphate
of the Rashidun caliphs was later replaced by a form of government resembling a
monarchy under the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties.
A thousand years later, the modern Islamic philosopher,
Muhammad Iqbal, also viewed the early Islamic Caliphate as being compatible
with democracy. He "welcomed the formation of popularly elected
legislative assemblies" in the Muslim world as a "return to the
original purity of Islam." He argued that Islam had the "germs of an
economic and democratic organization of society", but that this growth was
stunted by the monarchist rule of Umayyad Caliphate, which established the
Caliphate as a great Islamic empire but led to political Islamic ideals being
"repaganized" and the early Muslims losing sight of the "most
important potentialities of their faith."
One may agree or disagree
with interpretations to arrive at the most suitable political system [Khilafah, Islamic democracy or
kingship] for Muslims, but one may not go the extreme to declare any one not
agreeing with a particular point of view as apostate or outside the folds of
islam. Being an Ijtehadi matter, any one opinion or more than one may right or
suitable for any particular time and people, a possible wisdom of not defining
but laying down broad principles of justice and consultation with in Shari'a
law. However appointment or election of four rightly guided Caliphs clearly
rejects any political system which is hereditary not based upon Justice,
consultation and Shari’a.
Islamic democracy refers to a political ideology that seeks
to apply Islamic principles to public policy within a democratic framework. In
practice, two kinds of Islamic democracies can be recognized in Islamic countries.
The basis of this distinction has to do with how comprehensively Islam is
incorporated into the affairs of the state.
1. A democratic
nation state which recognizes Islam as its state religion and key source of
legislation, such as Pakistan , Malaysia or Maldives . Many religious values are
incorporated into public life, but Islam is not the only source of law.
2. A democratic
state which endeavours to institute Shari’a and offers more comprehensive
inclusion of Islam into the affairs of the state. States like Iran are firm proponents of this
form.
Not all of these states are recognized internationally as
democratic under concepts of western liberal democracy. There are also states
in the Muslim world which are secular democracies rather than religious democracies.
The concepts of liberalism and democratic participation were
already present in the medieval Islamic world. The Rashidun Caliphate was an
early example of a democratic state but the development of democracy in the
Islamic world eventually came to a halt following to the Sunni–Shia split.
In the early Islamic Caliphate, the head of state, the
Caliph, had a position based on the notion of a successor to Prophet Muhammad's
(pbuh) political authority, who were ideally elected by the people or their representatives,
as was the case for the election of Abu Bakar, Uthman and Ali (r.a) as Caliph.
After the Rashidun Caliphs, later Caliphates during the Islamic Golden Age had
a much lesser degree of democratic participation, but since "no one was
superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue" in Islam,
and following the example of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), later Islamic rulers
often held public consultations with the people in their affairs.
The legislative power of the Caliph (or later, the Sultan)
was always restricted by the scholarly class, the ulama, a group regarded as
the guardians of the law. Since the law came from the legal scholars, this
prevented the Caliph from dictating legal results. Laws were decided based on
the ijma (consensus) of the Ummah (community), which was most often represented
by the legal scholars. In order to qualify as a legal scholar, it was required
that they obtain a doctorate known as the ijazat attadris wa
'l-ifttd("license to teach and issue legal opinions") from a
madrasa. In many ways, classical Islamic
law functioned like a constitutional law.
Democratic religious pluralism also existed in classical
Islamic law, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including
Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the
Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Islamic
India, and the Ottoman Millet system.
Legal scholar L. Ali Khan argues that Islam is fully
compatible with democracy. In his book, A Theory of Universal Democracy, Khan
provides a critique of liberal democracy and secularism. He presents the
concept of "fusion state" in which religion and state are fused.
There are no contradictions in God's universe, says Khan. Contradictions represent
the limited knowledge that human beings have. According to the Quran and the
Sunnah, Muslims are fully capable of preserving spirituality and self-rule.
Furthermore, counter arguments to these points assert that
this attitude presuppose democracy as a static system which only embraces a
particular type of social and cultural system, namely that of the
post-Christian West. (constitutional theocracy)
Pakistan
The Objectives Resolution is a basic and primary document of
the constitutional history of Pakistan . It is a framework that
provides mechanism to achieve goals for a better life of the people of Pakistan . It's important that it
embraces centrality of Islam to polity sustaining their links with the
pre-independence period. The AIML leaders were modernist Muslims not in favour
of an orthodox religious state or theocracy, as elucidated by Liaqat Ali Khan,
the Prime Minister in his address. Therefore, they selected the middle way
abiding by the Islamic laws and the international democratic values. The
Resolution remains 'Preamble of all the constitutions due to its importance.
The Objectives Resolution was adopted on 12 March 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The
resolution, proposed by the Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, proclaimed that
the future constitution of Pakistan would not be modelled
entirely on a European pattern, but on the ideology and democratic faith of
Islam. It has been incorporated in successive constitutions. The Objectives
Resolution proclaimed the following principles:
1. Sovereignty
belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through
its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred
trust.
2. The State shall
exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the
people.
3. The principles
of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by
Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall
be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in
accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'anand Sunnah.
5. Adequate
provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their
religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental
rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary
shall be independent.
The Objectives Resolution, which combines features of both
Western and Islamic democracy, is one of the most important documents in the
constitutional history of Pakistan . At the time it was passed,
Liaquat Ali Khan called it "the most important occasion in the life of
this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence".
It is included in the Annex of the current Constitution of Pakistan by virtue
of Article 2A of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The system of government in an ideal Islamic society it to be
based on consultation (shura), the democratic way spelled out by Qur’an
fourteen centuries ago. The era of true caliphs could not last beyond four
rightly guided caliphs among his blessed companions, who followed his footsteps
in spreading knowledge, preaching Islam, and managing the affairs of Islamic
State according to Shari'a. The Western Civilization has been following Roman
Law and its derivatives, while the Islamic law (Shari’a) spells out the moral
goals of the community, where state and religion are not separate entity, the
ruler consults scholars and jurists, but Islam does not have concept of
theocracy. In Islamic society, therefore, the term law has a wider significance
than it does in the modern secular West, because Islamic law includes both
legal and moral imperatives. Democracy through consultative process is embedded
in Islamic system of governance.
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and
practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more
freedom for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not
structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the
legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation
of powers in its own favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too
much power and destroy the democracy. Tolerance and moderation is hallmark of
Islam, which accords great value to human life, whether Muslims and non Muslims
alike. The corrupt and incompetent government lead by Mr.Zardari shook the
confidence of people of Pakistan in democracy. In fact this
was not democracy but just an illusion of democracy worked out with a dictator through
NRO, for mutual benefit for power & plunder.
Whole world is benefiting from the fruits of democracy why
should Muslims lag behind? A modern democratic Islamic republic is with in the
spirit of Islamic values and culture. Instead of copying a particular Western
democratic system [countries follow different democratic systems in the West],
each Muslim society should adopt a reformed democratic system suitable to its
people, faith, culture and environments. Calling the head of state / government
as Caliph, Ameer, Sultan, president, prime minister etc is for the people to
decide.
Establishment of a global
Caliphate with the spirit of unity of Ummah seems fascinating but using force
to impose it through wars, mass killings and infighting among Muslims is self
contradictory and against the peaceful teachings of Islam. However same purpose
could be achieved through peaceful means by gradually upgrading OIC like
European Union even if it takes longer. There are many other local issues like;
independence from neo-colonialism, corruption, poverty, health, education,
economic development, morality etc which needs immediate attention through good
governance.
One may support a particular
scriptural interpretation for suitable political system for Muslims, but one
may not go the extreme to declare any one not agreeing with a particular point
of view as apostate or outside the folds of Islam. Being an Ijtihadi matter,
any one opinion or more than one may be right or suitable for any particular
time and people, a possible wisdom of laying down broad principles of justice
and consultation with in Shari'a law. However appointment or election of four
rightly guided Caliphs in different ways clearly rejects any political system
which is hereditary and not based upon Justice, consultation and Shari’a.
1.
Caliphate: Redundant or Relevant? eBook available at: http://aftabkhan.blog.com
Also see:
- Political Reforms for Stable Democracy in Pakistan
- Objectives Resolution : Supremacy of Islam in Constitution of Pakistan
- Ideology of Pakistan - Fact or Fiction - An Analysis - نظریہ پاکستان - حقیقت یا افسانہ: تجزیہ
- Caliphate: Relevant or Redundant: http://goo.gl/245yB
- Islamic Society & Culture:https://t.co/HNUuOUuK
- Jihad- Myth & Reality: http://goo.gl/dze4z
- SHARIA AND DEMOCRACY - TWELVE POINTS OF CONTENTION
- http://www.cordobainitiative.org/shariah-and-democracy/
- sharia and democracy
- http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-95053-Pakistan-youth-prefer-sharia-to-democracy:-Survey-
- http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/03/five-years-of-political-journey-losses.html
- Is Mr.Asif Zardari really the Most Corrupt President of Pakistan?
- Caliphate dream
- Hizb-ut-Tahrir - A New Threat to stability of Pakistan under Garb of Khilafah?
- http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/04/shariah-or-democracy-conflict-or.html
- Caliphate: Redundant or Relevant? , Caliphate dream
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
شریعت یاجمہوریت؟
سروے حق و باطل کاپیمانہ نہیں،عوامی رجحانات کا عکس ہو تے ہیں۔اِن سے اندازہ ہو تا ہے کہ سماج کیا سوچ رہا ہے۔اُس کی پسند ناپسند کیا ہے۔ان سے ہم یہ بھی جانتے ہیں کہ عوامی شعور یا مختلف طبقات کن مغالطوں میں مبتلا ہیں۔برٹش کونسل کا ایک سروے ان دنوں زیر ِ بحث ہے جو نو جوانوں کے سیاسی رجحانات کا عکاس ہے۔نئی نسل،اس سروے کے مطابق ،اس مغالطے کا شکار ہے کہ شریعت اور جمہوریت متضاد نظام ہائے سیاست کے نام ہیں۔نئی نسل جمہوریت پر آمریت اور پھر اُس پر بھی شریعت کو ترجیح دیتی ہے۔دلچسپ بات یہ ہے کہ جمہوریت پر ملامت کرنے والے اس اکثریتی رائے کو جمہوریت کے خلاف بطور دلیل استعمال کرر ہے ہیں حالانکہ اکثریت کی بات ان کے نزدیک بنائے استدلال نہیں ہو سکتی۔یہ مغالطہ کیا ہے،اسے مو ضوع بنانے سے پہلے یہ دیکھنا چاہیے کہ یہ کیوں ہے؟ یہ مغالطہ پیدا کرنے میں چارعوامل کا ہاتھ ہے…پرائیویٹ ٹی وی چینلز،اہلِ دانش، اہلِ مذہب اورریاستی ادارے۔میڈیا کی بات پہلے۔ہمارے ہاں جب سے آزاد میڈیا کا سفر شروع ہوا ہے،یہ بے سمت ہے۔اس پر اگرچہ آزاد خیالی کا بہتان ہے لیکن سچ یہ ہے کہ اس نے سب سے زیادہ انتہا پسندی کو فروغ دیا ہے۔یہ انتہا پسندی مذہبی ہے اور سیکولر بھی۔مذہبی انتہاپسندی نے تشدد،عدم برداشت اوررجعت پسندی کو جنم دیاہے۔ سیکولر انتہاپسندی تنگ نظری، مذہب بیزاری اور بد اخلاقی کی ترویج کا باعث بنی ہے۔میڈیا نے اُن مذہبی لوگوں کو،الا ماشااللہ ،اسلام کا نمائندہ بنا کر پیش کیا جو توہم پرست تھے یا انتہا پسند۔مذہب، عملیات کا نام رہ گیا یا وظائف کا۔اس کے علاوہ اگر کوئی دینی تعبیر سامنے آئی تو وہ عدم برداشت کی حامل تھی جس کے لیے جہاد جیسی مقدس اصطلاح بھی مستعمل رہی۔دوسری طرف بھارتی اداکاراؤں کے نیم عریاں رقص براہ راست دکھائے گئے اور خبروں کی سرخیوں میں بار بار۔ٹاک شوز کی کامیابی اس پر منحصر ہوگئی کہ متضاد نقطہ ہائے نظر کے لوگوں کو اس طرح رو برو بٹھایا جائے کہ ایک ہنگامہ بر پا ہو جائے۔مقصود تنقیح نہیں تھی۔رائے سازی کے اس عمل کے دو مظاہر سامنے آئے۔ایک طرف جمہوریت کے حق میں سیاست دانوںکو بٹھایا گیا اور دوسری طرف ان کے نامۂ اعمال کی سیاہی کو پوری سکرین پر پھیلا دیا گیا۔یوں اہلِ سیاست اور جمہوریت مترادف قرار پائے۔ دوسرا کام یہ کیا گیا کہ بعض اہلِ دانش کو جمہوریت پرتنقیدکا کھلا موقع دیا گیا۔مجھے اس سے اختلاف نہیںلیکن اس کے برخلاف جمہوریت کا مقد مہ علمی اور سماجی پہلو سے سامنے نہیں آیا۔اہلِ سیاست کی تصویر اور پھر جمہوریت پر تنقید کا مجموعی تاثر یہی قائم ہوا کہ جمہوریت ایک مذموم عمل ہے جو اسلام کے مطابق ہے نہ اس سے کوئی خیر وابستہ ہوسکتی ہے۔اس کے بعد جمہوریت کی جگہ کہاں رہتی ہے؟ اہلِ دانش کے ایک طبقے نے بھی اسے مو ضوع بنایا اور یہ باور کرانا چاہا کہ اس سے نجات ہی میں خیر ہے۔وہ آج تک قوم کو یہ نہیں بتا سکے کہ اس کا متبادل کیا ہے؟بعض نے انقلاب کی مبہم اصطلاح استعمال کی ۔انہوں نے انقلاب کا کوئی فکری تجزیہ نہیں کیا، اسے ایک خواب بنا کر پیش کیا۔ سماج میں یہ خواب اس عنوان سے بکنے لگا کہ ’’ہمیں بھی ایک خمینی کی ضرورت ہے۔‘‘اس میں خمینی صاحب کی شخصیت کے مثبت پہلوؤں کا حوالہ نہیں تھا،صرف ان کی انتظامی سختی کا ذکر تھاکہ کس طرح انہوں نے ’عوام دشمنوں‘ کو صبح وشام موت کی وادی میں اتار دیا۔اس سے لوگوں کے جذبہ انتقام کو ابھارا گیا اور یہ شعوری کوشش کی گئی کہ انتقام کی اس کھیتی میں نئی نسل کی ایسی فصل اُگے جس کا پھل نفرت سے لبریز ہو۔اس کار خیر میں مصروف اگر کوئی اشتراکیت پسند تھا تو اس نے اپنا فکری حصہ ڈالا اور تاریخ کے مارکسی نظریے کی روشنی میں انقلاب کے فضائل بیان کئے۔ جو اسلام پسند تھا اس نے اسلام کو اپنی ڈھال بنا یا۔اقبال کے تمام فکری سیاق و سباق کو نظر انداز کرتے ہوئے ایک دو اشعار کی بنیاد پر انہیں بھی اپنی تائید میں لاکھڑا کیا گیا۔ اس انقلابی ماحول میں جمہوریت کا گزر کہاں ہو سکتا ہے؟ اہلِ مذہب بھی جمہوریت پر یقین نہیں رکھتے۔جماعت اسلامی اس کی حامی ہے لیکن اس نے1979ء کے بعد تبدیلی کے بعض دوسرے طریقوں کی جس طرح فکری اور عملی پشت پناہی کی،اس کا لازمی نتیجہ جمہوریت بیزاری ہے۔ مو لانا فضل الرحمٰن نے اگرچہ جمہوریت کا علم اٹھائے رکھا،لیکن ان کا فکری حلقہ اثر اس سفر میں اُن کا ہم سفر نہیں تھا۔دیوبندی مکتب کے زیرِانتظام محراب و منبر سے کچھ دوسری آوازیں اٹھیں جو زیادہ مقبول ہوئیں۔اس سے یہ رائے مستحکم ہوئی کہ جمہوریت ایک غیر اسلامی طرزِ حکومت ہے۔اس میں بڑا دخل مذہبی جماعتوں کی انتخابی ناکامیوں کابھی ہے۔ مو لانا فضل الرحمٰن کو چونکہ اس نظام سے حصہ بقدر جثہ ملتا رہا ،اس لیے انہوں نے جمہوریت کے جھنڈے کو سرنگوں نہیں ہو نے دیا۔جماعت اسلامی جیسی جماعتوں کا معاملہ اس کے بر عکس رہا۔یہی سبب ہے کہ جماعت میں انتہا پسندی نے دوسری مذہبی جماعتوں کی نسبت زیادہ سرایت کیا۔بعض ریاستی اداروں نے جس سوچ کو فروغ دیا،عوامی رائے عامہ پر ہم اس کے اثرات بھی دیکھ رہے ہیں۔ پاکستان میں رائے سازی کے یہی چار بڑے ذرائع ہیں۔جب یہ سب مل کر جمہوریت کے خلاف سرگرم ہوں گے تو اس کے بعد کیا ہمیں کسی مختلف نتیجے کی تو قع کر نی چاہیے؟اس کے بعد اگر نو جوان نسل جمہوریت کے حق میں فیصلہ دیتی تو ہمیں اس پر حیرت ہو نی چاہیے تھی۔اِن میں سے بعض نے یہ کوشش شعوری سطح پر کی جیسے چند اہلِ قلم اور اہلِ مذہب کا ایک طبقہ۔ بعض نے بھیڑ چال میں اسے اختیار کیا ،بعض نے نا سمجھی میں اور کچھ نے تجارتی مفادات کے تحت ۔ان شعوری یا غیر شعوری کاوشوں کا حاصل یہ ہے کہ نئی نسل کو جمہوریت پر اعتبار رہا نہ اہلِ سیاست پر۔میرے نزدیک یہ المیہ ہے اور اسی وجہ سے میں اسے ایک فکری مغالطہ کہتا ہوں ۔اب آئیے اس سوال کی طرف کہ کیا شریعت اور جمہوریت مختلف یا متضاد نظام ہائے حکومت ہیں؟ اس مغالطے کی اساس یہ ہے کہ شریعت کو نظام سمجھ لیا گیا ہے۔یہاں یہ لفظ جس سیاق و سباق میں زیرِ بحث ہے،اُس میں شریعت اُس قانون کا نام ہے جو الہامی ہے۔قانون کو نفاذ کے لیے نظام کی ضرورت ہو تی ہے۔ہمارے سیاسی پس منظر میں جب جمہوریت کا لفظ اختیار کیا جاتا ہے تو اس سے مراد نظام ہے۔پاکستان کا سیاسی نظام ایک عمرانی معاہدے پر کھڑا ہے جسے ہم 1973ء کا آئین کہتے ہیں۔اس میں طے ہے کہ نظمِ اجتماعی کوئی ایسا فیصلہ نہیں کرے گی جو قرآن و سنت کے خلاف ہو۔سوال محض یہ ہے کہ اس نظمِ اجتماعی چلانے والے ہاتھوں کا انتخاب کیسے ہوگا؟ اس کے تین طریقے رائج رہے ہیں۔ایک یہ کہ کسی کے حق میں آسمانی فیصلہ آ جائے۔ ختمِ نبوت کے بعد ہماری روایت میں یہ راستہ بند ہو گیا۔دوسرا یہ کہ کوئی خاندانی عصبیت یاطاقت کے زور پر اقتدار اپنے ہاتھ میں لے لے۔یہ اخلاقاً غلط ہے اور شرعاً بھی۔میں ایک کالم میں اس کے دلائل دے چکا۔تیسرا یہ کہ عام لوگوں کو یہ حق دیا جائے کہ وہ کسی پر اپنے اعتماد کا اظہار کر دیں۔اس کا جدید ترین طریقہ انتخابات ہیں۔ یہی جمہوریت ہے۔الہامی ہدایت اس کی تائید کرتی ہے اورانسانی تجربہ بھی۔مکرر عرض ہے کہ جمہوریت سے حق و باطل کا فیصلہ نہیں ہوتا۔اس سے ہم صرف اِس نزاع کا فیصلہ کرتے ہی کہ مسندِ اقتدار پر کون فائز ہوگا۔میں کبھی نہیں سمجھ سکا کہ اس سے شریعت اور جمہوریت میں تضادکیسے واقع ہو گیا؟ بلا شبہ جمہوریت میں کمزوریاں ہیں۔میں خود ان کی نشان دہی کرتا رہتا ہوں۔مثال کے طور پر ہمارے سماجی پس منظر میںپارلیمانی نظام کی نسبت متناسب نمائندگی کا طریقہ زیادہ مناسب ہے۔اگر کوئی اس سے بہترتجویز رکھتا ہے تو اُسے سامنے آنا چاہیے۔اس کے لیے جمہوریت کی نفی غیر منطقی ہے۔شریعت اور جمہوریت ایک دوسرے سے متصادم نہیں۔ ایک قانون ہے اور دوسرا نظام۔شریعت، سیاسی نظام کے باب میں یہ غیر مبہم اور اصولی راہنمائی دیتی ہے کہ وہ عوام کے مشورے سے وجود میں آتاہے۔اس طرح شریعت میں خاندانی بادشاہت یا آمریت کے لیے کوئی جگہ نہیں۔ شریعت اور جمہوریت کو متضادثابت کر نے کوشش باعثِ تشویش ہے اور اس طرح کی سوچ نے جس طرح نئی نسل میں سرایت کیا ہے،اس پر متفکر ہو نے کی ضرورت ہے۔اس کا نتیجہ انارکی ہے۔جس زمین میں نفرت کی تھور اگتی ہے،وہاںمدتوں کوئی حیات آفریں پودا جڑنہیں پکڑ سکتا۔کاش میڈیا،اہلِ دانش اور اہلِ مذہب اس پر غور فرما سکیں۔
خلافت یا جمہوریت؟
دلیل کا علاقہ ختم ہوتا ہے تو خلطِ مبحث کی سرحد شروع ہو جاتی ہے۔جمہوریت کی بحث بھی اسی سرحد میں داخل ہو چکی۔اب گفتگو کی نتیجہ خیزی کے لیے یہ لازم ہو چکا کہ بعض باتوں کی تنقیح ہو جائے ۔ سماج اور ریاست انسانی اجتماعیت کی دو مختلف صورتیں ہیں۔دونوں کا نظم مختلف ہے اور ارتقاء و اصلاح کے اسالیب بھی مختلف ۔ریاست ایک جغرافیے کی پابند ہے،سماج نہیں ۔اس لیے ریاست کی بحث لازم ہے کہ خاص جغرافی حد میں ہو۔ریاست کے لیے ایک سیاسی نظم بھی ناگزیر ہے۔سماج اقدار اور روایات سے بنتا ہے۔اقدار کا تعلق جغرافیے سے نہیں ہوتا۔مسلمان سماج پاکستان میں ہے اور بھارت میں بھی۔بنگلہ دیش میں ہے اور نیپال میں بھی۔جمہوریت کی حالیہ بحث ریاست کے دائرے میں ہو رہی ہے۔اِس باب میں چندبنیادی سوال ہیں: ایک ریاست میں جب نظمِ اجتماعی قائم ہو گا توکسی فرد یا گروہ کا حقِ اقتدار کیسے ثابت ہو گا؟قانون ساز کون ہو گااورقانون سازی کیسے ہوگی؟کسی کاحقِ اقتدار مستقل ہو گا یا محدود مدت کے لیے؟ اس مدت کا تعین کون کرے گا؟ یہ سب سوالات ریاست کے متعلق ہیں۔میرا کہنا یہ ہے کہ اِن سوالات کے وہی جواب زیادہ عقلی ، منطقی اور شرفِ انسانیت کے مطابق ہیں جو جمہوریت دیتی ہے۔الہامی ہدایت اس کی تائید کرتی ہے اور انسانی تجربہ بھی۔جمہوریت کی یہ بحث اُسی وقت نتیجہ خیز ہوگی جب یہ ریاست کے دائرے میں ہوگی۔ جب ہم سماج اور ریاست کے فرق کو پیشِ نظر رکھے بغیر ، اصلاحِ معاشرہ اور اصلاحِ ریاست کے موضوعات کو ملا دیتے ہیں تو اس سے خلطِ مبحث وجود میں آتا ہے۔ زیبِ داستاں کے لیے ہم اس میں مذہب کو بھی شامل کر لیتے ہیں کہ بنتی نہیں ہے بادہ و ساغر کہے بغیر۔ واقعہ یہ ہے کہ نظمِ اجتماعی انسان کا فطری مطالبہ ہے۔ مذہب کی مداخلت بس اتنی ہے کہ انسان کا اخلاقی وجود پامال نہ ہو۔ اس لیے وہ قانون دیتاہے لیکن کسی نظام پر اصرار نہیں کرتا۔ جب ہم جمہوریت کی اس بحث کو مذہب کے دائرے میں لاتے ہیں تو یہ تأثر دیتے ہیں کہ جیسے خلافت کوئی دینی اصطلاح ہے جو جمہوریت کے بالمقابل ہے۔خلافت کوئی دینی اصطلاح نہیں۔ نصوص میں اس کو دینی تصور کے طور پر بیان نہیں کیا گیا۔ رسالت مآبﷺ نے نظمِ اجتماعی کے لیے ’’الجماعۃ‘‘ کی ترکیب استعمال کی ہے اور ’’السلطان‘‘ کی بھی؟ یہ بھی محض تفہیمِ مدعا کے لیے۔ قرآنِ مجید نے سورہ نورمیںاہلِ ایمان (صحابہ کرام) سے اﷲ کے اس وعدے کا ذکر کیا ہے کہ وہ انہیں زمین میں خلافت دے گا۔ ظاہر ہے یہ بھی لغوی مفہوم میں ہے، اس سے مراد کسی خاص اصطلاح کا بیان نہیں۔ مولانا مودودی نے سورۂ نور کی اسی آیہ ء استخلاف کے حوالے سے لکھا ہے : ’’کسی شخص یا طبقے کو عام مومنین کے اختیارات ِ خلافت سلب کرکے انہیں اپنے اندر مرکوز کر لینے کا حق نہیں ہے ،نہ کوئی شخص یا طبقہ اپنے حق میں خدا کی خصوصی خلافت کا دعوٰی کر سکتا ہے۔یہی چیز اسلامی خلافت کو ملوکیت،طبقاتی حکومت اور مذہبی پیشواؤں کی حکومت سے الگ کر کے اُسے جمہوریت کے رخ پر موڑتی ہے‘‘۔(خلافت و ملوکیت ،صفحہ ۳۶)۔ انہوں نے مغربی جمہوریت کے ساتھ یہ فرق واضح کیا ہے کہ وہ عوامی حاکمیت کو تسلیم کرتی ہے جب کہ اسلام اﷲ کی حاکمیت کو۔ میں اس میں یہ اضافہ کرتا ہوں کہ جب پاکستانی ریاست نے 1973ء کے آئین میں قرآن و سنت کی بالا دستی کو قبول کر لیا تو یہ فرق بھی باقی نہیں رہا۔ اب جمہوریت وہی ہے جسے ہمارے بزرگ خلافت کہتے رہے ہیں۔بطور جملہ معترضہ مجھے یہاں یہ بھی کہنا ہے کہ مولانا مودودی کی کتاب’’خلافت و ملوکیت‘‘اس باب میںایک لاجواب تصنیف ہے۔افسوس کہ یہ کتاب ہمارے ہاں ایک افسوس ناک بحث کا عنوان بنی جو اس کا اصل مو ضوع نہیں تھا۔ یہ بھی محض ایک غلط فہمی ہے کہ اسلام میں سیاسی جماعتوں کی گنجائش نہیں ۔یہ تصور ہمارے ہاں ضیاء الحق مرحوم کے زیر ِاثر آیا جب انہوں نے غیر جماعتی انتخابات کرانے کا فیصلہ کیا۔ انہوں نے ایک انصاری کمیشن بنایاجس کی رپورٹ میں یہ تصور پیش کیا گیا۔ یہ بھی ایک بے بنیادبات ہے ۔سیاسی جماعتیں کیا ہیں؟ سیاسی امورمیں مختلف نقطہ ہائے نظر کی تنظیم۔یہ اختلاف رائے عہدِ صحابہؓ میں موجود تھا اور اس دور کے تمدنی تقاضوں کے مطابق منظم بھی ہوا۔صفین اور جمل کی جنگیں کیا تھیں ،اس اختلافِ رائے کا ظہور تھا۔سیدنا علیؓ کے عہدِ خلافت میں ایک نقطہ نظر یہ تھا کہ قاتلین عثمانؓ کو فی الفورسزا دی جائے۔ دوسری رائے یہ تھی کہ اس معاملے کو موخر کیا جائے۔ یہ اختلاف بڑھا تو گروہ منظم ہو گئے۔دونوں گروہوں کے دلائل اور موقف تاریخ کی کتابوں میں موجود ہیں۔ کسی نے دوسرے کو یہ نہیں کہا کہ وہ مختلف سیاسی موقف رکھنے کا حق نہیں رکھتا یا یہ کوئی غیر اسلامی فعل ہے۔سیاسی نقطہ ہائے نظر کی نئی تنظیم کا نام سیاسی جماعت ہے۔اس تصور میں کوئی بات غیر اسلامی نہیں۔یہ بات بھی بے بنیاد ہے کہ اسلام تبدیلی کا کوئی مختلف نظام پیش کرتا ہے۔ یہ صحیح ہے کہ اسلام ایک صالح معاشرہ قائم کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ اس کا ناگزیر نتیجہ ہے ایک صالح سیاسی نظام۔یہ ایک ارتقائی عمل ہے جسے ہمیں جاری رکھنا ہے جیسے یہ فرد کے باب میں تا دمِ مرگ جاری رہتا ہے۔اسلام فرد کی اصلاح چاہتا ہے یہاں تک کہ اس کا تزکیہ ہو جائے اور وہ اُخروی زندگی میں جنت کا مستحق ٹھہرے۔ معاشرتی اصلاح کا عمل مسلسل جاری رہتا ہے اور اس میں کوئی ٹھہراؤ نہیں ہوتا۔ بلا شبہ اسلام یہ چاہتا ہے کہ چور اور لٹیرے اقتدار تک نہ پہنچیںلیکن اگر سماج میں مطلوب لوگ موجود نہیں ہیں تو کیا اس وقت تک نظمِ اجتماعی کے قیام کو مؤخر رکھا جائے گا؟فقہ کی کتابوں میں درج ہے کہ امامِ مسجد کے اوصاف کیا ہونے چاہئیں۔ اگر ایسا امام مو جود نہ ہو تو کیا باجماعت نماز کوموخر کر دیا جائے گا؟ کون ذی ہوش اس کا جواب اثبات میں دے سکتا ہے؟ ہماری دینی روایت تو یہ ہے کہ نظمِ اجتماعی کا اہتمام ہر صورت میں کیا جائے گا۔ صحابہؓ کے لیے اس کی اتنی اہمیت تھی کہ جب رسالت مآبﷺ دنیا سے تشریف لے جا رہے تھے تو صدمے کی اس شدید کیفیت میں بھی انہوں نے یہ پسند نہیں کیا کہ مسلمان کسی نظمِ اجتماعی کے بغیر رہیں۔جب یہ کام مؤخر نہیں ہو سکتا تو پھر ہم اسے کیسے قائم رکھیںگے؟ ظاہر ہے سماج میں موجود افراد کی مدد سے۔ میں یہ بات بارہا عرض کر چکا کہ جو لوگ ریاست کی اصلاح کو سماجی اصلاح کی بنیاد سمجھتے ہیں، انہوں نے ترتیب کو الٹ دیا ہے۔سیاسی جدو جہد سے تبدیلی کا نظریہ ناکام ہو چکا۔ اصلاح کے لیے سماج مقدم ہے۔ اﷲ کا شکر ہے کہ میں برسوں سے صحرا میں جواذان دے رہا تھا ، اس کا جواب اب آنے لگا ہے اور اہلِ دانش اس کے قائل ہو رہے ہیں۔ آج ہم جو سیاسی نظام قائم کریں گے وہ سماجی حقائق ہی کا پرتو ہوگا۔ نظم اسلامی ہو یا سیکولر اس کا بنیادی مقصد یہی ہے۔ دیگر فرائض ثانوی ہیں۔ اس کے قیام کا کوئی طریقہ جمہوریت سے بہتر دریافت نہیں ہوسکا۔ اس وقت ملک میں انتخاب ہونے والے ہیں۔آج ہم اصلاحِ معاشرہ کاکوئی پروگرام نہیں دے رہے ہیں۔ ہمیں صرف یہ طے کرنا ہے کہ انتقالِ اقتدار کیسے ہو۔ اس کی کوئی صورت جمہوریت سے بہتر نہیں ہے۔ یہ لوگ انتخاب کریں گے کہ یہاں کون برسرِ اقتدار آئے گا اور کیسے؟ ہمارے جمہوری نظام میں نقائص ہیں۔ ہمارا انتخابی نظام بھی اصلاح طلب ہے۔سیاسی جماعتیں بھی مثالی نہیں ہیں۔ہمیں یہ سب کام کرنے ہیں لیکن اُس وقت تک ہم ریاست اور سیاسی نظام کی بساط نہیںلپیٹ سکتے۔ ہمیں آج فیصلہ کرنا ہے۔ اس موقعہ پر قوم اگر ابہام کا شکا ر ہو گی تو اس سے زیادہ کوئی بات نقصان دہ نہیں ہو سکتی۔
آخر وہ ہمارے حکمران رہے ہیں۔ ان کے بارے میں کہا جاتا ہے کہ سلطنت برطانیہ میں سورج کبھی غروب نہیں ہوتا تھا۔ ہم نے ان کی آن بان دیکھی ہے۔ مہذب دنیا کی بہت سی اقدار اور انسانی ترقی کی ابتدا کا سفر بھی اسی سرزمین سے وابستہ تھا۔ سب سے بڑی قدر جمہوریت سے اور برطانیہ کو آج بھی جمہوریت کی ماں کہا جاتا ہے۔ یہ بھی بتایا جاتا ہے کہ برطانیہ نے جمہوریت کی خاطر بڑی قربانیاں دی ہیں۔ اس نے ہٹلر سے ٹکڑا کر خود اپنے وجود کو خطرے میں ڈال دیا اور یہ سب جمہوریت کی خاطر کیا۔ سب سے پہلے صنعتی انقلاب سرزمین انگلستان میں آیا جس نے دنیا میں ٹیکنالوجی کے نئے دور کو جنم دیا۔ بے شمار عظمتیں ہیں اس سرزمین کی اور نہ سہی، یہاں شیکسپئر پیدا ہوا جس نے دنیا پر حکمرانی کی ہے۔ جی، اسی برطانیہ کی بات کر رہا ہوں جس کے بارے آج یہ بتایا جا رہا ہے کہ اگر وہ بیس سال بھی نکال جاتے تو بڑی غنیمت ہے۔ شاید اس عہد میں یہ ایک بہت خوبصورت مطالعہ ہو گا کہ قومیں کس طرح ٹوٹتی ہیں۔ جمہوریت اپنے عروج پر ہے۔ اسے جمہوریت کی ماں کہتے ہیں اور یہ ملک ٹوٹ رہا ہے تو کسی حملہ آور کی طاقت سے نہیں یا یہاں کی حکومت پر قبضہ کر کے نہیں، بلکہ عوام ہی کی طاقت سے ڈھیرہو رہا ہے۔ میں سوچ میں پڑ گیا ہوں کہ انسانی ذہن کی گہرائیوں میں اترنے والا دنیا کا پہلا نفسیات دان فرائڈ خوامخواہ تو نہ کہتا تھا کہ جمہوریت اپنے اندر تباہ کاریوں کے عناصر رکھتی ہے۔ اقبال روتا تھا کہ دو سو گدھے ایک انسانی ذہن کے برابر نہیں ہو سکتے۔ چرچل یہاں آ کر رک جاتا تھا کہ بدترین جمہوریت بہترین آمریت سے بہتر ہے، مگر جمہوریت کے اس دیس میں جمہوری طریقے ہی سے ملک بچتا دکھائی نہیں دے رہا۔ میں نے صرف ایک آدھ بار تجزیہ کرنے کے بعد دم سادھ لی تھی کہ یہ بریگزٹ ہے کیا۔ جب اس صدی کا آغاز ہوا تو اس چرچے کے ساتھ ہوا کہ اب دنیا سمیٹی جائے گی۔ یورپ ایک ہو رہا ہے، برطانیہ بھی اس سے باہر نہیں ہے، ہاں اس کے کچھ نخرے ہیں، مثلاً وہ اپنا پائونڈ قربان نہیں کرنا چاہتا۔ وہ یورپ کی ایک کرنسی کے تصور سے الگ رہے گا۔ دنیا میں جس طرح کی ہوا چل رہی تھی۔ برطانیہ بھی یورپی یونین کا حصہ بن گیا۔ اپنی کرنسی الگ رکھی، یورپ سے اس اتحاد پر بہت باتیں ہوئیں۔ امریکہ بھی خوش نہ تھا کہ یورپ امریکہ کے مقابلے میں کھڑا ہو جائے گا۔ جرمنی اور فرانس اسے آنکھیں دکھائیں گے۔ یورپ ایک بڑی سیاسی، اقتصادی، صنعتی طاقت بن جائے گا۔ یورپ کی حیثیت آہستہ آہستہ ایک دوسرے سے منسلک ہو رہی تھی۔ ہر ملک کے شہری کے لیے ملازمتوں کے افق وسیع ہو رہے تھے۔ ایک ملک کا مال دوسرے ملک میں آسانی سے آنے جانے لگا تھا اور ایک دوسرے ملک کے شہری بھی اچانک برطانیہ میں شور اٹھا کہ یہ تو ہمیں لوٹا جا رہا ہے۔ برطانیہ کا روایتی نخرہ برطانویوں کو تنگ کرنے لگا۔ وہاں جمہوریت ہے نا، انہوں نے کہا کہ ریفرنڈم کرا لو۔ لوگوں سے پوچھ لو، ریفرنڈم نے سب کو حیران کر دیا۔ برطانیہ کے عوام کی اکثریت نے علیحدگی کے حق میں ووٹ دے دیا۔ یورپی ملکوں نے بھی کہا، ایسا ہے تو ایسا ہی سہی، بتائو کب ہماری جان چھوڑ رہے ہو۔ ادھر امریکہ نے بھی اکسانا شروع کیا، فکر نہ کرو، ہم جو پڑے ہیں۔ اینگلوسیکسین نشہ پھر چھانے لگا۔ امریکہ اور برطانیہ ایک ہو کر یورپ کے کڑاکے نکال دیں گے۔ مگر جب یہ عمل شروع ہوا تو برطانیہ والوں کو معلوم ہوا کہ کس بھائو بکتی ہے۔ پارلیمنٹ ایک سال سے بحث کر رہی ہے، کیسے الگ ہوں، کیا شرائط ہوں، حکومتیں ٹوٹ گئیں، مگر فیصلہ نہ ہو پایا۔ وہ مرحلہ بھی آیا جب وزیر اعظم نے ملکہ سے پارلیمنٹ معطل کرنے کا پروانہ بھی لے لیا۔ ادھر یورپ والے پوچھ رہے ہیں، اب بتائو بھی نا۔ یہ سب جمہوریت کے نام پر ہو رہا ہے۔ وہ جمہوریت جس نے امریکہ جیسے ملک میں ٹرمپ ازم کا غلبہ کر رکھا ہے، جس نے بھارت کے سارے آدرش ملیا میٹ کر کے وہاں مودی کو راج سنگھاسن سونپ دیا ہے۔ جس نے پورے یورپ کو پریشان کر دیا ہے کہ وہاں کے انتہا پسند بھی طاقت کہلاتے جا رہے ہیں، ڈر ہے کہ جانے کب وہ جمہوریت کا تیا پانچہ کر کے وہاں بھی قابض ہو جائیں۔ اس وقت جمہوریت پر بڑا کڑا وقت ہے۔ کہا جاتا تھا کہ جمہوری قدر میں احتیاط، اعتدال اور معاملہ فہمی کے ساتھ چلتے ہوئے کبھی انتہا پسندی کو پلنے نہیں دیتیں، گو دنیا میں یہ کہا جا رہا ہے، برطانیہ تو جمہوریت کی ماں ہے۔ کہا جا رہا ہے کہ یہ عمل مکمل ہو گیا تو برطانیہ عظمیٰ بس ایک چھوٹا سا انگلستان(لٹل انگلینڈ) رہ جائے گا۔ صرف بریگزٹ کی تیاری میں برطانیہ کا یہ حال ہو گیا ہے کہ وہ3فیصد غریب ہو گیا ہے۔ ایک تجزیہ یہ کہتا ہے کہ یہ عمل مکمل ہونے تک وہ 3.5فیصد غریب ہو جائے گا اور آنے والے دنوں میں وہ چھ فیصد تک بھی غریب ہو سکتا ہے۔ اس وقت برطانیہ کے طول و عرض میں بحث چھڑ گئی ہے ہم نے انگلینڈ کے ساتھ رہ کر کیا کرنا ہے۔ شمالی آئرلینڈ کہتا ہے برطانیہ عظمیٰ سے الگ ہو کر آئرش ریپبلک میں شامل ہو جائو۔ ستم ظریفی دیکھئے کہ آئرلینڈ والے کہتے ہیں، ہم ان غریبوں کو کیوں اپنے ساتھ شامل کریں۔ سکاٹ لینڈ ہمیشہ سے انگلینڈ کا باغی رہا ہے، وہ کہتا ہے ہم الگ ہو کر یورپی یونین میں چلے جاتے ہیں۔ یورپی یونین ان سے پہلے ہی چھٹکارا پا چکا ہے، اب وہ بھی انہیں قبول کرنے کو تیار نہیں۔ ویلز کے لوگ ہمیشہ انگلینڈ کے قریب رہے ہیں، سنا ہے ایک سروے کے مطابق وہاں کے 40فیصد اب علیحدگی کا سوچ رہے ہیں۔ کیا بنے گا اس برطانیہ کا جو برطانیہ عظمیٰ کہلاتا تھا، سورج تو برسوں پہلے اس سلطنت میں غروب ہونا شروع ہو گیا تھا۔ اب کیا وہ اپنی عظمت پارینہ و دیرینہ کا صرف ایک عکس رہ جائے گا اور وہ بھی جمہوریت کے ہوتے ہوئے۔ سچ پوچھئے کہ ہمارے لیے اس میں کئی نشان عبرت ہیں۔ یہ نہیں کہ ہم جمہوریت سے بدظن ہو جائیں، بلکہ یہ سوچیں کہ آخر وہ کون سے عوامل ہیں جو جمہوریت کے باوجود قومی بقا کے لیے ناگزیر ہوتے ہیں۔ اس میں شک نہیں کہ جمہوریت کے بغیر تو ملک باقی نہیں رہتے، یہ تو اولین شرط ہے مگر آخری نہیں۔ ہم جو پاکستان کی بقا اور سلامتی کے شرائط کا تذکرہ کرتے ہیں تو لوگ چیخ اٹھتے ہیں۔ نری جمہوریت تو اک عذاب ہے۔ امریکہ میں کیا ہو رہا ہے، برطانیہ میں کیا ہوا ہے، بھارت کا کیا حال ہے، انسانوں کے بنائے ہوئے سب قوانین اور سب دستور ایک نگرانی کا تقاضہ کرتے ہیں۔ میں تو کہوں گا ایک آفاقی اور الوہی نگرانی کا تقاضہ، آپ کچھ اور کہہ لیجئے تووگرنہ بڑی بڑی جمہوریت کی داستانیں ہیں بہت کچھ سکھا رہی ہیں۔ اس میں کئی تھیوریاں پیش کی جاتی ہیں اور جا سکتی ہیں، مگر ہمیں اچھی طرح سمجھ لینا چاہئے کہ جمہوریت کے ہوتے ہوئے بھی تباہی غل مچا سکتی ہے۔ اس کا یہ مطلب بھی نہیں کہ جمہوریت کو خیرباد کہہ دیا جائے اور کوئی راستہ ہے بھی نہیں۔ لوگوں کی مرضی سے حکومت کرنا بہت سی خرابیوں کے راستے میں رکاوٹ بن جاتی ہے لیکن اس نظام کو اپنی موجودہ شکل میں نافذ کر کے مطمئن ہو جانا کہ اب ہمارا کوئی کچھ نہیں بگاڑ سکتا، غلط ہو گا۔ ہمارے ہاں سندھ، بلوچستان، خیبرپختونخوا اور پنجاب میں کوئی سکاٹ لینڈ، آئر لینڈ، ویلز یا انگلینڈ نہیں۔ جیسی جمہوریت وہاں ہے، ہمارے ہاں توخیر سے ویسی نہیں۔ ہمارے گرد بھی جو ترقی کے ماڈل ہیں، وہ بھی کوئی خوشگوار نہیں۔ چین میں تو خیر نظام ہی دوسرا ہے، سنگاپور ملائیشیا کوریا وغیرہ بھی کوئی آئیڈیل جمہوریت کے لیے مثال نہیں ہیں۔ ایک تو دنیا میں جمہوریت نے آفت کھڑی کر رکھی ہے ہر جگہ، امریکہ، برطانیہ، بھارت ہر جگہ۔ جمہوریت کے نام پر غیر جمہوری قوتیں طاقت پکڑ رہی ہیں۔ دوسری طرف اردگرد جو ترقی کے دوسرے ماڈل میں وہ سرے سے جمہوریت دوست نہیں۔ وہاں ریاست کا مطمح نظر ہی اور ہے۔ کیا ہمارے لیے ضروری نہیں کہ ہم جمہوریت کے ساتھ انہی ریاست کے آئیڈیل بھی ذہن میں رکھیں۔ ویسے تو قوم نے وہ آئیڈیل ابتدا ہی میں ایک دستوری دستاویز میں وضع کر دیتے تھے جسے ہم قرار داد مقاصد کہتے ہیں اور ہمارے مفکر نے اپنے بنیادی خطبے میں اسے واضح کر دیا تھا۔ پھر ہم کیوں ان خوابوں سے خود کو دور کرنے کی کوشش کرتے ہیں جو اس ملک کے بانیوں نے دیکھے تھے۔ یہاں میں صرف یہ عرض کرنا چاہتا ہوں کہ جو قوم اپنی اصلیت سے دور جاتی ہے بالآخر بکھر جاتی ہے۔ برطانوی سامراج کو تو ختم ہونا ہی تھا، مگر کیا جمہوریت بھی چلتی رہے گی۔ اس جمہوریت کو تو انہوں نے بڑا سینت سینت کر پالا ہے تو کیا اب اس کے ہاتھوں ہی لٹ جائیں گے۔ اگر ایسا ہوا تو مطلب صاف ہو گا وہ اپنی قومی حمیت اور عصبیت سے خالی ہو گئے ہیں۔ ہمیں یہ دن بھی دیکھنا تھا کہ برطانیہ اپنی جمہوریت کے ہاتھوں سسک سسک کر دم توڑ دے گا۔ صرف اس لیے کہ اکٹھے رہنے کی مضبوط بنیادیں انہوں نے کھودی ہیں۔ ان بنیادوں کو مضبوط رکھو، پھر جمہوریت بڑے کام کی چیز ہے، وگرنہ کچھ کام نہیں آتی۔ پاکستانیو،تم بھی یہ بات سمجھ لو۔
http://dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/khursheed-nadeem/2013-04-09/2497/95136738#.UWPOi6J-aOw
Related:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_democracy
- Shari'ah or Democracy, Conflict or Compatiable ? http://t.co/ACGgPu3KFb
- Tafheem ul Quran:http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=42&verse=30&to=53]
- Objectives Resolution : Supremacy of Islam in Constitution of Pakistan
- Ideology of Pakistan - Fact or Fiction - An Analysis - نظریہ پاکستان - حقیقت یا افسانہ: تجزیہ
- Caliphate: Relevant or Redundant: http://goo.gl/245yB
- Islamic Society & Culture:https://t.co/HNUuOUuK
- Jihad- Myth & Reality: http://goo.gl/dze4z
- http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/12/global-islamic-caliphate.html
