Islam
and the Taliban
The Taliban says that
democracy is a concept alien to Islam. The ideal way of setting up an Islamic
government in our times is the one that it adopted for Mullāh ‘Umar’s government
in Afghanistan. The constitution, the parliament, and elections are nothing but
modern day shams. For its implementation, Islam does not depend on any of these
mechanisms. Whatever interpretations have been accepted in the Ḥanafī law
are final and authoritative. The opinions of its jurists have all been compiled
in matters related to individual as well as collective affairs. These opinions
and verdicts, in the Taliban’s view, are based on the Qur’ān, the sunnah (the
Prophet’s teachings), ijmā‘ (consensus), and qiyās (analogy) and are contained
in the manuals of fiqh (Islamic law) and in the fatāwā (verdicts) of “qualified”
Muslim jurists. These laws and verdicts must be implemented. And this
implementation does not require the approval of any parliament. The modus
operandi recommended by the Taliban is that all institutions of the government
be under the judiciary and the judiciary itself be in control of the ‘ulamā’
(religious scholars) as it is the ‘ulamā’ who are the experts in the
understanding and interpretation of the sharī‘ah (Divine law). The Taliban
believes that the last 1200 years of Muslim tradition stands in its support. In
its opinion, after the appointment of Imam Abū Yūsuf as the qādī al-quḍāt
(Chief Justice) of the Abbasid sultanate, the same modus operandi was adopted
everywhere for the implementation of Islam. It was the Western colonialism that
put an end to this tradition. Now, the Muslims are independent; therefore, this
approach to running the affairs of the state in accordance with the sharī‘ah
must also be restored.
The activism of the Taliban is
for the purpose explained above. In this battle, suicide missions are its
greatest weapon. The Taliban believes that this weapon is a special blessing of
God to enable it to fight the armies equipped with modern technology. With this
weapon, it believes that it can make any government in the world fall to its
knees. The basic features of the strategy the Taliban has adopted thus far are:
1. Taking advantage of the love
the common Muslims have for Islam and the sharī‘ah and also taking advantage of
their general resentment against the atrocities, savagery, and ethical
violations shown by the US, the Taliban should create and develop its supporters
in the army, the police, and other institutions of the same kind in Pakistan so
that the administrative leadership of these institutions lose the support of
their own subordinates.
2. Ideological opponents should
gradually be eliminated or forced to flee from the country. Furthermore, other
people who have some degree of influence on society should also be eliminated.
3. Suicide bombings should be
used to create such atmosphere of terror as would psychologically defeat the
morale and spirit of the army, the police, and the administration so that they
lose the resolve to offer any resistance.
4. Once the administration is
driven back into compromises, negotiations with the government should begin so
that it may accept Taliban’s conditions in the name of peace and virtually hand
over the effective control and administration of the concerned area to the
Taliban.
5. In areas under Taliban
control, the same form of government should be depicted as had been witnessed by
the world in Afghanistan. Then, in the same way, the Taliban should move into
one area after the other.
This is the viewpoint of
the Taliban and this is its strategy. I can say with full confidence on the
basis of my study of Islam that this viewpoint and this strategy are not
acceptable to the Qur’ān. It prescribes democracy as the way to run the affairs
of the state. The Qur’ān (42:38) says: amruhum shūrā baynahum (the affairs of
the Muslims are run on the basis of their consultation). ‘Umar (may Allah be
pleased with him) said: “Whosoever pledges allegiance to anyone without the
collective consent of the Muslims presents himself for the death sentence.”
It is true that, in Muslim history, monarchy and dictatorship have often been
accepted forms of government. Some people also believe that the head of
government should be a nominee of God Himself. However, the principle the Qur’ān
spells out is very clear. What this principle entails in terms of its nature and
foundation has been explained very aptly by a well-known Muslim scholar of our
times, Mawlānā Abū al-A‘lā Mawdūdī. He says:
First of all, people whose
interests and rights are directly affected by collective decisions should have
the absolute right to express their opinions. They should be fully informed of
how their matters are being dealt with, and they should be granted the full
right to criticize those in charge of their matters for any mistakes or flaws.
They should also have the right to change their leaders if they do not see any
effectiveness in the efforts for their reform. Making people conform to
collective decisions by stifling their voice, shackling their hands and keeping
them in the dark is downright dishonesty, which no intellectually honest person
can consider as compliance with the directive of amruhum shūrā baynahum.
The second thing that needs to
be understood is that the appointment of the person responsible for the
collective affairs of the Muslims should be with the free will of people.
Support gained through coercion, intimidation, jobbery, bribery, deception or
misrepresentation does not reflect free will. The rightful leader of the people
is not someone who attains this position by hook or by crook, but someone whom
they choose of their own accord.
The third point is that
representatives of people involved in consultation with the head of the state
should be appointed on the basis of the genuine trust of people. Obviously,
those who have attained this position on the basis of coercion, bribes, lies and
deception can never be deemed as worthy of this trust.
The fourth point pertains to
freedom of expression for people’s representatives to present their opinions
correctly and honestly in accordance with their understanding and conscience. If
this aspect is missing and the representatives are bound by any fear, greed or
group affiliation, the consequence will be dishonesty and betrayal rather than
conformity to the principle of amruhum shūrā baynahum.
Finally, the unanimous or
majority verdict of the consultative body should be accepted. The reason for
this principle is that, if any person or group is given the authority to violate
the collective decision, the whole process of consultation becomes meaningless.
The Almighty Allah does not say: “In their matters, the Muslims are consulted.”
Instead, He says: “Their matters are based on their consultation.” Compliance
with this directive does not take effect by mere consultation. Compliance here
requires that, in the consultation, whatever is decided by unanimous or majority
verdict become binding.”
This extract clearly shows that
it is consultation that should also be the basis for interpretation and
application of any religious directive pertaining to the state affairs. Experts
of Islamic sciences may proffer their opinions. It is their right to express
their viewpoints, but their opinions become legally binding on people only when
the majority of the elected representatives of people accept them. In the
present-day state, the institution of the parliament is constituted for this
very purpose. It is the right of the people to disagree with decisions of the
parliament and to express their viewpoints to rectify its mistakes. However, no
one has the right to violate the laws enacted by the parliament or to defy the
system. Neither the ‘ulamā nor the judiciary is superior to the parliament. Each
institution has the obligation to comply with the parliamentary decisions even
if it has differences of opinion with it.
If this status of the
parliament is accepted, the discussion on an “Islamic state” vis-à-vis a
“secular state” also becomes irrelevant. Discussions as these were relevant in
autocratic situations. Now, the objective of our efforts should be a purely
democratic state. Once this state is truly formed, Islam will manifest itself in
the system in proportion to the degree of people’s commitment to this faith.
This is the natural way. Any deviation from it will lead only to hypocrisy,
which we have been witnessing for the past half-century in Pakistan.
The real task of the ‘ulamā’
and reformers is to prepare the minds of the people for Islam through education
and communication. They should call people to this message with sagacity and
decency, they should face their questions and queries, they should cogently
resolve people’s intellectual issues and explain to them not only the sharī‘ah
but also the Divine wisdom in its directives. For example, they should be ready
to explain what the relationship of the sharī‘ah is with the collective affairs
of society and why the modern mind is impeded in understanding the wisdom of the
Divine law. They should adopt such means and modes of communication as would
bring out the wisdom and the meaningfulness of the sharī‘ah so that people are
able to understand the underlying objectives clearly and become willing to
accept these laws with heart, mind and soul. The responsibility that the Qur’ān
lays upon the religious scholars is that of calling people to Islam and
exhorting them to follow its directives (da‘wat-o indhār) – they have not been
given the role of keepers of morals and, therefore, have no right to use groups
of their followers to enforce their conceptions and interpretations of the
sharī‘ah on people in their society through the force of guns. Not even the
state itself has been permitted by Islam to use the force of law to coerce
people into fulfilling any obligation of purely religious nature except the
mandatory prayer and alms (ṣalāh and zakāh). The Qur’ān is very clear in this
matter: regardless of what the adherents to Islam are responsible for in the
Hereafter, the state cannot hold them responsible in religion beyond these
imperatives. Beyond them, suggestion and exhortation and education and
training are the means that may be adopted to make the efforts for reformation
of people. If some of the religious scholars are fond of politics as well, they
can join political parties to become part of the parliament where they can play
their role in legislation in accordance with its norms.
This is the position of Islam.
The Taliban does not accept it. It insists that only its viewpoint is correct
and that it will impose it on people through the force of guns. It has
al-Qaeda’s backing. Supporters of the Taliban also join in from across the
globe. Madrasah students, the ‘ulamā’, religious parties and radical Islamists
generally agree with them in their objectives. Some differences are expressed
with the violent militancy and suicide bombings of the Taliban, but nuances of
this expression clearly reveal the inclination to condone these methods to quite
an extent especially if they are deemed to be effective in defeating US designs
and machinations and in realizing the dream to have the sharī‘ah implemented in
society.
So, what is to be done now? The
movement of the Taliban is an ideological one and is based on their
understanding of religion. Attitudes aversive to religion, weapons and the
patronage of an inhuman superpower as the US will not be effective against it.
Organizing people power on the basis of correct interpretation of religion is
the only effective means. Are our intellectuals, journalists, media people and
lawyers ready to demonstrate the same resolve in organizing people for this
purpose as they demonstrated in their movement for the restoration of the
judiciary? What can check the rampage of the Taliban is the clear message that
just as the people of Pakistan are not willing to accept the undue presence of
the US in their land, they are also not willing to accept Taliban’s
interpretation of Islam. We are Muslims. We wish to live as Muslims, and are
willing to submit to each and every directive of Allah and the Prophet (Allah’s
blessings be upon him). In our opinion, it is Allah and His Prophet who have
themselves made democracy mandatory for us. We are willing to accept any change
in our country through democratic means in a democratic environment. However, we
shall not grant any person or group the right to impose his or their
interpretation of religion on us by force.
We can hear the Taliban echoing
its vision statement day and night. Are we also ready to show resolve in
proclaiming ours day and night in every part of the country until the resonance
of our voice makes the Taliban lay down weapons and accept the supremacy of the
parliament in our collective affairs?
(Translated by Asif Iftikhar,
Fellow, al-Mawrid, Lahore)
__________________________
1. Editor’s Note: Renaissance has already published a
number of articles and essays on issues pertinent to this essay title. Some of
these include: “Murder, Manslaughter and Terrorism – All in the Name of Allāh,”
(http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=774)
“O Si Sic Omnia” (http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=852)
“Establishment of an Islamic State,” (http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/query.aspx?id=399)
“No Jihad without the State,” (http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=424)
and “The Sole Ground for Jihād,” (http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/query.aspx?id=344).
2.
Islamic law as understood, interpreted and applied in one of the major Sunni
schools of thought. The Ḥanafī school is named after the Iraqi legal expert Abū
Ḥanīfah (d. 767).
3.
Bukhārī, No: 6442.
4. Abū al-A‘lā Mawdūdī, Tafhīm al-Qur’ān, vol. 4, (Lahore: Maktabah-i
ta‘mīr-i insāniyyat, 1972), 509-510.