The Dichotomy of the Ballot and the Bullet =============================== The recent bloodshed in Lahore once again illustrates how the movements working for the revival of the nation have been stuck in a false dichotomy. They can not think of any other method to revive the nation other than the use of either the ballot or the bullet. All visible movements in Pakistan that have a political agenda, fall in one of the two categories: They are either militant who are fighting the state apparatus to get their way OR they are constitutional who pride themselves in working within the perimeters of the constitution as if the constitution is some holy book ordained by the Creator of the universe. Tahir-ul Qadris PAT just swung itself from being the constitutional type to the militant type, as soon as their patience was tested by police brutality. They cant think of a third possibility. And this points to the superficiality of these movements and their leaders. The question that I am asking is: Is the use of violence the only method left outside the constitution to work for revival? The average thinker on the street may reply in affirmative. But the use of simple logic reveals that militancy and working outside the constitution are not the same things. Use of militancy is just one of the infinite possibilities when it comes to revolutionary work. Militancy just proves to be the most ineffective of them all. Careful examination of the methodology of the Prophet (saw) reveals that indeed his method was neither militancy nor strict adherence to the existing traditions. He chose a third route. And this route is by far the most effective, long-lasting in success and most avoiding of bloodshed. In brief his methodology is composed of following principles: 1. The principle of non-violence: The prophet (saw) during his days in Makkah, when he did not enjoy state authority, strictly observed adherence to the principle of non-violence. Despite persecution, social boycott, torture and humiliation of his followers, he chose to remain strictly non-violent. Jihad, in the principle of Islamic jurisprudence, is not a tool for rebellion by the dissident, rather it is a department of the state. It can only be invoked by the Islamic ruling authority. Without ruling authority, Jihad is only allowed for self-defense in response to invasion. It is not allowed in response to political persecution, however harsh, in the work for revival of the nation. 2. The principle of no compromise: The other characteristic of the prophet (saw), from which much can be learned by the constitution-abiding political movements, is the principle of zero compromise. He (saw) had a comprehensive vision, all of which was coherent and rationally extended from the aqeedah of Islam i.e. the belief in the sovereignty of God, not even a minute part of which can be shared by His creation. This extends to a unique program in the social, economic, political domain that is complete and can not be compromised. And he did not accept any compromise in his vision despite the offer by the ruling elite of the time for partial authority, or the conditional offer by neighborring tribes of full authority (condition being of the promise of power-inheritance post-messengerhood). His program and his vision expected full adherence to the principles in their details, with unconditional support of the adherents i.e. without them being offered any share in temporal authority or position. Full acceptance to his program and full acceptance of his leadership. All the constitution abiding parties of Pakistan have compromised this principle. They seek to legitimize Islamically the post-colonial constructs of democracy, nationalism, parliament, majority-rule, capitalism even though none of them are rationally extended from the Islamic aqeedah. Some parties (the islamic one) cite pragmatism for this, while others (the nationalist one) simply consider the discussion of aqeedah to be irrelevant and have accepted the Western political thought of separation of religion and politics. This compromise has led to the failure of every political movement in existence. Even the most sincere of them dont carry a promise of more than a temporary surge of hope or relief. Compromise necessitates vagueness in their ideas, which leads to following of the just the personality, only to be replaced after their leaders demise by mindless adherence to party name/legacy, while the top echelons are hijacked by the corrupt who go unaccounted due to lack of crystallized thought/ideas in the adherents. 3. The principle of Quality over Quanity: The prophet (saw) did not care about the quantity of following, rather he focussed on the quality of his followers. He made the acceptance of Islamic aqeedah the condition of participation in his program (or a membership in his party). And he regularly conducted culturing sessions to build the concepts and personalities of his companions. Though the quantity of the companions remained just around hundred before he was given authority in Yathrib, each of his early companions was fully molded into the ideology that the Prophet (saw) was working to spread. 4. The principle of Public Support: Even though, we mentioned above, the Prophet (saw) demanded unconditional material support by the ones he asked for political support, he completely understood the principle of public support in the masses he was going to rule. He worked to publicly challenge the widely held concepts and practices in Makkah, and to challenge the legitimacy of the authority of the tribal leaders of Makkah. This was done not with the hope that the leaders will change themselves based on his criticism. This was done to create awareness and public opinion among the people of Makkah in favor of his ideology. Similarly, when the tribes of Yathrib offered him full support, he did not come to rule right away. He sent Musab (ra) to work on public support and opinion before he comes to power. 5. The principle of seeking Nussrah from the Powerful: We mentioned early on that the prophet (saw) avoided militancy as well as political participation. And he took the third route. This third route was the seeking of material support from the enforcement factions of the society in his (saw) time. For six years he tried to seek it from the tribal leaders in Makkah. After it was evident that the Makkans will not listen to him, he approached other tribal leaders. He went to Taif to talk to the tribal leaders there and ask them to transfer authority to him. After Taif he sought support from up to, at least, 12 more tribes (some reports estimate up to 40 tribes). Eventually this support (nussrah) came from Madinah (hence theyre called Ansar). In the current context, this enforcement faction is the Armed forces of Pakistan. They have to be approached for demanding from them the unconditional material support for implementation of the ideological program. Only when a party is based on a comprehensive understanding of Islam, understands Islamic social, economic, political programme in detail, has quality of individuals that are conversant with the ideology, it enjoys public support, and then it is able to convince the Armed forces to give them the authority to rule unconditionally, can we expect the work of revolution to be complete and long-lasting. Such a party exists in the Muslim world, though its visibility in the mainstream is little as their vision is not palatable to the elite who design media policy. This party is Hizb-ut Tahrir. And I havent seen any party other than Hizb that is working on the principles described above. If the Muslim world has to revive, it will only revive if it follows the method of the Prophet (saw) for revival. Any other method, will just lead to delay, confusion, defeatism and hopelessness. pakistantoday.pk/2014/08/10/national/qadris-revolutionaries-wreak-havoc-in-punjab/
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:59:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015