Opinion : Article 31 and 62/63 | PKKH.tv
PKKH Exclusive | BY Aneela shahzad
This is in response to Ijaz Haiders Article Ansar Abbasi of the Constitution in eTribune, to sympathize with his bewilderment in his attempt to fabricate ideology with a set of trimmed facts; since he has, being a liberal, liberated himself of the wholeness.
Though Ijaz has been true enough to himself by declaring the poverty in his argument; it is clear that he, like all seculars and liberals, due to their belief in relativity of morals, cannot base their thought upon defined premises and have to depend upon circular arguments, more akin to vicious point-scoring than actual logic.
The writer's allegations such as who is (or is not) a good Muslim is, and has been, a matter of bloody dispute throughout the history of Islam, and that Ansar Abbasis consider(ing) sectarianism to be against the practice of Islam is ahistorical are obviously based on an alogical and ahistorical way of thinking itself. But let me start from his saying that the State shall promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards. What does that mean?
If one is familiar with the arguments presented for secular/liberal thinking, one would know that these people base their philosophy upon the fact that religion has historically been a cause of bloodshed and vile practices, thereby championing themselves as the upholders of the real morals and straight-forward thinking; but the dilemma in this position is that in forsaking any set standard for morals, they fall in the pitfall of not being able to declare any vice a vice, if/when it can make a man happy. That is precisely the reason why the mere name of Islam sends the shivers down the spines of these liberals, because the dichotomy they live in is that they dont have the guts to denounce Islam as their faith due to the monetary benefits of citizenship; but again this fits their morals rightly, as to them it is completely moral to lie or cheat if it makes them happy!!
So Iyaz would not specify, what is wrong with Islamic morals, instead he would beat around the bush, asking why the constitution vows to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards and not the unity in Islamic rituals, when on the other hand he will be seen propagating freedom for diverse religions and cultures. Is it hard for him to understand that Morals are historically sustainable, whereas rituals, which have a physical component, are bound to change with the movement of humanity through time and distance? Similarly, it is easy for anyone to understand the vice in sectarianism, which has certainly proven to be a cause of bloodshed and divide in history; for Ijaz to say that sectarianism is the very essence of religion is like putting your head in the sand. Islam prohibits sectarianism, but because each sectarian group has some legitimate ground, we bound with them peacefully in Islamic tolerance, until any sect is proven to be absolutely based on falsehood.
I know it is not worth trying to show light to the liberals, but we have to do this to save the good people from confusion! Now one would say who are the good people?, are those the good people who would say that being gay is good and being married is good and being in a relation without marriage is good, whatever suits you; or who say putting on clothes is good, being nude is good, or in-between, whichever way you feel like; and they would also say, worshiping a God is good and worshiping an idol is good and worshiping the evolutionary force of nature is good, whoever youre inclined to. OR would you say that a person, who marries, raises a family, earns an honest living, does no corruption, believes in one God, and can love charitably for His love only, is a good person.
All Muslims say the prayers, it is an obligatory education and discipline; if it is legitimate to ask for a bonafide degree of Graduation, which takes like 24 years to accomplish, then asking for the elements of obligatory prayer, that one learns in the childhood, is more than legitimate, that too in a constitution based on preservation and propagation of the Islamic way of life.
The simple truth is that the constitution of Pakistan is fully based on Islamic values and principles; however incomplete the document may be, it only has provision for more Islam, not less. Wherever it mentions democracy and equal rights for minorities, it does so in accordance with the Islamic guide-line, not in oblivion to it. Starting from the preamble and deep into all its articles, there is nothing to negate Islam but only to defend it.
The article 31 which says to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language , which is clear enough in stating that the Arabic language should be learnt, is wrongly being interpreted by Ijaz as not as an exercise in language acquisition but for reasons of religious practice, when nothing like such was stated.
The problem the liberals would face with Art. 62 is obvious, it asks for good character; to be not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; to have adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins; to be sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and amen; to be not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.
Now good is a basic word never to be defined in liberal/secular diction, wherein all good is relative, a bunch of variables; how for them can there be any physical pointers to be detected as good; There will be a different definitions of good in every observer's mind they would say. Can we not decode the diction they are using: relativity? Is it difficult for one to know that one disqualifies here only when/if s/he commits indecency, is a liar, commits major sins that are abhorable in the eyes of the general public, is a corruptor or a traitor? Or should we let such people rule over us? Is that the fruit of democracy; that we blindfold ourselves once again and let the worst among us be nominated?
The truth is that democracy, in its basics, was introduced to humanity, by Islam; when the people from all across Arabia were called in for a yes-vote at the hands of the nominated caliph. But to use democracy as a tool to manipulate the masses and exhaust them with tyrant, corrupt practices, is not a democracy Islam would stand. Those who want democracy and no morals are like those who would want a well, but never draw water from it or quench thirst with that water. Those who say the morals have nothing to do with faith, i.e., Islam, are refuting the fact that conceding in one Allah is the source of the highest subjectivity, which in turn gives us altruism in the purest possible form.
Islam is secular in terms of equality of rights and liberal in terms of freedom in exploring all new arenas of life as long as they do not fall in the perimeters of immodesty and sin. The so-called liberals and seculars ask us to forsake ancient text and discover the morals that are recognized by the heart and mind; they ask us to be logical and scientific. But due to their paucity in religious texts, they pose to be a danger to the society, as they go on promoting their porous, alogical ideology.
Ijaz is perhaps unaware of the Qurans repeatedly asking us to stay away from strange things (munkar) and to promote the familiar things (maroof), calling upon man to understand his nature, and that the good defined in the Quran and Sunnah are fully akin to human nature and are scientifically explorable.
Therefore the articles 31, 62 and 63 do not stand in the way of any logic of the common sense, but they do ask us to explore moral conduct; which certainly has a subjective element to it, and which can easily be recognized in the general flux of human nature, only if one was not after negating the existence of any inherent goodness in human nature at all.
Instead of creating an air of confusion and apprehensions around these articles, saner members of the society should only insist on devising a better and error-free methodology for scrutinizing the good against the vice; because we want good people to govern over us and because all human-rights, written in grand manifestos of the UN and other world organizations, plea for the upholding of subjective values like dignity, freedom, justice, reason and conscience, etc., all of which cannot be interpreted by physical scales of measurement, but only by a scale inherently erected in human nature and understanding. Perhaps Ijaz and his lot would be befuddled with all these terms too, once Sadiq and Ameen could be thrown out of the constitution.
Aneela Shahzad is an editor at PKKH.tv and can be contacted via*info@pakistankakhudahafiz.com, *she blogs at *Aneela Shahzads Blog and tweets @AneelaShahzad
Source
PKKH Exclusive | BY Aneela shahzad
This is in response to Ijaz Haiders Article Ansar Abbasi of the Constitution in eTribune, to sympathize with his bewilderment in his attempt to fabricate ideology with a set of trimmed facts; since he has, being a liberal, liberated himself of the wholeness.
Though Ijaz has been true enough to himself by declaring the poverty in his argument; it is clear that he, like all seculars and liberals, due to their belief in relativity of morals, cannot base their thought upon defined premises and have to depend upon circular arguments, more akin to vicious point-scoring than actual logic.
The writer's allegations such as who is (or is not) a good Muslim is, and has been, a matter of bloody dispute throughout the history of Islam, and that Ansar Abbasis consider(ing) sectarianism to be against the practice of Islam is ahistorical are obviously based on an alogical and ahistorical way of thinking itself. But let me start from his saying that the State shall promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards. What does that mean?
If one is familiar with the arguments presented for secular/liberal thinking, one would know that these people base their philosophy upon the fact that religion has historically been a cause of bloodshed and vile practices, thereby championing themselves as the upholders of the real morals and straight-forward thinking; but the dilemma in this position is that in forsaking any set standard for morals, they fall in the pitfall of not being able to declare any vice a vice, if/when it can make a man happy. That is precisely the reason why the mere name of Islam sends the shivers down the spines of these liberals, because the dichotomy they live in is that they dont have the guts to denounce Islam as their faith due to the monetary benefits of citizenship; but again this fits their morals rightly, as to them it is completely moral to lie or cheat if it makes them happy!!
So Iyaz would not specify, what is wrong with Islamic morals, instead he would beat around the bush, asking why the constitution vows to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards and not the unity in Islamic rituals, when on the other hand he will be seen propagating freedom for diverse religions and cultures. Is it hard for him to understand that Morals are historically sustainable, whereas rituals, which have a physical component, are bound to change with the movement of humanity through time and distance? Similarly, it is easy for anyone to understand the vice in sectarianism, which has certainly proven to be a cause of bloodshed and divide in history; for Ijaz to say that sectarianism is the very essence of religion is like putting your head in the sand. Islam prohibits sectarianism, but because each sectarian group has some legitimate ground, we bound with them peacefully in Islamic tolerance, until any sect is proven to be absolutely based on falsehood.
I know it is not worth trying to show light to the liberals, but we have to do this to save the good people from confusion! Now one would say who are the good people?, are those the good people who would say that being gay is good and being married is good and being in a relation without marriage is good, whatever suits you; or who say putting on clothes is good, being nude is good, or in-between, whichever way you feel like; and they would also say, worshiping a God is good and worshiping an idol is good and worshiping the evolutionary force of nature is good, whoever youre inclined to. OR would you say that a person, who marries, raises a family, earns an honest living, does no corruption, believes in one God, and can love charitably for His love only, is a good person.
All Muslims say the prayers, it is an obligatory education and discipline; if it is legitimate to ask for a bonafide degree of Graduation, which takes like 24 years to accomplish, then asking for the elements of obligatory prayer, that one learns in the childhood, is more than legitimate, that too in a constitution based on preservation and propagation of the Islamic way of life.
The simple truth is that the constitution of Pakistan is fully based on Islamic values and principles; however incomplete the document may be, it only has provision for more Islam, not less. Wherever it mentions democracy and equal rights for minorities, it does so in accordance with the Islamic guide-line, not in oblivion to it. Starting from the preamble and deep into all its articles, there is nothing to negate Islam but only to defend it.
The article 31 which says to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language , which is clear enough in stating that the Arabic language should be learnt, is wrongly being interpreted by Ijaz as not as an exercise in language acquisition but for reasons of religious practice, when nothing like such was stated.
The problem the liberals would face with Art. 62 is obvious, it asks for good character; to be not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; to have adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins; to be sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and amen; to be not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.
Now good is a basic word never to be defined in liberal/secular diction, wherein all good is relative, a bunch of variables; how for them can there be any physical pointers to be detected as good; There will be a different definitions of good in every observer's mind they would say. Can we not decode the diction they are using: relativity? Is it difficult for one to know that one disqualifies here only when/if s/he commits indecency, is a liar, commits major sins that are abhorable in the eyes of the general public, is a corruptor or a traitor? Or should we let such people rule over us? Is that the fruit of democracy; that we blindfold ourselves once again and let the worst among us be nominated?
The truth is that democracy, in its basics, was introduced to humanity, by Islam; when the people from all across Arabia were called in for a yes-vote at the hands of the nominated caliph. But to use democracy as a tool to manipulate the masses and exhaust them with tyrant, corrupt practices, is not a democracy Islam would stand. Those who want democracy and no morals are like those who would want a well, but never draw water from it or quench thirst with that water. Those who say the morals have nothing to do with faith, i.e., Islam, are refuting the fact that conceding in one Allah is the source of the highest subjectivity, which in turn gives us altruism in the purest possible form.
Islam is secular in terms of equality of rights and liberal in terms of freedom in exploring all new arenas of life as long as they do not fall in the perimeters of immodesty and sin. The so-called liberals and seculars ask us to forsake ancient text and discover the morals that are recognized by the heart and mind; they ask us to be logical and scientific. But due to their paucity in religious texts, they pose to be a danger to the society, as they go on promoting their porous, alogical ideology.
Ijaz is perhaps unaware of the Qurans repeatedly asking us to stay away from strange things (munkar) and to promote the familiar things (maroof), calling upon man to understand his nature, and that the good defined in the Quran and Sunnah are fully akin to human nature and are scientifically explorable.
Therefore the articles 31, 62 and 63 do not stand in the way of any logic of the common sense, but they do ask us to explore moral conduct; which certainly has a subjective element to it, and which can easily be recognized in the general flux of human nature, only if one was not after negating the existence of any inherent goodness in human nature at all.
Instead of creating an air of confusion and apprehensions around these articles, saner members of the society should only insist on devising a better and error-free methodology for scrutinizing the good against the vice; because we want good people to govern over us and because all human-rights, written in grand manifestos of the UN and other world organizations, plea for the upholding of subjective values like dignity, freedom, justice, reason and conscience, etc., all of which cannot be interpreted by physical scales of measurement, but only by a scale inherently erected in human nature and understanding. Perhaps Ijaz and his lot would be befuddled with all these terms too, once Sadiq and Ameen could be thrown out of the constitution.
Aneela Shahzad is an editor at PKKH.tv and can be contacted via*info@pakistankakhudahafiz.com, *she blogs at *Aneela Shahzads Blog and tweets @AneelaShahzad
Source
Last edited by a moderator:
