Connect with us

Opinion

Establishment of Quranic State by the Prophet

Monitor News Bureau

Published

🕒

on

IST

By Mansoor Alam

As we know, after the migration, the Prophet (PBUH) and his small band of companions were helpless refugees in Medina. But the Quraysh did not leave them alone even there. They kept on attacking them with the largest army they could muster. These refugees were weak; and the local converts to Islam were also not that powerful either. The Prophet (PBUH) and companions were living among them as helpless refugees facing covert machinations inside Medina as well as overt external threats from Quraysh. Under this hostile and challenging situation, creating a Quranic State in Medina by the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions was no less than a miracle as acknowledged even by non-Muslim scholars (e.g., Lamartine – Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-77).

History shows that Arabs did not have any concept of state or government. They led a tribal life. Under these conditions creating a state based on Quran’s system of collective consultation principle (42:38) where every human was respected (17:70), was not just unique in Arabia but even in the entire world at that time – where although states and governments were there but they were all autocratic and dictatorial. Even now, when social, economic, and political conditions have advanced much further, there is no state or government like the one the Prophet (PBUH) established in Medina. Even in this day and age nations are not able to grasp: what was the kind of government that the Prophet (PBUH) established in Medina where there was no ruler per se – whether an individual or group or a parliament. Allah was the sole ruler of that government but He is completely invisible and does not come in front. So, how He could rule? He rules through His Book, the Quran. The Quran is His constitution and He rules through His laws contained in His Book revealed to humankind. He does not allow any human or group of humans to interfere in His rule of law (6:57; 12:40). Allah did not allow even the Prophets to rule over people (3:79). Every human is equal before Allah’s laws. Even the Prophet (PBUH) did not have authority to rule over people (88:22). He also obeyed Allah’s orders (that he enforced in Medina) as everyone else (6:163; 39:12).

 

But the Prophet (PBUH) was feeling some emptiness in his heart and was looking towards the heavens and praying to Allah about fulfilling his certain inner wish. What was the wish that was making the Prophet (PBUH) silently pray to Allah again and again? Well, the Prophet (PBUH) was in Medina but the Kaaba was in Mecca under the custody of Quraysh. Although Kaaba as such is a small cube shape structure built very modestly, but it is the dominant symbol of Islam. It stands as a powerful symbol for the Universal Charter of the Quranic system of life. Moreover, Allah has called it “My House (2:125).” In modern terminology as the Central Capital of the Quranic government, it represents its ideal, its mission, and its vision.

The Quran says about Kaaba:

Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples (3:96)

The first House ever selected for the entire humankind was in Makkah. It was from this place that humanity was destined to get the guideline and the fundamental Law which would ensure stability and nourishment for all. Ibrahim (PBUH) and Ismail (PBUH) built this small cubical house. Its extraordinary importance can be judged by the fact that Allah the Almighty, the Creator of the entire Universe, calls it as “My House” (2:125). So, how could Prophet (PBUH) feel okay if this Allah’s House was under the control of the enemies of Islam, the Quraysh? Whatever thing Allah calls His own belongs to the entire humanity. Therefore, Kaaba – being Allah’s House belongs to humanity as whole.

The Quran wants to build universal brotherhood of entire humankind based solely on humanity. This can only be done by breaking down all barriers – no matter what the basis and justification of those barriers are – that separate human beings from human beings. This universal brotherhood of humankind must have a symbol to represent it, and that symbol is Kaaba. This is the position of Kaaba in the world in the eyes of the Quran, i.e., in the eyes of Islam. Its importance in today’s terminology is that when we say Washington then this does not mean a city but it means the political center of the country’s ideological underpinnings. So, Kaaba stands for the ideology of the system representing the universal brotherhood of humankind. That is why Muslims are required to make Kaaba as the center of focus of their life:

Turn your face towards Kaaba wherever you may be, and make it the focus of your life in harmony with the universal values and principles that it stands for.

It is important to note that when we hear the statement “Washington says this,” then it does not mean a city but the system of life that it stands for. In the same way when we say that our Qibla is Kaaba then it means that our locus of life revolves around the system of life the Quran proclaims as Deen, whose perceptible symbol is the Kaaba.

Deen is a collective system of life that covers socioeconomic, political, and all aspects of individual as well as collective life. Fourteen hundred years ago, the Quran gave a collective system of life based on clear concepts and ideology of life of universal welfare of humankind, and a visible symbol (Kaaba or Qibla) to represent this ideology of life; and asked its adherents to remain focused towards the mission and goal represented by Kaaba no matter where they were on earth. The Quran asked its adherents to establish a nation-state and its governance based on this universal ideology represented by Kaaba as its physical symbol.

This was the position of Kaaba in Deen. But when Deen turned into Madhab then Kaaba became a symbol of religious rituals. For example, before every prayer every Muslim makes an intention to pray by saying: “my face is facing towards Kaaba.” This has become now the goal of Kaaba – just as a ritual to recite that our face is towards it during prayer. Muslims are very particular and meticulous to make sure that the mosques face exactly toward Kaaba. Muslims in millions of Mosques throughout the world physically face towards Kaaba but their hearts and souls are not united in the obedience to the Laws of Allah for which Kaaba stands for as a symbol. Rituals and words remain but their meaning and essence have disappeared. There are hundreds of Muslim nations and governments in the world. Each one has its own rules and laws for governance. Some of them are even fighting and killing each other. But when they stand for prayer they all face Kaaba!

This is what has remained as far as Kaaba is concerned to Muslims – wherever they are in the world they face towards Kaaba while praying whereas they were supposed to govern their collective life in unison (wherever they may be in the world) by the ideology, the mission, and the goals for which the Kaaba stands for. Allama Iqbal gives a beautiful metaphor to explain this: birds travel hundreds of miles in the sky from their nests without any signposts and signals but wherever they are they always keep in their mind their nesting place and return to it in the evening.

This was what the Muslims were supposed to do. We can understand from this why our Prophet (PBUH) was looking towards the heavens yearning to have Kaaba under the control of the divine system and to be its physical symbol. He had established a state and the divine system in Medina. He was in full control of the Islamic government there. Muslims were obeying Allah through His Book, the Quran. But the Kaaba, the physical symbol of the divine system was under the control of Quraysh.

All those who have Iman on the Quran and Iman in Allah, for them Kaaba must be the locus of their life wherever they are in the world. They must remain focused on the mission of life represented by Kaaba. Now, we can understand the importance of Kaaba in the eyes of the Prophet (PBUH) and why he used to look towards the heavens yearning to have Kaaba under the control of the divine system to represent the Center of ideology of the newly established state of Medina. And Allah promised to Prophet (PBUH) that it will happen. And it did happen.

Hajj became mandatory for Muslims in the ninth year of Hijra. The Mushrikeen Arabs used to consider Kaaba as their religious center and used to perform Hajj. Ibrahim (PBUH) had settled his son Ismael (PBUH) here, and the Quraysh around the Kaaba and in the Hijaz were his descendants. Kaaba was built by Ibrahim (PBUH) and Ismael (PBUH) and it was the center of Arab life even before Islam. They had great respect for Kaaba; and the Quraysh being its custodian were highly revered in the Arab society. Arabs used to perform Hajj and Umrah and used to host special fair for a month during Hajj season. But their Hajj was not what the Quran has prescribed – to renew one’s commitment and faith to sacrifice one’s life for the sake of Islam, i.e., to sacrifice in order to improve the human condition of the world.


Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

Chekhovian Tragedy

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Amir Sultan

In his book In the Land of Israel novelist and writer Amos Oz classifies a tragedy into two types; one being the Shakespearean and the other Chekhovian. He writes,


“…there is a Shakespearean resolution and there is the Chekhovian one. At the end of a Shakespearean tragedy, the stage is strewn with dead bodies and maybe there is some justice hovering high above. A Chekhov tragedy, on the other hand, ends with everybody disillusioned, embittered, heartbroken, disappointed, absolutely shattered but still alive.”

 

William Shakespeare and Anton Chekhov (read as Chie-Kof) were both playwrights and dramatists. Both of them in their works have tried to shed light on various aspects of human nature. However, Anton Chekhov as seen by the renowned novelist Amos Oz gives us a better understanding of the tragedies happening with us. His portrayal of tragedy is what most of us go through. As the quote states that the Shakespearean tragedy ends with death as a solution to all problems and issues that a man faces. Demise of a person(s) like in Romeo and Juliet is what defines a tragedy. In comparison to it, Chekhovian tragedy is epitomized with life, life worth not living.

One of the aspects of modern life that typifies a Chekhovian tragedy in our time is substance abuse. Substance abuse is one of the huge problems that our generation is facing. Globally, according to World Drug Report (2017) there are 29.5 million people who are substance abusers. The number that is almost equal to the population of states like Nepal, Sri Lanka, Czech Republic, United Arab Emirates and many other countries.

It’s self-evident that all people are sober. Living life in light, joy and to its full, but suddenly some of them get introduced to a kind of psychoactive substance say marijuana, heroin or LSD that starts to bring a perpetual change in their life. First the body resists it by producing aversive reactions and this is the time when a person can refrain. But if s/he persists to take the substance the body of a person starts to crave for it. Moreover, the withdrawals and the incentive of pleasure produced by it hinder the process of contemplating and positive thinking resulting in sustaining of act willingly or unwillingly.

All this time the physiological, psychological and social aspects of human life are in a continuous shattering flux. Physiologically, the body weight gets reduced, sleep cycle is disturbed, changes in appetite patterns appear, functioning of vital organs like heart, liver and kidneys gets disturbed, and at times patient gets infected with viruses like HCV and HIV. Anxiety, restlessness, irritability, mood disorders, hallucinations and delusions and last but not the least a chronic psychosis is the harm caused to our psychological aspect by drug abuse.

There are innumerable changes seen in the social life of a substance abuser. From disturbed family relations, abuse with children, mistreatment with parents or a spouse, to disturbed financial status marked with a reckless spending and gambling. Besides, continuous drug seeking behaviour which leads to inefficacy in terms of occupation, school, vocation or sometimes complete sacking from a job, making the person’s life and the life of people around him wrenchingly miserable.

During this saga of self-deterioration, the person tries to look at his lived life through the glasses of past, present and future and founds himself disillusioned as he learns that substance abuse is not fun, embittered as he feels the bitterness of the act, heartbroken at the thoughts of mistreatment to himself and to the near ones and dear ones, disappointed because of not fulfilling the dreams he had seen and absolutely shattered but still alive, in other words, going through a Chekhovian tragedy.

(The writer is a Psychology Postgraduate from University of Kashmir and presently working as a Mental Health Counsellor at Drug De-addiction and Rehabilitation Center PCR Batamaloo. He ca be reached at: [email protected])

Continue Reading

Opinion

ICJ ruling and Into-Pak relations

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Marvi Sirmed

Just as Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, president of International Court of Justice (ICJ), started reading out the much-awaited verdict in the Kalbhushan Jadhav case, both Indian and Pakistani media, quite predictably, started pronouncing high-pitched victory of their respective countries.

Pakistan had claimed that its security forces had arrested Kulbhushan Jadhav, the 49-year-old retired Navy officer, from Pakistan’s Balochistan province on March 3, 2016 after he entered Pakistan via its border with Iran. Jadhav was subsequently sentenced to death by the Pakistani military court on charges of “espionage and terrorism” after a closed trial in April 2017, just over a year after his arrest. India, however, claimed that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after his retirement from the Indian Navy.

 

India followed this by moving the ICJ on May 8, 2017 for the “egregious violation” of the provisions of the Vienna Convention by Pakistan. Islamabad repeatedly rejected New Delhi’s plea for consular access to Jadhav, claiming that India was merely interested in getting at the information gathered by its “spy”. India also sought to suspend the death sentence of Jadhav and ordered his release from Pakistan’s custody. Pakistan had challenged the admissibility of India’s petition on three grounds: alleged abuse of process; alleged abuse of rights; and India’s alleged unlawful conduct. All three grounds were rejected by the court.

India’s plea to suspend the death sentence and order the release was also rejected. But Pakistan was asked to give immediate consular access to Jadhav as well as ensure his right to free trial under the domestic judicial mechanism of Pakistan. This gives both the countries enough ground to celebrate their respective victories.

The question now is how the verdict will impact the already strained relations of the two countries? While the verdict gives the opportunity to both the governments to maintain aggressive posturing, it has no practical bearing which way Pakistan may eventually choose to decide.

While the verdict of ICJ is not binding upon either party in the strictest of legal sense, it certainly sets a favourable stage for India to continue to portray Pakistan in a negative light internationally, in case the latter does not comply with the verdict. Pakistan, on the other hand, might comply in the end, but not before getting something in return.

The retired army officers in Pakistan, who are usually referred to as ’defence analysts’ when they come to TV studios and spell out what is considered to be the “thinking” of Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, continue their usual antics while aggressively emphasising that Pakistan is not bound to comply with the ICJ verdict. But if recent history is to be at all taken into account, to take their word is akin to falling right into their trap.

In the backdrop of recent economic troubles and political instability Pakistan has been facing for the last one year, it is beyond any basic sense of logical play to expect the nation to allow the aggression to linger, by not granting India’s most basic ask in this case – the proverbial lowest hanging fruit, ie, consular access to Jadhav.

It might not come, however, without a price. At the exact moment when Yousaf was reading out the verdict, American President Donald Trump celebrated the “finding” and the arrest of Hafiz Saeed on Twitter, who he describes as “mastermind” of Mumbai terror attacks. Saeed, however, has been living in plain sight all this while. He was never absconding in the first place. In fact, shortly before his (re)arrest, he was released on bail from his previous arrest. By playing this up, it betrays the mutual advantage it serves to USA and Pakistan.

When Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan meets Trump next week, he would arrive having already earned some brownie points. The so-called arrest of Hafiz Saeed might ease some tensions at FATF. USA will be in a position to claim winning yet another milestone in its war on terror. If Pakistan offers to graciously comply with the ICJ verdict, it might raise its ask too. The stick raising mood in White House has already changed to a carrot granting one. Bringing India to the table of comprehensive dialogue, after managing to elbow it out from Afghan peace process, doesn’t look like abad bargain.

But if Jadhav gets consular access, India would have the golden opportunity to demolish Pakistan’s claims of the “terror confession” by Jadhav. He would now most definitely claim confession under duress.

At the moment, the key decision makers in Pakistan do not want to disobey the court verdict. Their compliance of earlier Indian plea to delay the sentence bears witness to it. In any case, a dead Jadhav doesn’t benefit anyone. Except may be, Jadhav’s handlers, if he is indeed a spy.

(The author is a journalist with Daily Times and member of the executive council of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan)

Continue Reading

Opinion

America & Pakistan: Back to a cosy future

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Indranil Banerjie

Geopolitical gears appear to be shifting once again in South Asia with Washington being the primary driver. The question is whether this portends a return to the cosy relationship between the United States and Pakistan as in the past?

For, if Washington is once again planning to use Islamabad as a pivot for its South and West Asia policy, then New Delhi has reason to be concerned even though the imperative for such a development is neither hostile nor anti-India.

 

The hard fact of the matter is that a re-engagement or revival of the strategic inter-dependencies between those two countries has a direct bearing on India. While Washington’s view is global and multi-dimensional, Islamabad’s is not — it has always been India-centric and continues to be so.

New Delhi’s greatest concern traditionally has been the transfer of military systems and technology to Islamabad. It is difficult to forget that the Pakistan Air Force dared to attack Indian targets after Balakot simply because it had American-made F-16 fighter aircraft fitted with AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM).

This missile was supplied to the Pakistanis by the US as recently as 2011. India protested against the sales and for good reason too. It was well known that the missiles supplied would be a game changer in the South Asian context given that this particular variant, the 120C, with its range of over 100km, would out-distance any missile currently in the IAF’s arsenal.

Right enough, when it came to the crunch in the post-Balakot skirmish, there was nothing the IAF could do but throw an aircraft at the intruding enemy and get close enough for a shot. The downing of the MiG-21 piloted by Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman proved how much of a disadvantage India was at because of US military transfers to Pakistan.

In recent years, arms transfers by Washington to Pakistan have virtually ceased due to the deteriorating strategic ties since 2016. US President Donald Trump had suspended security and other assistance to Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of repaying US generosity with only “lies and deceit”. The main problem between the two arose from differences over Afghanistan. But now with Islamabad and Washington drawing close to a deal on Afghanistan which would allow an orderly US military withdrawal, the equations once again have changed.

The Taliban, which is controlled by Pakistan’s Army headquarters, seem to have agreed to hold intra-Afghan talks and could be amenable to some sort of power sharing. Perhaps, they might even allow a small US military presence to remain in Afghanistan. However, it is clear that Washington, in its quest to quit the unending Afghan war, is prepared to cede effective control in that country to Islamabad. China could also play a role as guarantor.

President Trump has, however, made it a point to reassure New Delhi that he intends to look after its interests. This is perhaps why he took personal credit for the arrest of arch-terrorist Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, in Pakistan on Wednesday. This might suggest that New Delhi may not be left out completely in the cold in these shifting times.

But the story of change doesn’t end here. The Trump administration could be preparing to cosy up to Pakistan not because it hates or dislikes India but because it feels it might need the help of Pakistan’s jihadist generals to further its many and often complex aims in West Asia, where things are in a ferment today.

A hint of what might be in the offing was offered by the US Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was nominated by President Trump as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his response to questions for his confirmation hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee, the general stated: “From East Asia to the Middle East to Eastern Europe, authoritarian actors are testing the limits of the international system and seeking regional dominance while challenging international norms and undermining US interests… Our goal should be to sustain great power peace that has existed since World War II, and deal firmly with all those who might challenge us.”

He pointedly mentioned Pakistan as “a key partner in achieving US interests in South Asia, including developing a political settlement in Afghanistan; defeating Al Qaeda and ISIS-Khorasan; providing logistical access for US forces; and enhancing regional stability”.

Significantly, he called for a strengthening of military-to-military ties with Pakistan, adding: “While we have suspended security assistance and paused major defence dialogues, we need to maintain strong military-to- military ties based on our shared interests.” So now it’s back to the good old days of shared interests!

The first-ever summit-level meeting between Pakistan PM Imran Khan and President Trump is due next week (July 22) at the White House. Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who will be there, declared that this invitation constituted an “acknowledgement of the inherent importance” of bilateral ties. He was also quick to add that Pakistan was “mindful” of US priorities in war-torn Afghanistan. The times are indeed changing once again!

Perhaps Islamabad’s strategic importance, as an ultimate guarantor of “peace” in West Asia, has assumed more relevance given the rapid breakdown of Washington’s relations with Turkey, a Nato ally, over the purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems and other major disagreements. President Trump had warned Turkey not to go ahead with the S-400 deal, but Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded by declaring the S-400 deal to be “the most important agreement in [Turkish] modern history.” Deliveries of the missile system commenced from July 12.

This constitutes a huge snub to the United States. But things could get worse as some reports suggest that Turkey may be planning to assault parts of northern Syria controlled by Kurdish forces supported by the United States.

Things are also not going well for the Saudis in their war against the tenacious Houthis of Yemen, who are Shias supported by the ayatollahs in Tehran. Other Arab nations are quietly leaving the Saudi war. The regime change effort in Syria too has failed.

All this is reason for Washington to be worried. Hence the move to mend fences with estranged allies. New Delhi, on the other hand, which has big plans for boosting its relations with Washington, must heed the changes that could threaten to prick its ballooning ambitions.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 1,011,106 other subscribers

Advertisement

Archives

July 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
Advertisement