Well it is that time in Pakistan when we get ourselves accustomed to newer "jargons". This is year - the word on every mouth is either Revolution or Khilafat. We learned the word 'Democracy' in 2008 but thanks to a famous interpretation by "today Zardari, tomorrow Bhutto-(sort of) Zardari", it equals to Revenge.
While there has been talk about the sexy word "Revolution" and its serious implication, there is an alternative popping up too. It is called 'Khilafat' or Caliphate. Khilafat is being termed as "the potent solution to all our problems". The people behind the call of Khilafat have been talking about Muslim unity. It seems that they have not been following the world's politics and have been living under a rock. Even though Muslims are world's second largest religious community, the Arab countries have never tried to take non-Arabic countries on board for a unity movement.
The people behind the movement retort that Democracy is moving us away from Islam. For their information, Khilafat which they are proposing is in line with Democracy. At the start of the Khilafat, the Khalifa was chosen with consensus from the elders of the tribes. These elders of the tribes were called the Shura. Exact things happen with Democracy. The Prime Minister gets elected by the Parliament. If the processes are similar, then why disagree? Democracy is a very reformed version of Khilafat.
Furthermore, Khilafat did not succeed in the long run as it turned into dynastic legacies. We all know the history pretty clearly. For power, there were wars among brothers and Muslims. Unity was thrown out of the window, and a divide emerged between the Muslims. Furthermore, if we are going to use Khilafat, whose side of Islam are we going to follow? The religion has too many interpretations and the followers of some of them are very intolerant among others. Be it Shia or Sunni, there are pockets of intolerance on both sides. Furthermore, a Khilafa is supposed to be someone of good repute. If you read your constitution clearly, the same conditions apply.
The fault with Khilafat was that the leadership extended into perpetuity and that has been the main cause where it fell and got disintegrated so badly. Earlier Khalifas were more tolerant and understanding than the ones that came under Rashiduns, Ummayyad, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Ottomans. The later Khalifas were known to be hard on his critics. It created a trend of "elite families".
Currently, if you see around the world, the most successful Muslim nations in the World are Democratic nations. Indonesia, the world's most populated Muslim country, is a democracy. The country saw a economic growth of 6% in 2010. Malaysia too, is a democracy. It has become an epicenter for research for Islamic banking and finance practices. Mahatir Mohammad, a renowned Muslim leader, belongs to this country. Surprisingly, he ruled the country for more than 3 decades but instead, he gave economic prosperity. His vision of making Malaysia one of the first developed Muslim nation will soon come true.
Calling for Khilafat is like calling for trouble. The whole affair might incline to one side of intrepretation which might not be not acceptable to a lot of people, and if there is sudden urge to have Khilafat, it would be best that these movements make a political party and contest elections. If they get the Parliament's majority, they could hold a Referendum in order to ask the public if they really want "Khilafat" or not. Rather than ruining the game for everyone, they should understand that Khilafat is not a feasible solution at this point. It might create a distorted Islamic nation, resulting in bad exposure to the religion. What we have currently is quite close and reformed interpretation of Khilafat. We should keep it this way. However, showing distrust towards your leadership in a respectful is not wrong.
Furthermore, does anyone know during Khilafat you might not be able some liberties like a very favorite past-time in Pakistan. I'll say, get some sense: reform your energies into a better idea.
While there has been talk about the sexy word "Revolution" and its serious implication, there is an alternative popping up too. It is called 'Khilafat' or Caliphate. Khilafat is being termed as "the potent solution to all our problems". The people behind the call of Khilafat have been talking about Muslim unity. It seems that they have not been following the world's politics and have been living under a rock. Even though Muslims are world's second largest religious community, the Arab countries have never tried to take non-Arabic countries on board for a unity movement.
The people behind the movement retort that Democracy is moving us away from Islam. For their information, Khilafat which they are proposing is in line with Democracy. At the start of the Khilafat, the Khalifa was chosen with consensus from the elders of the tribes. These elders of the tribes were called the Shura. Exact things happen with Democracy. The Prime Minister gets elected by the Parliament. If the processes are similar, then why disagree? Democracy is a very reformed version of Khilafat.
Furthermore, Khilafat did not succeed in the long run as it turned into dynastic legacies. We all know the history pretty clearly. For power, there were wars among brothers and Muslims. Unity was thrown out of the window, and a divide emerged between the Muslims. Furthermore, if we are going to use Khilafat, whose side of Islam are we going to follow? The religion has too many interpretations and the followers of some of them are very intolerant among others. Be it Shia or Sunni, there are pockets of intolerance on both sides. Furthermore, a Khilafa is supposed to be someone of good repute. If you read your constitution clearly, the same conditions apply.
The fault with Khilafat was that the leadership extended into perpetuity and that has been the main cause where it fell and got disintegrated so badly. Earlier Khalifas were more tolerant and understanding than the ones that came under Rashiduns, Ummayyad, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Ottomans. The later Khalifas were known to be hard on his critics. It created a trend of "elite families".
Currently, if you see around the world, the most successful Muslim nations in the World are Democratic nations. Indonesia, the world's most populated Muslim country, is a democracy. The country saw a economic growth of 6% in 2010. Malaysia too, is a democracy. It has become an epicenter for research for Islamic banking and finance practices. Mahatir Mohammad, a renowned Muslim leader, belongs to this country. Surprisingly, he ruled the country for more than 3 decades but instead, he gave economic prosperity. His vision of making Malaysia one of the first developed Muslim nation will soon come true.
Calling for Khilafat is like calling for trouble. The whole affair might incline to one side of intrepretation which might not be not acceptable to a lot of people, and if there is sudden urge to have Khilafat, it would be best that these movements make a political party and contest elections. If they get the Parliament's majority, they could hold a Referendum in order to ask the public if they really want "Khilafat" or not. Rather than ruining the game for everyone, they should understand that Khilafat is not a feasible solution at this point. It might create a distorted Islamic nation, resulting in bad exposure to the religion. What we have currently is quite close and reformed interpretation of Khilafat. We should keep it this way. However, showing distrust towards your leadership in a respectful is not wrong.
Furthermore, does anyone know during Khilafat you might not be able some liberties like a very favorite past-time in Pakistan. I'll say, get some sense: reform your energies into a better idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment