Election in Democracy is Money-Laundering for Criminals, Because It Denies Sovereignty is for Allah سبحانه وتعالى Alone

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on 15 May 2015 heaped praise at the notorious Railways Minister Saad Rafique, even though he is well-known as a corrupt man. “I was right to choose Khawaja Saad Rafique to become the Railways Minister,” he said. The prime minister’s remarks come hours after the Election Commission of Pakistan issued a notification recalling its earlier notification that annulled Saad Rafique’s membership in the National Assembly from NA-125, after the opposition and ruling parties locked horns over the validity of the election.

Again, the opposition is misguiding the people, by showing that the only thing that needs to be fixed is the electoral process in Democracy. However, the problem with Democracy is far deeper. Democracy by design provides electoral redemption, the act of cleansing yourself from all of your crimes and misdeeds. You can be running a mafia and extortion ring, you can be siphoning off state funds through corruption, you can be organizing and planning murders of opponents at will and you may have a notorious reputation for all these crimes. But when you fight an election and enter in it with such a notorious reputation and win, then you have the people’s mandate. And because you entered the election with such a notorious reputation and got votes even then, then the state cannot touch you for you are what the people want. This is the same argument the likes of Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have been making for years now. If we are corrupt and you know it and the people hate us then let us go to the people and the people will decide. The key word here is the people’s mandate. For in a democracy people’s will is sovereign and final.

If you are not swayed by the regime’s propaganda through its mouthpieces in the media and other forums, that our people are ignorant idiots who choose criminals as their representatives and we need to educate the people through media and education system (controlled by these very politicians who we want to get rid of) then Saad Rafique’s restoration in Lahore and MQM’s victory in Karachi are clear proofs of why Democracy is a failed system which will never deliver any change. The people’s mandate cannot be sovereign because human mind is swayed by the atmosphere it lives in, contradicts itself and is limited in perceiving the depth of a problem and proposing a solution. Moreover right and wrong is determined by arguments based on an ideology not through the will of the majority.

Democracy deceives people in to believing that they control their own destiny. All they do is vote. Did the people draft the 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st amendment? Do they even know what they contain? Legislation is a complex process. In Islam the right to legislate is only reserved for Allah سبحانه وتعالى who is the Sovereign over the Universe. The Khaleefah only implements what is legislated by Allah and conveyed to us through Quran, Sunnah and Ijmah e Sahabah. Let the NA-125 and Azizabad election fiascos increase our despair from Democracy and increase our confidence in the system of Islam, the Khilafah.

 

It is Upon the Armed Forces to Restore the Islamic Ummah’s Authority

In response to the death sentence for Egypt’s Mursi, a 17 May press release issued by the PTI quoted Imran Khan as saying, “Pakistan had suffered tremendously as a result of the hanging of its democratic leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by a military dictator”. “The Pakistani nation and democracy in Pakistan continue to suffer the fallout from Bhutto’s hanging as the Pakistani polity stands polarised and militarised even today,” the press release added. Yet again, the opposition advocates Democracy as the only way for change in Pakistan, solely on the basis that it is better than dictatorship, with blatant disregards the people’s deep desire for Islam.

However, when discussing political change we need to ask ourselves a basic question. What is the source and the origin of state authority and structure? Is the state supposed to be like what the people want? Or is the state supposed to change the people according to the ideals on which the state was established in the first place? Do the people decide and determine the shape and structure of the state? Or does the state determine how the people should be? Consider the education system. We know the education system shapes the minds of the young generation and hence shapes the opinions of people. Another example is the political system. Should the people choose who governs them or should the state appoint technocrats who run the government? What should be the process through which the people elect their rulers? The above two examples illustrate relations of the state and the people. In the education example, it appears the state shapes and controls the people. In the political system example it appears the people shape and determine the state.

In reality, it is the people who have the authority and who decide upon the ideals upon which the state should be built. In the Muslim World, Democracy, Dictatorship and Monarchy were built by the colonialists and once it was constructed it was handed over to a ruling class which was indoctrinated with Western culture. This arrangement worked for decades but it could not last. Because it was an unnatural arrangement in which the colonialists, not the people decided the ideals on which the state was built. This is what we are witnessing in the Muslim World. The destruction of the unnatural state imposed upon the Muslim people by Western colonialists. It has happened in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Nigeria. It is happening in Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Gulf monarchies albeit at a slower rate.

The destruction of the unnatural state is a step towards change although it has resulted in chaos and misery. This misery could have been avoided if the elites of these states who have authority and power had destroyed these unnatural states themselves and built upon them, the natural state of Islam which the Muslim people want. Pakistan can still avoid the chaos experienced by the Arab World, if its armed forces step forward and uproot the colonial state and provide material support for Khilafah which embodies the demand of the people to live by Islam.

 

Jihad is a Worship, Sectarianism is Criminal Disobedience

A decree issued at a conference of Ulema in Islamabad on 17 May 2015 declared that so-called jihadi outfits were unmindful of the conditions that must be met before declaration of jihad. Furthermore, the elements involved in sectarian killings were guilty of ‘fasad’, as Islam did not allow killings in the name of sect. “The Islamic government is bound to crush such rebels,” said the decree.

The decree is in line with the American line, to blacken the name of Jihad with the evil of sectarianism. Thus, just as the Musharraf-Aziz regime did, the Raheel-Nawaz regime is resorting to using some Ulema to promote the American plan. Jihad is a duty in Islam and it is obligatory for the Muslims in the armed forces and the tribal regions to fight against the Western troops in Afghanistan. Sectarianism is a crime because Islam did not permit the shedding of the blood of the people for the sake of their school of thought or religion. To confuse the two is like confusing Sawm with Christian Lent, Salah with Hindu Mantras or Khilafah with Democracy. Moreover, the American presence is linked to the target killings and bombings, as it is the Raymond Davis network which supervises and funds these evil deeds as part of America’s notorious black operations to incite low intensity conflicts within our country to exhaust our armed forces.

The Ulema must reject to be mouthpieces for the regime in its evil plots and plans and be mindful of the hadith of RasulAllah (saaw) when he said,

»إِنَّ أُنَاسًا مِنْ أُمَّتِي سَيَتَفَقَّهُونَ فِي الدِّينِ وَيَقْرَءُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَيَقُولُونَ نَأْتِي الأُمَرَاءَ فَنُصِيبُ مِنْ دُنْيَاهُمْ وَنَعْتَزِلُهُمْ بِدِينِنَا.‏ وَلاَ يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ كَمَا لاَ يُجْتَنَى مِنَ الْقَتَادِ إِلاَّ الشَّوْكُ كَذَلِكَ لاَ يُجْتَنَى مِنْ قُرْبِهِمْ إِلاَّ (الخطايا) «.

“There will be some people among my Ummah (nation) who will gain knowledge of the religion, and they will recite Qur’an, and will say: ‘We come to the rulers so that we may have some share of their worldly wealth, and we will make sure that our religious commitment is not affected,’ but that will not be the case. Just as nothing can be harvested from the Qatad except thorns, so nothing can be gained from being close to them except (sins).’” (Narrated by Ibn Majah)

 

Ending Sectarianism Requires More Islam, not Less

A Supreme Court judge pointed out the dangers of upholding sectarianism if the court were to interpret legal issues in light of the Constitution as it exists today, as opposed to its original form, which did not contain the word ‘sect’. “Sectarianism is a curse,” said Justice Qazi Faez Isa on 20 May. “You are talking about the Holy Quran and Sunnah, but here no two religious scholars will agree, but rather, will differ on the interpretation of Islamic provisions according to their own dogmas,” claimed senior counsel Khalid Anwar, who represents the federal government. “Can the provisions of Article 2A, which makes the Objectives Resolution a substantive part of the Constitution, be deleted through a constitutional amendment,” Justice Saqib Nisar wondered. “Why not,” was Mr Anwar’s counter question.

So the regime through its legal team is claiming that sectarianism can be solved by removing what little reference to Islam there is in the constitution. However, sectarianism is due to Democracy, which persecutes minorities through favouring majorities, and Colonialism, which uses Western intelligence and private military networks to incite sectarian conflict through funding and training shadowy local groups. Only a completely Islamic constitution as implemented by the soon to arrive Khilafah will end this illness.

Islam permits diversity of opinion in legal interpretations of Shar’iah texts. Bukhari and Muslim report on the authority of Amr bin al Aas that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say, ‫

«إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد، ثم أصاب فله أجران، وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجر واحد»

“If the judge passes a judgement and makes Ijtihad and is right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a judgement and makes a mistake he will have one reward.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Unlike democracy which adopts the opinion of the majority for legislative purposes, thus resulting in state’s discrimination against the minority, Islam has its own unique method of addressing difference of opinion and adopting the legal opinion for the functioning of the state. Islam has given the right of adopting the legal opinion, which will be implemented in the state, to the Khalifah and has put certain restrictions on the Khalifah regarding such an adoption.

In the “Introduction to the Constitution” Article 3, Hizb ut Tahrir states: “The Khalifah adopts specific Shari’ah rules which he will enact as a constitution and laws. If he adopts a Shari’ah rule, this rule alone becomes the Shari’ah rule that must be acted upon and it becomes a binding law that every citizen must obey openly and privately.” However in the adoption of legal opinions which will be implemented in the state, the Khalifah has been restrained from adopting opinions in matters related to Ibadat (except for Zakat and Jihad) and matters pertaining to thoughts related to Aqeedah.

In Article 4 in the “Introduction to the Constitution”, Hizb ut Tahrir states:” The Khalifah does not adopt any specific Shari’ah rule in matters related to rituals (‘Ibadaat) except in Zakat and Jihad, and whatever is necessary to protect the unity of the Muslims, and nor does he adopt any thought from among the thoughts related to the Islamic ‘Aqeedah.”