Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture

by Farhan Mujahid Chak

  Muhammad. Then the Messenger entered Makkah with Zayd and stopped at

  the Ka’bah. There, he touched the corner of the House, prayed and returned

  to his house under the protection of al-Mut’im and his armed retinue’. 43 This historical event occurred amidst the tribulations facing Prophet Muhammad

  while seeking support for his small, but growing, community. Amongst all those

  who refused to offer them sanctuary, it was, above all, a pagan Arab who

  guaranteed them protection. Here, too, is a clear instance in which Prophet

  Muhammad refused to see a pagan Arab as the ‘Other’. In this is a clear

  message for Muslims – namely, the ability of Prophet Muhammad to seek

  protection from someone outside his faith, which thereby implies giving trust.

  Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017

  Third, to further explain Prophet Muhammad’s behaviour towards those

  outside his racial, cultural and religious beliefs, there is a well-known incident

  involving an elderly Jewish lady who would consistently throw rubbish on

  him whenever he walked by. When a few days passed in which she was

  nowhere to be seen, Prophet Muhammad inquired about her whereabouts.

  Upon hearing that she was sick and bedridden, he compassionately visited her. 44

  This is a testament to the gentleness, mercy and compassionate character of

  Prophet Muhammad, who saw humanity in people regardless of their

  religious persuasion, ethnic identity, or even their behaviour towards him.

  Thus, since Prophet Muhammad’s example is the one that all Muslims are

  86

  Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture

  encouraged to emulate, it is reasonable to assume that this is the ideal manner

  of interacting with others; one that negates the contemporary concept of an

  anti-ego ‘Other’.

  Fourth, in another display of his courtesy, Prophet Muhammad stood up,

  out of respect, when the funeral of a Jewish man was passing by. Upon seeing

  him stand, one of his companions asked why he was doing so when the funeral

  was for a non-Muslim. Prophet Muhammad replied that he stood out of

  respect for the death of another human being.45 This, too, unmistakably reveals that Islamic civic culture aims to instil respect towards different communities.

  Here it is clear that Prophet Muhammad’s behaviour was not encouraging an

  ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. Rather, it was emphasizing pluralism and tolerance.

  Fifth, when Prophet Muhammad was leaving Ta’if, where he was not only

  rejected by the polytheists and but also verbally and physically abused – to the

  extent that his sandals had soaked with his blood – two heavenly Angels

  approached him. On seeing the Prophet’s condition, the two Angels offered to

  bring together the surrounding mountains and crush all the people in the

  valley. However, Prophet Muhammad refused since his hope was that perhaps

  the future generations of those people might accept Islam. Captivatingly, the

  Prophet Muhammad chose to display compassion and magnanimity to those

  who were physically harming him. This instance clearly indicates his ability to

  see the inherent and intrinsic humanity in those that were treating him inhu-

  manely. What is interesting here is that he chose to ‘see’ people according to

  their intrinsic nature and potential, rather than the immediate manifestations

  of their outbursts of hostility. This too, coherently and consistently, follows

  the preceding sections on the innate goodness in humanity and its inherent

  interconnectedness.

  Sixth, according an authentic Prophetic saying, ‘Abu Hurayrah reported:

  Messenger of Allah said, “He who believes in Allah and the Last Day let him

  not harm his neighbor; and he who believes in Allah and the Last Day let him

  show hospitality to his guest; and he who believes in Allah and the Last Day

  let him speak good or remain silent. ”’46 This Prophetic saying shows that no differentiation exists between race, religion or creed in respect to one’s neigh-bours. This represents a principled approach to humanity, further emphasizing

  the interconnectedness of peoples.

  Seventh, as Eltigani Hamid points out, the interaction between Moses (peace

  Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017

  be upon him) and Pharaoh, presumably Ramses N (1279 BC–1212 BC), as

  detailed in the Qur’an, indicates the manner in which to interact with those

  whose views are not only different but hostile. This incident is described by

  Hamid in a threefold manner: first, ‘Moses (peace be upon him) attempts to

  communicate with Pharaoh – as an equal and someone who is not different

  from him in essence; second, Moses (peace be upon him) hopes to convince

  Pharaoh to change his cruel, unjust, and oppressive ways; thirdly, Pharaoh,

  however, refuses to comply and doubles the cruelty he inflicts on the Israelites’.47

  What is particularly important in this event is that it reveals Moses’ attempts

  to reason with Pharaoh on a premise of ‘togetherness’. The implication of

  Islamic civic culture

  87

  that is that Moses was sent as a Messenger to both the Israelites and Pharaoh.

  Moses was an Egyptian by birth and an Israelite by descent. Moses’ message

  was addressed to the entire populace of historic Egypt – he was not solely

  interested in saving the Israelites while others were damned. Rather, he was

  interested in saving everyone that fell within his territorial space. Moreover,

  Moses was not trying to take Egyptians from their land, but was seeking to

  alter Pharaoh’s unjust ways. In other words, Moses was struggling for justice

  and sought to put an end to Pharaoh’s tyranny.

  This difficult period was characterized by a struggle between Pharaoh and

  Moses concerning ‘authority in the land’ – whether that belongs to God or to

  Pharaoh.48 At first, Moses tried to convince Pharaoh of God’s message and to lighten the punishment of the Israelites, yet the latter remained unmoved.

  Then Moses had to choose between two options: migration with his religion

  or confining to live in Egypt but without his religion. ‘The second option was

  impossible to accept since it implied Moses’ rejection of his principles and

  forsaking his Prophetic mission. The former option was also disagreeable

  since Moses’ purpose was not to flee but to enrich and convince’. 49 What he eventually decided upon was to honourably ask Pharaoh to allow the Israelites

  to leave with him. Pharaoh refused to do this since it would compromise his

  authority. After rejecting this option, Pharaoh imposed harsher restrictions on

  the Israelites – doubling their hard labour. Consequently, the Israelites suf-

  fered even more since they could not leave and were too weak to offer serious

  resistance.

  Responding to their misfortune, ‘Allah told them to be patient – establish

  prayer and give glad tidings to those that believe’.50 What followed this is well known. However, it is pertinent to point out, for purposes of analysis, that

  this parable contains an important lesson, particularly for Muslims living in

  non-Muslim-majority countries. Those Muslims are encouraged to view the land

  that they live in as their own, similar to Prophet Moses’ attitude. The space they

  legally liv
e in is their land, albeit emotional and identity attachments to ancestral homelands need not be denied. Certainly, identity is a complex human construct that is not always clear-cut.51 Therefore, peaceful coexistence includes respect of shared public space and protection from infringement on private

  space and is a strong component in Islam. This parable informs the reader

  that Moses, when confronting the tyrannical Pharaoh, urged him to change his

  Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017

  ways – choosing the option of leaving only after all other efforts had proven

  fruitless. Therefore, Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority countries must

  positively engage their surroundings, taking Prophet Moses’ example for

  inspiration. If it really becomes impossible for Muslims to practice their faith

  then they are required to migrate to safer lands – but only as a last resort.

  Taken as a whole, these seven points provide an insight into the spirit of

  peaceful coexistence, mutual tolerance and the myth of the ‘Other’ in Islamic

  parlance. In fact, Islamic theology rejects a construction of a concrete ‘Other’

  and, instead, builds on the philosophical belief in the interconnectedness of

  humanity. From Prophet Moses’ interaction with Pharaoh to the standards of

  88

  Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture

  compassion and mercy displayed by Prophet Muhammad in his interactions

  with those distant from his racial, cultural or religious persuasion, the underlying theme of recognizing, respecting and reaching out is undeniable. Hence, there is

  no ‘Other’ in Islamic philosophy, which is tangible by race, culture or religious

  persuasion. It exists as an abstraction, a metaphysical anomaly which,

  thereby, prevents the process of demonization and allows the spirit of ‘la

  Convivencia’ to flourish.

  Linguistic heritage

  In addition to the previous points, of particular importance is the linguistic

  heritage of the Qur’an that indicates a deep level of coexistence and tolerance.

  Linguistically, the concept of foreign words in a language has been often

  understood as ‘borrowing’.52 And, as Hamza A. Tzortzis eloquently points out, all languages contain ‘borrowed’ words – he cites the example of English and the

  word ‘philosophy’ coming from two Greek words, ‘philo’ – the love of – and

  ‘sophia’ – wisdom.53 However, this ‘borrowing’ may also be considered to be

  ‘sharing’ or ‘embracing’. The language of the Qur’an – fus’hah Arabic – is

  different from pre-Islamic Arabic. And, according to Islamic theology, fus’hah

  Arabic was specifically created as something miraculous and enduring.54

  Notwithstanding that, an interesting debate has been going on in scholarly

  circles on whether the Qur’an only contains words of the Arabic language, or

  whether it has borrowed and assimilated some words to follow Arabic syntax,

  grammar and style. Regardless of whether there is a presence of foreign

  vocabulary in the Qur’an, what is more important to ask, if we assume that

  there is, is why? In response, perhaps, these foreign words were originally

  Arabic, ‘borrowed’ or ‘shared’ by other cultures and then reintroduced into

  the Qur’anic lexicon. Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abu Bakr al-Suyu-ti

  (d. 911/1505) argues that these foreign words had already been naturalized

  into the Arabic language before the revelation of the Qur’an. 55 Furthermore, he argues that there are 118 expressions from different languages found in the

  Qur’an that have been Qur’anically amalgamated.56 Yet, for purposes of this analysis, it is our contention that the ‘sharing’ of words from other languages

  in the lexicon of the Qur’an testifies to its acceptance of diversity. Granted,

  this is mere conjecture; however, this line of reasoning follows the detailed

  Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017

  extrication of the spirit of acceptance that the Islamic sources of legitimacy

  espouse. Some examples of the linguistic diversity in the Qur’an are: in verse

  17: 35, the word ‘qistas’ is from Greek; in 15: 74, the word ‘sijjil ’ is from Persian; in 78: 25, the word ‘ghassaq’ is from Turkish; in 2: 63, the word ‘al-tur’ is from

  Syriac. 57 These words, and many others, collectively point to the plurality inherent in the Islamic linguistic tradition – vocabulary and language as a

  force to transform diversity into oneness. On a practical level, when people of

  diverse communities interact and speak of shared vocabulary in their languages,

  feelings of togetherness are promoted. It is a sign of the universality of the

  Qur’anic message that it employs words from other languages within its

  Islamic civic culture

  89

  vocabulary. Symbolically, then, it would not be an unlikely thing to deduce

  that in a strict linguistic sense, the Qur’an has employed a method to dispel

  the concept of the ‘Other’ by incorporating words from other languages.

  Jihad, jizyah and justice

  Notwithstanding this inclusive vision, another popular accusation against the

  spirit of coexistence, mutual acceptance and tolerance in Islam is the notion

  of ‘jihad ’ – which today has unfortunately been associated with religious

  intolerance, forcible conversions and relentless warfare.58 Esposito states that the importance of jihad is rooted in the Qur’an’s command to struggle (the

  literal meaning of the word) in the path of God and in the example of the

  Prophet Muhammad [peace be on him] and his early companions. In its most

  general meaning, jihad refers to an obligation incumbent on all Muslims,

  individuals and the community, to follow and realize God’s will: to lead a

  virtuous life and to extend the Islamic community through preaching, education,

  example and writing. Jihad also includes the right, indeed the obligation, to

  defend Islam and the community from aggression.59 In the Qur’an we find, in three separate verses, the explicit statement: ‘there is no compulsion in matters

  of faith’.60 This ideal has been manifested not only in theory, but also in practice. From the rise of Islam as a coalescing and coherent identity beginning

  1432 years ago, Muslim empires have generally displayed remarkable tolerance

  of the ‘other’.61 There is absolutely no Islamic justification for purging different communities from within a territorial expanse ruled by Muslims – and this

  has not been done. This point is verified with reference to three separate

  geographical areas: the Balkans, the Iberian Peninsula and South Asia. In

  these dissimilar areas Muslims established their rule for well over 500 years,

  but remained a minority or eventually were driven out. While it is undeniable

  that in these geographical areas atrocities were committed at certain times,

  this study argues that rather than being representative of Islam’s normative

  framework and, thereby, religiously sanctified, those acts were perpetrated for

  political expediency or were retaliatory measures in a state of war. In each of

  these areas Muslim rulers had at least 500 years to forcibly convert the

  people, but did not do so. Perhaps this is one of the clearest responses to

  those who insist that Islam was spread by the sword.62

  Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 18:26 09 January 2017

  The term ‘jihad ’ means
‘struggle’, and Prophet Muhammad has said that the

  ‘greatest jihad is the jihad against the “nafs” – or inner self’. 63 Interestingly, Islamic theology does not have a concept of ‘Holy war’. 64 And, as Abou El-Fadl suggests, neither classical nor contemporary scholars of even minor repute

  have used that term, ‘al-Harb al-Muqaddasah’, in their writings.65 War, in Islamic theology, is never holy. Rather, it is either justified or not and never

  exists in the realm of unlimited warfare. 66 In support of this, the Qur’an instructs Muslims not to haughtily turn away unbelievers who seek to make

  peace with Muslims. ‘If God would have willed, He would have given the

  unbelievers power over you (Muslims) and they would have fought you

  90

  Islam and Pakistan’s Political Culture

  Muslims. Therefore, if they, unbelievers, withdraw from you and refuse to

  fight you, and instead send guarantees of peace, know that God has not given

  you a license to fight them’.67

  Another issue of contention is the ‘jizyah’ – or poll tax – which is allegedly

  supposed to be imposed on all non-Muslims living in Muslim territorial rule.

  During the time when the Qur’an was revealed, it was common practice to

  impose taxes on hostile alien groups.68 Building on historical practice, classical Muslim jurists argued that the poll tax was money collected from non-Muslims for protection – not as a method to demean.69 Since zakah – an annual compulsory charity on Muslims amounting to 2.5 per cent of expendable

  income – was not taken from non-Muslims, a tax was imposed on non-Muslims

  since they shared in the space that the polity provided. If, however, protection

  was unfeasible, no tax was supposed to be levied. In fact, ‘Umar b. Khataab –

  the Second Rightly Guided Caliph (13–23/634–643) and close companion of

  the Prophet Muhammad, returned the jizyah of an Arab Christian tribe that he

  was unable to defend against Byzantium aggression’.70

  The Qur’an does not pronounce an unwavering rule in favour of jizyah.

  Once more, as Abou El Fadl cautions, attention to historical circumstance is

  essential. The Qur’an endorsed a poll tax as a response to particular groups

  hostile to early Muslims. Importantly, Prophet Muhammad did not collect a