11-10-2007, 05:16 PM
Dear sarfraz,
I just wonder on the plea taken about the appointment of Khulfaa-e-Rashideen (Rziallah) and its comparison to the current scenario.
If you reasonably see how Khulfaa-e-Rahsideen Raziallah Anhuma were selected, you will find a difference in the basis of selection of all the four Khulfaa's. (Raziallah).
In my view except for Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique (that was what could be best done in favor of muslims), all Khulfaa's were elected exactly on democratic grounds. At that time masses / groups and areas were represented by the then tribes and in turn such muslim tribes were represented by their noble men having religious vision and importance. Those noble men of ALLAH were the people for whom no one had any doubts and there were no charges on any one of them at large (Naoozbillah). Therefore making a committe of noble and important men of character from different tribes to propose a name for next Khalifa in that particular scenario was not un-democratic. Rather, it was basically a first step towards democracy.
Further, the selection of Khalifa by the people who were present at mosque, was again showing a trend of democracy. This could be called a second step of democracy. We cannot at all ignore it. There was no enforcement or imposition.
Before Hazrat Umar Raziallah Anho, Muslims were not gathered and organzied in a form of state. There was no concept of boundries, kingdom, state, country, army and state systems. Everything has to be seen in conjuction of ground realities existed in any given scenario. Things improved gradually. Concept of state, boundries and armies stepped in with time. Departments and systems were introduced. Means of communication were very rare which were basic hurdle in preparation and implementation of the current systems. Progress of humanity has not been hated by Islam.
If every logical (Hikmat ke baat) point had to be outrightly included in Islamic world/states and code of life then there was no necessity of the Hadees (Naoozbillah) which states that the logical things are the lost property of Faithful people. "Hikmat ke baat Moman kee gumshuda meeras hai". This carries a clear meaning that other nations and people may have a logical viewpoint (except in religious matters) and if this appears to be logical in real sense, it should be adopted as if it was our developed viewpoint.
You must know that even in this so called democracy, implementation, enforcement and appreciation of law is very rare. Intervention of army, agencies and powerful circles is enormous. This is the situation where people have a right to speak. Then what would be the condition when this right will not exist. Media will not exist and basic rights would not exist.
In history still, if we dont hide realities and accept what has been gone in the history, (except for Hazrat Umar Raziallah's government), we cannot say that the muslims (I include all good and bad) made them the most successful governments specially becoz those who killed the three greatest men among all muslims (Khulfaa-e-Rashideen Raziallah) were also muslims or derivied by the muslims. Shahadat of Khulfaa (Raziallah Anhuma) is a Darja for them but for the then muslims, it was a big question on the success of the implementation of systems and government. There were certainly some differences and unresolved issues. I am not talking about the standard and level in nobality and Darja near ALLAH, there is no doubt over it, but politically speaking can these governments be called the best set-ups in the world. We muslims did not made such governments the best. Muslims were responsible for it. You must not forget wars of muslims with muslims in this whole era whereby thousands of noble men of Allah were killed by sword of other muslims. Should it be happened in a best set-up??????
SO this was the condition of the initial governments of muslims which in my view were also based upon an initial step towrads democracy.
And now where we as a nation have doubts on every one's character and such doubts are not totally untrue what could be expected and percieved. Do you feel our nation is so characterful that if someone is given absolute powers in real sense, he will use it like what Khulfaa-e-Rashideen (Raziallah) have done??????? (Big question with no solution except describing idealism that can never be acheived). Will any one would be courgeous enough as a Khalifa or Leader to hear the questions and allegations with all of patience and appreciation like what Hazrat Umar Raziallah heard form a Muslim Baddu about the cloth sheet/dress??????? (Big question with no solution except describing idealism that can never be acheived). How all muslims having different view points and school of thoughts can accept and gather under one flag??? Would it be feasible to select one sect/school of thought and eliminate all others specially where we are a nation who always describe each other as Kaafir and out of circle of Islam???? (No answer will come with sound logic). Would it be feasible to find out a Khalifa who will say that "it would be his sole responsibility even if a dog will die with starvation on the bank of river nile" like what Hazrat Umar Raziallah said?????????? (So many irrelavant answers could be expected).
So the list of questions will be ever continuing with no reasonable answer.
I understand that democracy has also failed in achieveing all targets in Pakistan more specifically becoz it has not been given a free hand to work its way in Pakistan. Army rulers have ever ruined democracy. Still, if one feels that his voice carrys some wightage and some social progress in the set up seems to be there, it is only by the reason of democratic set ups.
You just carry out a survey. In all underdeveloped areas of Pakistan (I am talking about grass root level where life of a poor and common man comes in question), development works remained in abeyance during whole of the era of General Zia-ul-Haq. We know Junejo was not carrying full democratic governance, still, each development work started when Zia brought that so-called democracy within the government and before that there was nothing except cricket. We need to study it. This will show u how democracy (however weak it is) works better than absolutely single handed governances. Exactly the same would happen if we find out a Khalifa from our own nation at the moment. If some one will say that ideally it should not happen, then I agree to him. But on this issue such idealism would only be a standard which we can never achieve.
However, notwithstanding my above submissions, I know this is a forum of delivering and sharing ideas. In my opinion democracy is the best solution at moment and is by no way against the teachings of Islam. I know at the same time so manys have and can have ideas contrary to my opinion. I have all my regards for others' opinion, which again is the part of democratic thought. Yes, we cannot become personal on such issues and should show patience while having detailed delibrations.
Sarfraz, I told you I am not a scholar to provide you Tafseer of Holy Quran. Further, even if I would be explaining you my view point, this may not match your school of thought. Therefore, you should read Tafaaseers of Ulemas available with us. I know by asking the explanation about Holy Verses, you are trying to say something. It would be better if you write down it as per your mindset. Your explanation may or may not agree to my view point. Still, it is not a matter of annoyance as there is no imposition in such matters.
Best regards,
Kamran.
I just wonder on the plea taken about the appointment of Khulfaa-e-Rashideen (Rziallah) and its comparison to the current scenario.
If you reasonably see how Khulfaa-e-Rahsideen Raziallah Anhuma were selected, you will find a difference in the basis of selection of all the four Khulfaa's. (Raziallah).
In my view except for Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique (that was what could be best done in favor of muslims), all Khulfaa's were elected exactly on democratic grounds. At that time masses / groups and areas were represented by the then tribes and in turn such muslim tribes were represented by their noble men having religious vision and importance. Those noble men of ALLAH were the people for whom no one had any doubts and there were no charges on any one of them at large (Naoozbillah). Therefore making a committe of noble and important men of character from different tribes to propose a name for next Khalifa in that particular scenario was not un-democratic. Rather, it was basically a first step towards democracy.
Further, the selection of Khalifa by the people who were present at mosque, was again showing a trend of democracy. This could be called a second step of democracy. We cannot at all ignore it. There was no enforcement or imposition.
Before Hazrat Umar Raziallah Anho, Muslims were not gathered and organzied in a form of state. There was no concept of boundries, kingdom, state, country, army and state systems. Everything has to be seen in conjuction of ground realities existed in any given scenario. Things improved gradually. Concept of state, boundries and armies stepped in with time. Departments and systems were introduced. Means of communication were very rare which were basic hurdle in preparation and implementation of the current systems. Progress of humanity has not been hated by Islam.
If every logical (Hikmat ke baat) point had to be outrightly included in Islamic world/states and code of life then there was no necessity of the Hadees (Naoozbillah) which states that the logical things are the lost property of Faithful people. "Hikmat ke baat Moman kee gumshuda meeras hai". This carries a clear meaning that other nations and people may have a logical viewpoint (except in religious matters) and if this appears to be logical in real sense, it should be adopted as if it was our developed viewpoint.
You must know that even in this so called democracy, implementation, enforcement and appreciation of law is very rare. Intervention of army, agencies and powerful circles is enormous. This is the situation where people have a right to speak. Then what would be the condition when this right will not exist. Media will not exist and basic rights would not exist.
In history still, if we dont hide realities and accept what has been gone in the history, (except for Hazrat Umar Raziallah's government), we cannot say that the muslims (I include all good and bad) made them the most successful governments specially becoz those who killed the three greatest men among all muslims (Khulfaa-e-Rashideen Raziallah) were also muslims or derivied by the muslims. Shahadat of Khulfaa (Raziallah Anhuma) is a Darja for them but for the then muslims, it was a big question on the success of the implementation of systems and government. There were certainly some differences and unresolved issues. I am not talking about the standard and level in nobality and Darja near ALLAH, there is no doubt over it, but politically speaking can these governments be called the best set-ups in the world. We muslims did not made such governments the best. Muslims were responsible for it. You must not forget wars of muslims with muslims in this whole era whereby thousands of noble men of Allah were killed by sword of other muslims. Should it be happened in a best set-up??????
SO this was the condition of the initial governments of muslims which in my view were also based upon an initial step towrads democracy.
And now where we as a nation have doubts on every one's character and such doubts are not totally untrue what could be expected and percieved. Do you feel our nation is so characterful that if someone is given absolute powers in real sense, he will use it like what Khulfaa-e-Rashideen (Raziallah) have done??????? (Big question with no solution except describing idealism that can never be acheived). Will any one would be courgeous enough as a Khalifa or Leader to hear the questions and allegations with all of patience and appreciation like what Hazrat Umar Raziallah heard form a Muslim Baddu about the cloth sheet/dress??????? (Big question with no solution except describing idealism that can never be acheived). How all muslims having different view points and school of thoughts can accept and gather under one flag??? Would it be feasible to select one sect/school of thought and eliminate all others specially where we are a nation who always describe each other as Kaafir and out of circle of Islam???? (No answer will come with sound logic). Would it be feasible to find out a Khalifa who will say that "it would be his sole responsibility even if a dog will die with starvation on the bank of river nile" like what Hazrat Umar Raziallah said?????????? (So many irrelavant answers could be expected).
So the list of questions will be ever continuing with no reasonable answer.
I understand that democracy has also failed in achieveing all targets in Pakistan more specifically becoz it has not been given a free hand to work its way in Pakistan. Army rulers have ever ruined democracy. Still, if one feels that his voice carrys some wightage and some social progress in the set up seems to be there, it is only by the reason of democratic set ups.
You just carry out a survey. In all underdeveloped areas of Pakistan (I am talking about grass root level where life of a poor and common man comes in question), development works remained in abeyance during whole of the era of General Zia-ul-Haq. We know Junejo was not carrying full democratic governance, still, each development work started when Zia brought that so-called democracy within the government and before that there was nothing except cricket. We need to study it. This will show u how democracy (however weak it is) works better than absolutely single handed governances. Exactly the same would happen if we find out a Khalifa from our own nation at the moment. If some one will say that ideally it should not happen, then I agree to him. But on this issue such idealism would only be a standard which we can never achieve.
However, notwithstanding my above submissions, I know this is a forum of delivering and sharing ideas. In my opinion democracy is the best solution at moment and is by no way against the teachings of Islam. I know at the same time so manys have and can have ideas contrary to my opinion. I have all my regards for others' opinion, which again is the part of democratic thought. Yes, we cannot become personal on such issues and should show patience while having detailed delibrations.
Sarfraz, I told you I am not a scholar to provide you Tafseer of Holy Quran. Further, even if I would be explaining you my view point, this may not match your school of thought. Therefore, you should read Tafaaseers of Ulemas available with us. I know by asking the explanation about Holy Verses, you are trying to say something. It would be better if you write down it as per your mindset. Your explanation may or may not agree to my view point. Still, it is not a matter of annoyance as there is no imposition in such matters.
Best regards,
Kamran.
