|
Some Views on Dictators
By:
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(1985)
Recently Pakistan's Chief martial Law
Administrator General Muhammad Zia ul-Haqq [Note that this
article was written in 1985, but we see that we again have an
un-Islamic dictatorship in Pakistan] held a referendum in order
to, legitimize his rule for another five years. And of course, the
General won the referendum. Never in history has a dictator held a
referendum without winning it by a most handsome margin.
The reason dictators always win
referendums is, of course, that they hold them in a way that a
comfortable victory is ensured in advance. Our brother General Zia
ensured his victory by three means:
-
By making all criticism of the nature
and manner of the referendum illegal,
-
By framing the question in such a way
that the majority of the people of Pakistan would find hard to say
"no". (The question in effect was whether the people of Pakistan
want Islam or not),
-
By being fully prepared to use as much
force as necessary to omega replica watches
suppress any active resistance to the
referendum.
It is clear that a referendum held under
such conditions hardly changes anything. Gen. Zia's regime remains
what it was before, namely, a military dictatorship which must be
declared un-Islamic and evil.
When some Muslims declare that military
dictatorship is un-Islamic and evil, pro-dictatorship brothers and
sisters come up with the strangest of responses. For example, some
of them say that Muslims have always been ruled by the danda
(stick) and that is the way they should be ruled now and forever.
Others, insulting the people of Pakistan, say that democracy is for
educated and civilized nations, not for nations like Pakistan. In an
attempt to cure the hardheartedness of these brothers and sisters we
remind them of the hadith which says that God behaves to a people
according to what they expect of Him. Those who expect danda
from Him, He gives them danda and those who hope for mercy,
freedom, justice, dignity and self-respect, He gives them these
things. God has both the good and evil to give. Lucky are we if we
hope for good things from Him and unlucky are those who expect evil
from Him.
As for those pro-dictatorship brothers
who say that the Pakistani nation is not advanced enough for
democracy, we ask them, What about the Indians? Indians and
Pakistanis belong to more or less the same race and have comparable
level of education and culture. If Indians are good enough for
democracy why not Pakistanis?
Another thing that some pro-dictatorship
brothers say is that elections are un-Islamic. We ask them, "Why is
it then that you do not object when your dictator promises
elections?" If elections are un-Islamic, then promises of elections
must also be un-Islamic. Yet ever since he seized power, General Zia
has been promising elections (and breaking his promises in clear
violation of Islamic principles). And, moreover, "Why have you not
objected to the recent referendum?" If elections are un-Islamic,
then so must also be referendums, for there is no essential
difference between the two. If through a referendum the Muslim
people of Pakistan can be given the choice of whether they want
Islam or not, what is so un-Islamic about giving them, through
elections, the choice whether they want General Zia or not?
Finally, some pro-dictatorship brothers
say that when Al-Ummah declares that dictatorship is un-Islamic it
is giving its own interpretation of Islam. But, al-hamd li
Allah (By the Grace of God), Al-Ummah's view is not of its own
devising. It is one which is shared by many Muslims. In the present
issue we quote the following well-known Muslims who have held the
same view:
1. One great suhabi (Hadhrat
'Umar)
2. One great Muslim
leader (Muhammad 'Ali Jinah)
3. One modern
conservative scholar (A.A. Mawdudi)
4. One modern liberal
scholar (Muhammad Asad)
5. Religious leaders
of an Islamic government (the government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran)
We begin by Hadhrat 'Umar's view of
dictatorship.
In al-Musannaf by 'Abd al-Razzaq
bin Humam, three traditions are recorded that reveal Hadhrat 'Umar's
view of how amir (leader) should be chosen and what to do
with a person who imposes his rule over Muslims by force or
political intrigue. In one tradition, it is related that when the
question of choosing an amir after the death of the Prophet
of Islam arose, Hadhrat 'Umar said: "The
command in this respect is shura." In another tradition, he
says: "You are free to kill anyone who calls
for the leadership of himself or of others without consulting the
Muslims." And in a third tradition he says:
"You must kill anyone who claims
command over you without consulting the Muslims."
It is clear from
these traditions that Hadhrat 'Umar believed that a Muslim amir
should be chosen by consultation with the Muslims concerned and if
anyone by-passes the process of consultation and brings himself or
someone else to power by some other means, he should be punished by
death. It goes without saying that the process
of consultation used in choosing an amir must be sincere (and
not consist of referendums whose victory it insures in advance), it
must be creditable (and not be in the form of rigged elections of
the type Bhutto [a former Pakistani prime minister] once
held) and it must be broadly based and directly or indirectly
involve as many Muslims as possible (and not be limited to a small
group of self-styled king-makers).
The process of consultation does not
have to be in the form of voting, but in view of the situation
that exist in Muslim countries today, it is hard to see how a
sincere, creditable and broadly-based process of consultation for
choosing an amir can take any form other than that of a free,
fair and impartial vote.
MUHAMMAD ALI JINAH'S
VIEW
Brother Muhammad 'Ali Jinah was one of
the greatest leaders the Muslim world has produced in the twentieth
century. The people of Pakistan express their justified love and
respect for him by referring to him as Qaid-e-'Azam (the Great
Leader). He had this to say about the democratic nature of Islam:
"There are no people
in the world who are more democratic, even in their religion, than
the Musalmans."
(Presidential address at the All-India
Muslim League Session, Lucknow, 1916)
Later, when his efforts had been blessed
by the creation of Pakistan, he addressed the newly created nation
and told them:
"Now you have to stand
guard over the development and maintenance of democracy, Islamic
social justice and equality of mankind in your native soil."
A. A. MAUDUDI'S VIEW
Although the party that Br. A.A. Maududi
founded has often had very cozy relationships with kings as well as
dictators and even within that jama'at there hardly exists anything
remotely resembling democracy, in the writings of Br. Maududi the
democratic nature of Islam is clearly affirmed. In his booklet, The
Islamic way of Life, he writes:
"Every person in an
Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of a khalifa
(representative) of God and in this respect all people are equal.
No one takes precedence over another or can deprive him of his
rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state
will be formed in accordance with the will of the people and the
authority of the state will only be an accretion of the powers of
the people delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the
formation of the government which will be run with their counsel
and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their
confidence will undertake the duty and obligations of the
caliphate on their behalf: and when he loses this confidence he
will have to quit and bow before their will. In this regard, the
political system of Islam is a perfect form of democracy - as
perfect as a democracy can ever be."
MUHAMMAD ASAD'S VIEW
Br. Muhammad Asad is a noted Muslim
writer, translator and commentator of the Qur`an. In his book, The
principles of State and Government in Islam, he identifies two main
parts of an Islamic government: an amir who heads the
executive branch and a majlis ash-shura which legislates
laws; and says that both must be elected by the people:
"Thus it follows that,
in order to satisfy the requirements of Islamic law, the
leadership of the state must be of an elective nature;
consequently, an assumption of governmental power through
non-elective means of any description whatsoever becomes
automatically, even though the person or persons concerned be
Muslims, as illegal as an imposition of power by conquest from
outside the Muslim community." (p.36)
"(The Qur`anic
ordinance, amruhum shura baynahum, the believers' affairs
are to be run by mutual consultation among themselves) must be
regarded as the fundamental operative clause of all Islamic
thought relating to statecraft. It is so comprehensive that it
reaches out into almost every department of political life, and it
is so self-expressive and unequivocal that no attempt at arbitrary
interpretation can change its purpose. The word amr, in
this injunction refers to all affairs of a communal nature and
therefore also to the manner in which the government of an Islamic
state is to be established: that is, to the elective principle
underlying all governmental authority. Beyond that, the phrase
amruhum shura baynahum - literally, "their communal
business is consultation among themselves" - makes the
transaction of all political business not only consequent upon,
but synonymous with, consultation: which means that the
legislative powers of the state must be vested in an assembly
chosen by the community specifically for this purpose."
"It is evident from
the context that the expression "among themselves" in the Qur`anic
ordinance under consideration refers to the whole community:
hence, the legislative assembly - or, to use a term well known
throughout Muslim history, the majlis ash-shura - must be
truly representative of the entire community, both men and women.
Such a representative character can be achieved only through free
and general elections: therefore, the members of the majlis
must be elected by means of the widest possible suffrage,
including both men and women."
(pp.44-45)
IRANIAN 'ULAMA'S
VIEW
The Islamic revolution in Iran that
swept away the rule of the shah in 1978 is, as is well known, lead
by Muslim 'ulama (scholars) that have had a very traditional
Islamic education. Yet, the Islamic government that was established
after the success of the revolution is based on a system of regular
elections. It is evident from this that the leading Muslim 'ulama
or the ayatollahs in Iran view this system as perfectly desirable
from an Islamic point of view. |