The most recent poll done in Iraq that was released yesterday had one quite interesting question in it. Unfortunately amongst the hooplah that 61% Iraqis want Americans out of there by yesterday (kind of), that dominated US media yesterday and today many interesting observations are glossed over. The Poll was organized by CNN/USA Today/Gallup](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-29-iraq-poll_x.htm) and administered by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai.
a. Multi-party parliamentary democracy such as that in most European nations, U.S. and some Asian countries
b. An Islamic democracy, such as that in Pakistan:
c. An Islamic theocracy in which religious leaders or Mullahs have a strong influence, such as in Iran
d. A conservative Islamic theocracy, such as existed in the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan:
e. A conservative Islamic kingdom, such as in Saudi Arabia
f. A royal constitutional regime such as the one prevailed in Iraq before 1958:
g. A system based on the Islamic concept of SHURA (mutual consent)
As a bye-note, 54% Iraqis wanted a pure democracy (a) while 42% opted for a Shura model (g).
I am curious to know what were the interviewers thinking when they stood Pakistan as a poster child of “Islamic Democracy”? What does it mean?
From what I see there are several interesting aspects of the current democratic model in Pakistan (feel free to disagree).
We have essentially a military dictator who came to power in a blood-less coup and banished all former political leaders from the process. He still is the be-all of our political process and can terminate it at will.
We had a sorta fair elections that elected a rubber-stamp prime minister and upped a group of turn-coat politicians as a King’s Party. They control our national parliament.
The were a bunch of extremist religious parties that joined and won major election victories and are now part of a boistrous opposition group. They even control two provinces (if I am not wrong).
We have an NSC that incorporates stong military influence in running of the country.
Even the strongest supporters of Pakistan’s constitution will be hard pressed to suggest that our constitution and laws are based on Islamic injuctions (most are carried over from British rule).
The judiciary is not only not independent, but is highly corrupt at the lower-to-middle level (atleast).
On social front, there is freedom of press, rampant crime, low literacy rates and corrupt bureacracy. An educated workforce, high inflation, a vibrant economy, great musical groups, good tv dramas and crappy film industry.
So, if anyone is asked, would you like to adopt “Islamic democracy” as in Pakistan… what are they actually asking them?
The conflict between the west and Islam is that they want to force the western system of ‘secular democracy’ on the Muslims. This is contrary to Islam.
"Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: “A system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship” or "The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education.
“There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism.”
Anyway, Jinnah wanted a secular democratic muslim state. Unless that is established, Jinnah's Pakistan will not exist.
Even the majority of people of Iraq value democracy. That goes against what the islamist types and army loyalists want us to believe. Muslims want democracy.
I am curious to know what were the interviewers thinking when they stood Pakistan as a poster child of "Islamic Democracy"? What does it mean?
From what I see there are several interesting aspects of the current democratic model in Pakistan (feel free to disagree).
We have essentially a military dictator who came to power in a blood-less coup and banished all former political leaders from the process. He still is the be-all of our political process and can terminate it at will.
We had a sorta fair elections that elected a rubber-stamp prime minister and upped a group of turn-coat politicians as a King's Party. They control our national parliament.
The were a bunch of extremist religious parties that joined and won major election victories and are now part of a boistrous opposition group. They even control two provinces (if I am not wrong).
We have an NSC that incorporates stong military influence in running of the country.
Even the strongest supporters of Pakistan's constitution will be hard pressed to suggest that our constitution and laws are based on Islamic injuctions (most are carried over from British rule).
The judiciary is not only not independent, but is highly corrupt at the lower-to-middle level (atleast).
On social front, there is freedom of press, rampant crime, low literacy rates and corrupt bureacracy. An educated workforce, high inflation, a vibrant economy, great musical groups, good tv dramas and crappy film industry.
So, if anyone is asked, would you like to adopt "Islamic democracy" as in Pakistan... what are they actually asking them?
[/QUOTE]
Faisal Bhai,
I have to give you full marks for being so realistic, I doubt if any of our other Friends here would have the GUTS to say what you said!!!
I know I know some folks are going to call me a A** Kisser, but hey its better to call a spade a spade rather than imagining it to be a spoon and then getting hit on the head with a SPADE!!!!
This is exactly what Pakistan needs Educated People who can ask the right questions???
Coming back to your question.
The best reasoning I can give you is the Arab world has a lot of learning to do about Democracy, and the USA is trying to mislead them!!!
Ok folks I have my Helmet on let the bashing begin!!
What is Islamic about Pakistan's democracy (pre-Musharraf) is that, as the MMA has always argued, Pakistan's 1973 constitution is in accordance with all Islamic principles. I'll provide a brief summary.
You have rule by mutual consultation (as ordered in the Quran) through Parliament.
A President who signs off the laws passed through mutual consultation, closely matching the role of the Khalif as described by Maududi, and who has the authority to dismiss Parliament (thus being the supreme tempral authority in the land)
The consitution orders that no law can be passed that is against Islam, and that all existing laws must be reviewed and brought into accordance with Islam.
Pakistan's Islamic parties have always argued that the problem with Pakistan, politico-religiously, is that we have a non-implemented Islamic constitution - the explicitly Islamic elements of the constitution, such as bringing all laws into accordance with Islam, have never been put into practice.
[QUOTE]
^ Rubbish. Muslims want Islam. You want democracy.
[/QUOTE]
Look at the polls from Iraq. And people supported Jinnah because he was not a mullah who tried to politisize Islam. Deal with the facts.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
What is Islamic about Pakistan's democracy (pre-Musharraf) is that, as the MMA has always argued, Pakistan's 1973 constitution is in accordance with all Islamic principles. I'll provide a brief summary.
You have rule by mutual consultation (as ordered in the Quran) through Parliament.
A President who signs off the laws passed through mutual consultation, closely matching the role of the Khalif as described by Maududi, and who has the authority to dismiss Parliament (thus being the supreme tempral authority in the land)
The consitution orders that no law can be passed that is against Islam, and that all existing laws must be reviewed and brought into accordance with Islam.
Pakistan's Islamic parties have always argued that the problem with Pakistan, politico-religiously, is that we have a non-implemented Islamic constitution - the explicitly Islamic elements of the constitution, such as bringing all laws into accordance with Islam, have never been put into practice.
[/QUOTE]
To follow Maududi would be to become the next Taliban state. Have you read any of his bigoted work?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
To follow Maududi would be to become the next Taliban state. Have you read any of his bigoted work?
[/QUOTE]
I read the part where he said that an Islamic state must be a democratic state :) That parts where he said every adult man AND woman must be allowed to vote. That every man AND woman has the right to education, to social welfare, to work, to take part in government.
That doesn't sound like the Taliban at all to me. I don't recall the Taliban ever allowing anyone to vote, particularly women. Of course, these days my memory is getting poor. I would be most grateful to you, Imdad Jee, if you could remind me of the specific occasions upon which the Taliban allowed voting to occur, particularly by women :)
I understand your point about the virtues of 1973 constitution (I don't agree completely, but thats becomes a moot point - read on). However, important thing to note is that 1973 constitution has not been in force in its desired form since the last 27 years, and ever since it was suspended by Zia in 1977, it was never fully restored. Additional constitutional amendments etc have completely distorted its spirit and concepts.
So, even if we agree that 1973 constitution is the "bible" of "Islamic Democracy", Pakistan gave it up in 1977. And the very failure of the constitution to prevent events of 1977 give it a inherent flaw. So whats the point of touting a constitution that firstly failed us, and has been changed so that we are no longer implementing it anyway. Its like saying Islam is the perfect religion but the Muslims are not the best representatives of Islam. Whats the point?
So, how come, sitting now in 2004, Pakistan's democratic model is being held up as one of the ideals - or what we call "industry standard" for 'Islamic democracy'. Sad reality is that of those muslim countries that claim to have democracies, the world (a.k.a. media) sees it differently.
- Pakistan is one that we are discussing,
- Malaysia (an otherwise outstanding country but it has the same President for the last 20 odd years),
- Bangladesh (tale of two dynasties),
- Indonesia (communal riots and otherwise nascent struggle with democracy)
*]Iran (with a strong influence of religious leaders make it an unappetising poster child of democracy)
What else do we have? So by default, we are left with Pakistan. Whats it called... between a rock and a hard place?
Sheraz, you wrote: Just because Jinnah did not believe necessarily believe in an Islamic consciousness, this does not mean ordinary Muslims, the subaltern classes, also didn't. Jinnah's vision of Pakistan does not dictate the founding vision. His was one man's vision. At grassroots level Muslims fought and sacrificed their lives for a vision of Pakistan which was non-secular, and provided them with a religious homeland where they could live as Muslims.
I, personally, find it hard to accept your logic. What you are essentially saying is that the millions of muslims of the pre-1947 sub-continent, who voted for Muslim League in 1946 elections, and who braved all odds to support the creation of a separate homeland for muslims, known as Pakistan - did it all under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, without realizing what Jinnah stands for.
I agree, Jinnah never envisioned an Islamic khilafa or a fundamental Islamic theocracy. He envisioned an inclusive society where muslims are free to live their lives in accordance with Islam (as opposed to living in a united India under the rule of a hindu majority). Infact, most of those Islamic leaders whose followers now demand an Islamic theocracy and enforcement of sharia in Pakistan are on record, opposing Pakistan during that time. Your assumption that people of that era were ignorant of what Jinnah stood for smacks of ill-timed arrogance. Here is a radical notion ... may be those people knew much better than you which leader to support and why. May be the views of Jinnah were more inline with millions of muslims than those religious leaders whose followers now demand a strict Islamic theocracy.
Based on your statement, we have two possibilities... either the millions of people of that era were fools and were fooled by Jinnah, or that you and Ms Jalaal & Co are living in a cocoon, thinking that you know the vision of the millions of people better than those people. You take your pick.
There are about 140 million people in Pakistan, and a vast majority of them considers Jinnah as the Father of the Nation and the founder of Pakistan. Now you may not agree with this, nor you have to like him, but to rubbish the leader of the nation by saying that his vision for homeland is vague and probably diametrically opposed to what people of that time stood for is inappropriate and, IMO, completely wrong.
[QUOTE]
Even as late as February 1947, he was negotiating with Nehru and Gandhi about maintaining India as a united state although Jawaharlal refused to agree to the kind of power and position that Jinnah wanted for himself in such a state.
[/QUOTE]
What kind of power was he asking for himself? Has Gndhi not offered Jinnah the prime ministership, if it would keep India united?
[QUOTE]
Unlike you however, I am not afraid of man, and do not seek the pleasure of the western colonialist states.
[/QUOTE]
Is that why you are living in the West and enjoying its hospitality?
Why should I bother defending jinnah to you when he managed to create a country which was once the largest muslim country in the world and you belong to a group that has to import its own workers from the west.
I only debate in length on topics of interest to me and this is not one of them.
In this case, Jinnah became the sole leader (and hence enjoyed the support of the people) because he was the only person capable of leading them. It was a marriage of convenience.
[/QUOTE]
This is factually untrue. Jinnah was not the only leader. There were many muslim leaders of that time, including those who had supported Khilafa movement and those that envisioned either a strict Islamic theocracy or living with hindus in a blissful state of co-existance. The majority of muslims rejected all these leaders and went with Jinnah's way.
Now, it may be hard for some to understand why that was so, cz we get so caught up in Jinnah's personal life (english-speaking, cigar smoking, wine drinking etc) - and some even have the gal to portray his sharp intelligence as a liability - that we can't figure out why in the world would millions of muslims in the sub-continent considered this man the Father of their nation? In your mind (and the likes of Ms Jalal) you are trying to rationlize how that can be, and you come up with statements "he was probably the only leader" or that "the poor muslims of that time had no other choice" etc etc. You are unwilling to assume that the majority of muslims in that era didn't really want a hardcore fundamentalist theorcracy, but were just looking for a homeland to live under democracy and peaceful life and they found the plain-speaking leadership of Jinnah to be just what they needed. If they had wanted to go down the route of strict Islamic sharia, they would have demanded it way earlier. In election after election post-1947, Islamic religio-political parties in Pakistan have been routed in the polls.
To add further insult to considerable injury, the majority of the people of West Pakistan, then went ahead and elected likes of Mujeeb and ZA Bhutto in 1971. Neither of them was an epitome of Islamic role-model. In late 1980's till 1990's, there was a musical chair between Bhutto's daughter and Shareef family. Again, no earth shattering Islamic role models. Musharraf, again is no champion of Islam.
So, in all fairness, I am extremely doubtful, if majority of the people in Pakistan (or India) are/were at any point, in favor of a strict Islamic theocratic state.
Ofcourse, they were aspiring to create an Islamic state. Thats the whole raison d'etre for creating Pakistan.
But what you call a "hazy and never clearly defined" is precisely that... it was not meant to be a hardline Islamic state. It was meant to be a modern democracy (something that you feel quite opposed to) that will permit muslims to live their lives in accordance with the Islamic way of their chosing without having to deal with a hindu majority. That was the whole thing. The results of 1946 elections are a clear proof for the support of AIML and Mr Jinnah and that is what the muslims wanted.
Respect is never given - its always earned. You can put forward 100 different theories on why Mr Jinnah became the leader he was and Ali brothers or countless other more staunch "Islamic" leaders were never accepted as such by the majority muslims... but the end result will remain the same. We have only one Father of the Nation.
You tell me, what in your opinion would be a not so "hazy and never clearly defined" view? What evidence do you have that Jinnah and the muslims of the era were not looking forward to a modern democracy in Pakistan; and instead wanted something different? I use the word "fundamental Islamic theocracy" because you have not provided any explanation/definition/name of what you feel would be the the alternative of a modern democracy, that I believe Jinnah envisioned. You give me the name of that, and I will use that.
On a personal level, I don't romanticize Jinnah. I take him for what I believe he is/was. A leader. A statesman. A visionary. He had his faults. He changed positions, no doubt. He initially worked with and then against the Congress. But at all times, he kept his eye on what the ultimate prize was. He challenged both the British and the Congress; and actually got what he envisioned. How many people do you see in recent history who achieved what Jinnah achieved? Its a credit to his intelligence, his leadership and the support he got from Muslims. 56 years later, it is very easy for you to sit in the UK and say ... oh, "he was an opportunist who had little belief in the Pakistan idea". Yea rite :-)
ps. For the sake of this discussion I am ignoring your tasteless comments about Hollywood etc. Stick to the topic please.