Islamic concept of freedoms

THE Holy Quran and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) nourished the Islamic concept of freedom. Never did the Holy Prophet Muhammad deny his followers the basic freedoms. Muslims could always speak their minds while in his presence. He consulted them and listened to their views and counsels.

The first Muslim community lived in unprecedented freedom under the banner of the Holy Quran and the leadership of the guiding Messenger. Everyone lived in an atmosphere of social justice and harmony. There was no place for pride and arrogance. The only privilege accorded to anyone was that conferred by piety.

The freedom that Islam grants is based on commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom. Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is complete breakdown of the moral and social order. The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of freedom of expression leads only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept of higher moral values or self-control. For Islam, freedom lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without responsibility; no responsibility without freedom.

Islam starts with by granting freedom of belief. Islam clearly insists upon freedom of belief for all human beings. This freedom is the basis of Islamic social system. On the basis of this concept, the Islamic state itself guarantees freedom of worship for its non-Muslim subjects. From this concept we can understand the meaning of the letters which the Prophet sent to kings and rulers, calling them to Islam and asking them to stop oppressing their subjects so that they would have freedom of worship. It says: “O men! Now truth has reached you from your Lord! Those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who astray, do so to their own loss.” (10:108)

After freedom of belief comes the freedom of will. Allah has granted man free will, which allows him to choose his course in life; man is answerable to Allah for his actions. Deeds illustrate the quality of will, whether it is good or evil, whether it follows truth, goodness and justice or whether it is corruptible by its own desires. “Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful.” (76:3) “...Nay! Man is evidence against himself, though he puts forth his excuses.” (75:14-15)

Divine reward or punishment is ordained in accordance with man’s free will. Without free will and its adherent responsibility and commitment there could be neither reward nor punishment. “And stop them, for they shall be questioned.” (37:24) Islam insists that man has free will because that is the way that Allah created him. It allows him to express this freedom and to practise it within the limits of commitment and responsibility and self-control. Man has an obligation to choose the path of righteousness, and to safeguard his freedom and that of others.

Another freedom which Islam recognizes for humans is freedom of thought. Thought in Islamic society is like a deep river flowing towards its destination. When it widens it becomes more resplendent. Freedom of thought is related to one’s moral freedom, but comes within the framework of ideological commitment. If one is forced to do something over which one is not convinced or which one has not freely accepted, as it goes against one’s nature, then that is unacceptable. The Prophet (PBUH) said on an occasion: “Consult your heart... even though people again and again have given you their legal opinions.” (Ahmed)

The Quran says: “the one who strays does so at his own loss: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.” (17:15)

Freedom of thought breeds the freedom of speech and they both are now universally recognized as a basic right of an individual. Islam has never denied such a right. Under the Charter of Human Rights framed by the UN everyone is surely guaranteed the freedom of speech. But results of an unrestricted and unchecked freedom may be disastrous. So the Lawgiver, while revealing His Will, through His Messenger prescribed a certain code of conduct in the matters of speaking about others and discussing their affairs.

The Quran says: “O ye who believed, let not one group make mock of another, who are possibly better than they, or women (make mock of) women who are possibly better than they; do not scoff at each other, or revile each other with nicknames; reprobate conduct (fisq) is a bad name after belief and those who do not repent they are the wrong doers.”(49:11)

Again the Quran says: “O ye who believed, avoid much suspicion, verily suspicion is sometimes sin; do not pry into each other’s affairs and let not some of you backbite others; would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye loath it! Show piety towards Allah.”(49:12)

Islam encourages basic freedoms for all humans, but insists that this freedom encompasses a sense of responsibility and commitment. By doing so, Islam aims to build strong, unwavering characters who are secure in their self knowledge and have confidence in themselves and their values, and whose behaviour will always reflect their strength. The Prophet (PBUH) warned us not to be foolish imitators of others. He urged us to develop our independent characters nourished by Islamic teachings. On an occasion He said:

“Do not be a mere imitator with no firm determination. You say, ‘I am with the people. Should people do good, so do I. And if they do evil, so do I’. But school yourselves. If people do good so should you. But if they do evil shun their evil deeds”.

Islam has laid down the principles of justice, equality and freedom. Keeping in view the above facts, one can infer that the concept of freedom in Islam is unique. The teachings of Islam regarding freedom of thought, will, belief and speech have no equal even in the 21st century. Islam transcends all geographical and racial barriers and eliminates all sorts of distinction based on race, caste, creed or colour. It guarantees equality of status and security of life without making any difference between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In Islam freedom is an inalienable right which enables man to lead a moral and upright life, and brings him under the mantle of the justice and mercy of Allah.

Restoring primacy of Basic Law

PAKISTANI thinkers and intellectuals are deeply perturbed by the fact that in the last 58 years Pakistan has made little political, economic, social and cultural progress whereas India, its traditional rival and China, its traditional friend, with diametrically opposed political systems, economies and culture, have both made amazing progress in every field.

Tasneem Siddiqui writing in this paper about this year’s Davos economic summit says that India and China had occupied centrestage while Pakistan did not get even a passing reference as an emerging market. He asks why Pakistan with all its economic reforms and openness is lagging behind India in almost all respects.

He thinks that our policymakers lack the moral courage to admit that our “reform” is not working; that our governance is abysmally poor; our education system has gone haywire. It is not that the people of Pakistan do not have the potential and where-withal to reach the take-off stage, (which ability they had demonstrated in the sixties but somehow failed to live up to the promise). The East Asian Tigers (and now China and India), which started out much later, remained continuously on the move on a linear graph whereas Pakistan has kept moving in a circle.

These questions are being raised by many people who want to get to the root of Pakistan’s political, economic, and social ills. A personal observation is that the situation has been created because a clique has been ruling this country since the death of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan.

It has so strengthened its grip on power that it no longer cares about what ordinary Pakistanis feel. Elements of this clique know from experience that they can get away with murder without paying a price as they did in 1965, 1971, 1977 and later. Consequently, misgovernance, corruption, injustice and poverty have increased with every passing year. In spite of political changes the world over, in Pakistan the same clique comes to power again and again on the promise of change only to betray the people and indulge in blatant self aggrandizement.

There was a time when Pakistanis, like the people of Thailand and the Philippines today, used to protest in the streets against the government’s wrongdoings. Public demonstrations in the 1950s and 1960s were common and held on economic, social and political issues. In 1954, a small increase in the bus fare brought the people out, forcing the government to withdraw it.

In 1964 electoral rigging led to massive protests in Karachi and East Pakistan and shook the regime of President Ayub Khan which was finally brought down in 1969 by countrywide protests and demonstrations. Again in 1977, they refused to accept the results of a rigged election and engendered a nationwide movement that toppled the Bhutto government.

But each time the clique turned out to be cleverer than the people. In 1969 their sacrifice led to a three-year dictatorship with a more incompetent general in charge, only to end with the break-up of the country. In 1977, the solemn promise of elections in 90 days was turned into 11 years of the worst kind of dictatorship.

Those responsible for the repeated betrayal of the people comprises four segments: the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the politicians and the military and all of them have contributed to the sad state of affairs prevailing in Pakistan. The rule of this clique began in 1953 when Ghulam Mohammad, a bureaucrat governor-general, arbitrarily dismissed Khwaja Nazimuddin the elected prime minister and invited Mohammad Ali Bogra, a politician then serving as Pakistan’s Ambassador in Washington, to form the government.

Unfortunately, he accepted the offer. And the members of the constituent assembly also acquiesced. Their short sighted and cowardly behaviour only emboldened the same governor-general to dismiss both the prime minister and the constituent assembly one year later.

Chief Justice Constantine of the Sindh High Court declared the decision of the governor-general ultra vires but Chief Justice Munir overruled him, implanting the poisonous plant of ‘the doctrine of necessity’ in Pakistan’s body politic. In 1958, 1969, 1977 and 1999 the judiciary further nurtured this plant. The politicians, always ready to be used, behaved in the same way as they had in 1953 and 1954. The cycle continues till today.

Consequently, the masses have become fatalistic and resigned to their fate because after repeated sacrifices and struggle all they got was a change of face, with the rulers remaining the same. Ask a common man why he has become so docile, unwilling to agitate and demonstrate against a corrupt and incompetent government and the answer would be, “what is the point, nothing changes in this country, who listens to us, they are all the same” and so on.

Ironically, however, it is not the common man but the politicians who have paid the heaviest price for colluding with and submitting to the establishment for the sake of short-lived ministries, flagged cars and a few other perks of power. Many have been jailed, disqualified, exited, even hanged — and are reviled by the people who consider them unprincipled and power hungry. However, the military, which has benefited the most from the mistakes of the politicians and enjoyed the longest and most unrestrained exercise of power in this country, too, has not gone unpunished.

The humiliating scene of surrender to the Indian General in Dhaka in 1971 and the long period of captivity of 90,000 of its brave soldiers is not something it can easily forget, though it seems to have learned no lesson.

The nuclear capability acquired by Pakistan since then has given a new sense of confidence to it that India can no longer interfere in our internal affairs as it did in 1971. But national disasters are not always caused by enemies; more often they are triggered by ones’ own mistakes like in Pakistan in 1971, in the second most powerful country in history, the Soviet Union, in 1991 and Yugoslavia later.

The judiciary too has not remained unaffected by the negative role it played in 1954, when Chief Justice Munir validated the arbitrary dismissal of an elected prime minister and the constituent assembly by an unelected bureaucratic governor-general. Now the judiciary, with few exceptions, routinely takes a revised oath of office on the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), and uses the law of necessity to give legality to a usurper. But in so doing it has tainted its image in the public eye.

Finally, let us take a look at the condition of the fourth segment of this clique, the Pakistani bureaucracy, which first put this country on the path of dictatorship and degeneration. From being the highly respected movers and shakers of this country, the bureaucracy has been reduced to a bunch of despised and powerless tools in the hands of their junior partners from the past.

History teaches us that in all ages a stable political system is the first and foremost condition of peace, progress and prosperity of a nation. Whether it is democracy or an authoritarian system, the important common factor in progress is a system based on the Constitution and the rule of law.

That is what gives confidence to the people that a change of government and everything else with it will not happen overnight at the whim of a single individual and a few soldiers, but on the basis of their Constitution.

So how can we acquire a political system that is based on the constitution, without which we will remain divided, and uncertain of our future? Normally, a change comes when the people force their governments to be accountable and govern on the basis of the Constitution or oust them.

But Pakistanis have been so often betrayed and deprived of their fundamental right to vote in a free and fair election and choose their own government that their very will to protest has been sapped.

That has made the clique impervious to their silent anger as well as to all the concerns expressed by writers and thinkers. That is why no matter what is written or said it makes no difference to the rulers. It is claimed that the media in Pakistan has never been as free. That may be so, but a free media is of no use when the public spirit has died.

So it seems that for now our only hope of redemption lies in the unexpected awakening of the “enlightened self-interest” in the four segments of the clique. That alone will motivate it to give up its grip on the levers of power and restore the supremacy of the Constitution.

School reform bill

THE bill that Britain’s prime minister believes is “pivotal” to Labour achieving a successful third term emerged with no surprises last week. As Tony Blair forecast earlier, neither the bill nor the 40-page formal ministerial reply to a censorious Commons select committee report on the government’s education plan contained any further concessions to Labour’s rebels beyond those signalled in the education secretary’s letter of February 6. So how wobbly is Mr Blair’s position on the “high-wire act” (his words, not ours) of school reform? Will he win the rebels round or will he need Tory support? Without more concessions, he had better beware the ides of March, the date on which the second reading is due to take place.

As we argued when the plan was launched four months ago, it is difficult to believe that the package is as revolutionary as the prime minister’s radical rhetoric makes out. Indeed, it is difficult to see why large numbers of headteachers would want their schools to become “independent state schools”.

They already have extensive controls over their budgets and are not being offered more money. Why would they want business people, livery companies or faith groups having more say in their schools? Both associations of headteachers are opposed. As one noted, with ample justification, there is already a bewildering array of state schools - specialist, community, comprehensive, academy, foundation. This new category is marginal. Trust status gives schools precious little more than foundation status already bestows.

The best test of the plan is how far it meets ministerial aspirations. No one can quibble with the intention of raising standards for all, but particularly for disadvantaged groups. The sad but blunt truth is that it does not do enough for the disadvantaged. True, the plan is better than it was, with a mandatory tighter admissions code to prevent further academic selection and a ban on parent interviews, which few schools pursued in any case.

But although academic selection is proscribed, social selection is not. Research suggests that the main driver of social segregation in England is not private schools but the uneven distribution of children within the state sector. Better-off children go to the better-off state schools.

Although Britain is probably the best in the world at educating the top 15%, over 40% at the bottom fail to get five good GCSEs, and staying-on rates are among the worst in the developed world.

— The Guardian, London