The article about Islam and State published in The News has inherent contradictions. The individual cannot be separated from society. Hence the message given by Islam; in spite of its individualistic tentacles is collective and addressed to all the humanity of the world irrespective of colour, caste creed. It is not only addressed to humanity alone but at the same time addressed to Jinn as well (Vide Sura Al-Jinn). Then Pakistan is a country which has come into existence only on the basis of Islam. The other country is Israel which has come into being on the concept of Zionism; by force of fraud and money. It has to be said that objective Resolution does not mean to Islamize the state. It gives a guideline to the already Islamic state of Pakistan. Thus state has a religion. Nobody can deny the ground reality in case of Pakistan. If Pakistan as a state does not have a religion, its raison d’etre falls into pieces. The article does not exclude those persons from Islam who deviate from the path of Islam. Of course the Muslim women must observe purdah according to the tenets of the Quran and the Sunnah. Here I would the like to draw the attention of the readers to Sura Al-Ahzab… “Make not the dazzling display”. Allah wishes to make you “pure and spotless”. No doubt here the women have been enjoined not to exhibit their beauty in the public by wearing such dresses which invite the greedy eyes of men. In case of violation their exclusion from Islam is consistent in preserving the sanctity of the Quran and the Sunnah. No wonder we have been clearly directed to set the wrong right by any means within the orbit of Shariah inclusive of advice and persuation (Sura Al-Imran Ayat No 104, 110 coupled with Sura Al-Haj 41-Sura Luqman No 17). The concept of parliamentary majority in the absence of the Quran and Sunnah negates the basic structure of the Islamic state. Undeniably the consultative process is the quintessence of the Islamic state. It has been rightly said that the government cannot force the individual to perform Haj, Umra. In the article mixing of the government and the state has created in some minds a “confusion worst confounded” on subtle issues of Islamic matters and their nuanced connotation of Western orientation. Modesty of women is one thing that has been sacrificed by the writer at the alter of unbridled liberalism. It is Taqwa that preserves the modesty of women and that is conspicuously missing in the said treatise. Taqwa has been the foundational stone of the caliphate. But denial of the very concept of Khilafat is a rendering of specific Islamic vision tempered with western glamour and is in conflict with Sura Al-Noor directly supportive of the Quranic authority on Khilafat. How can concept of Khilafat been denied. The Al-Noor section 55 is detailed below- “Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will of a surety give them in the land, inheritance (of power) as He granted it to those before them..”. Then the role models of Khilafat namely Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Usman, Omar bin Khittab, Hazrat Ali and Omar bin Abdul Aziz are the perpetual glittering Islamic light to guide the Ummah till eternity. Then man has been the vicegerent of God. The denial of our esteemed scholar the very concept of Khalifat reminds of the Pervazi school of thought who interpreted the word prayer in the light of doctrine of literalness. It must be realized that intellectual logicality extended beyond a certain limit acquires devilish tentacles and hence be discarded. No one should be swept by the liberal culture of the West and no one should see Islam through the spectacles of western society where Prophets are ridiculed and religiosity is desecrated in the manner of Chenghiz Khan and the like. The vision of the Khilafat needs to be corrected. The two things are distinctly missing from the article. One is piety and another is the foundational concept of Khilfat. The concept of Islamic welfare state has not been touched in terms of political power orientation of the state. The sheer intellectual extension of the Islamic paraphernalia in a time-warp of logical rigmarole can serve Samuel Huntington inimical concept of ‘Civilizational Clash’ but would hardly serve the ends of ‘Islamic Polity’ in strategic political terms, so passionately needed in the tumultuous politics of the day. There are the crucial points the counter-narrative should have dealt at length. But it has not.
