Crazy Horse

Legitimacy in Politics-1.

By Atish Fishan

There has always been and there always will be an expectation of intellectual honesty in the minds of the masses of Pakistan and other lands of the Muslim people from their leaders- (political and otherwise)-.

This is so because all religions including Islam are essentially systems of ethical behavior based on morality.
In the Islamic world this expectation has been absolute since the life of the Prophet- (PBUH)- has set the example for the Muslims to follow.

Is this yearning for idealism real?
Has it been a positive force in the ethical evolution of the Muslim societies?
What does it have to do with what the Muslims face today?

I would like to examine this topic from one person’s point of view and one person’s opinions will be put forth.
No claim of being complete or scientific is going to be made. By definition one person’s knowledge is limited anyway.
The method is to do a critical examination of some of the well-known events and personalities.
The purpose would be to see if there is in fact any reality to the slogan that Muslim political leaders are better because they are supposed to be following the ethical guidelines established by their religion.
We will start with the well-known event at Karbala where the Prophet’s grandson Imam Hussein was killed on the order of the political power of the time.

So here we go.

1. The Massacre at Karbala.

This event defines the fact that in Muslim politics those in power have not been governed by ethical behavior. Karbala sort of cemented a schism amongst the Muslims into the two main sects-
(Or groups)- of Shia and Sunni.

However if we examine the Shia- Sunni split in a bit more detail and going back to the death of the Prophet (PBUH), it sort of becomes obvious that the schism existed prior to Karbala and Karbal was just one event in the chain.

And suddenly we have to face the issue of legitimacy and it’s use for political purposes. Mind you like everything else there are no absolutes and so the claimed sources of legitimacy need to be looked at.

The power of the times in Iraq and Syria (of the times) Yazid bin Muawiyah derived its legitimacy from military strength and tribal affiliations. They labeled Imam Hussein a rebel challenging the authority of the KING.
Imam Hussein’s legitimacy was from his righteous stand, his lineage and it is said from the support of the people of Kufa-( Iraq)-. His stand that all political power must be righteous and ethical had great resonance with the masses. And this was coming from the grandson of the Prophet (PBUH) gave it great resonance.

Everyone knows what happened.

But the need and desire for legitimacy became the driving force amongst Muslim rulers- (like others)-.
And they were willing to use any deception, propaganda or subterfuge to create the illusion of an imagined legitimacy.

Sad to say that this has persisted into the present times and it is unlikely that in Pakistan- (or any other Muslim country) that suddenly we will have an ethical and intellectually honest political leader or leaders.

But should the question of intellectual honesty also apply to the masses also?
If we do that then let us ask the tough questions.

Why did the people of Kufa who had invited Imam Hussein not come out en mass to help the 72 human beings facing the 10,000 soldiers of Yazid under Ibn Ziyad.

Why Ibn Ziyad himself not rebel and joined Imam Hussein?

The answer is obvious and very simple.

When faced with overwhelming power, self-preservation takes precedence over ethical behavior. At least that was the case at Karbala but more on this later.

2. This thorny issue of legitimacy has hounded the Muslims for a very long time.
For their whole time, the Ummayad dynasty was derived its power through military domination and political repression. -(Hajaj Bin Yousuf)- and finally succumbed to the Abassid dynasty who claimed legitimacy through their rather distant relationship to the Prophet (PBUH).

3. It is claimed by many that these times were the golden period of the quote “ Islamic Civilization “.
It certainly was golden if you were the Ummyads or Abassids or those that allied themselves with them.
But for everyone else it certainly was neither golden nor civil.
Beheadings, skinning alive, burning alive, throwing from the towers – was the lot of those that made a pip squeak against the regime in power.

So as bitter as this fact is- the Muslim rulers were no more ethical in the treatment of their subjects than any other of the times.
This brings up an even more interesting question.

Were they Muslim at all?

If you use the standard of ethics established by the Prophet (PBUH) then the answer has to an emphatic NO.

Am I to believe that non-Muslims have ruled the Muslims after the death of Hazrat Ali?

The answer depends on what you consider a Muslim.
Is following the rituals of Islam the criterion or is there a higher standard.
If the rituals are all that matters then all these kings were Muslim- BUT if ethical behavior and intellectual honesty is the yardstick by which you measure a Muslim- then I am afraid they come up very short.

Fast forward to current period- esp. in Pakistan.

The partition of India takes place.
The claim of legitimacy is that the Muslims are one nation and the masses have aligned themselves with the Mughal Kings and those that came before all the way to Mahmood of Ghazni etc.

Once Pakistan comes into being- the so-called religious parties –(which in reality are just political parties using religion as their source of legitimacy)- declare that since Pakistan came into being based on the idea of a Muslim nation- it follows that it must have laws and systems based on Islamic Sharia.

And of course they want their own version-( and their interpretation) of the Islamic Sharia . Since there are many sects in Islam- you can imagine the problem.

But there is a much bigger problem which is the issue of legitimacy based on religion. Why?
Because it is absolute.
Or at least those who claim it think it is- (for them). Anyone who is his or her opponent can be immediately declared illegitimate.
So you can understand the stampede towards anyone and everyone claiming that they also want “ an “ Islamic” system.

And mind you when they talk about an “ Islamic” system they are not talking about the ethical aspect of it.
No what they mean is the rituals.
And like any good lawyer they use the technicalities on purpose- (both real and imagined) and figure out how to force their case on everyone who might be in the opposition camp- (defined by them!).

So let us extrapolate these abstract notions into the political situation as it has existed and as it exists today in Pakistan.

Before Pakistan came into being, it is a matter of record that most of such political parties- (religious) was against the idea.
Perhaps they were right.
They were certainly right as they raised the very genuine issue of
- “ What would happen to the Muslims in the Muslim minority provinces”- (Ayesha Jalal).
And once Pakistan did come into being- they used the name of Islam as a beacon of legitimacy for them. They claimed that since Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and as a separate country for the Muslims- the rule of Islamic Sharia must apply. And who will determine that.
Of course they would since it was they who were the authentic scholars on the subject.

The problem they faced was the man who came to symbolize Pakistan- namely Jinnah.
Once Jinnah died, the political Jihad to cleanse Pakistan started and any and all issues, which augmented their legitimacy, were utilized to the full.
And the superb weapon was of blackmail. Oh I do not mean in a criminal sense but in a political sense with the use of the RELIGION card.
All the so-called secular political parties or those that did not use religion as the basis of legitimacy- had to appear or present a façade of being holier than the HOLIES!
When those in power gave one inch to the religious political groups- they wanted a mile and ended up taking half a mile.
Of course the rampant corruption facilitated this phenomenon.

(This is the slippery slope that has brought the country to its present political situation where the very first slogan of Islam is in danger used for the creation of Pakistan is still being used by many.)

Dishonesty, corruption, etc which was the norm in the political leaders made them vulnerable to the small but well organized and well funded political parties of religion.
Lawlessness was used as a stimulant for the mantra of “ Sharia will solve all these problems “

A country which was beset by many problems which had nothing to do with religion, had to deal with issues such as the Qadiani issue and this was settled to the satisfaction of those that made it an issue.
Anyone who disagreed with his or her vision was promptly labeled a Qadiani or a Qadiani sympathizer. And of course such people had no legitimacy whatsoever.

ZAB played into this game and lost. The Shah of Iran was toppled. Suddenly what had seemed impossible appeared
Possible. Zia came to power and with him came the Saudis with their money to support their own Wahabi version of religion.
To help and facilitate them the Russians invaded Afghanistan.
The Americans came with their money to help defeat the Russians and everyone knows what has happened since then.

But the fundamental fact remains.

The political operatives who use and have used religion as a source of legitimacy are here and they are here to stay. They have their own grass root support system in the country and unlike their opponents- they are determined and have a very strong belief in the righteousness of their cause. They are willing to go to any lengths to get to their goal and that is to establish their version of an Islamic state run of course by them.

If anyone has any doubts- then I would like to have him or her read the following-

Quote “The simple fact is that 9/11 of this world are carried out on the behest of clever political operatives and by human beings who for one reason or another are convinced/ brain washed into believing that it is the right thing to do.

TO BE CONTINUED-