GREAT DEBATE : WHY JAMAT IS ANTI-DEMOCRACY ?
A debate between S A Hannan and Hasan Mahmud
Published on September 30, 2007
(Shah Abdul Hannan was Secretary of BD Govt and key person of Islamic banking in BD. He is the top Jamati theologian in BD)
FROM – Hasan Mahmud: -Jamat is THE strongest anti-democratic force with false democratic attire.
Salaam to all. Sir Hannan posted - "Jamaate islami is a democratic and law-abiding party".
I humbly disagree. Jamat is a Meer Jaffor resurrected; a killer/rapist party as the world and I personally saw in abundance in 1971. Mass murder and mass-rape are not Law-abiding.
With its founder remaining as its Amir for about 3 decades (1941 – 1972) Jamat now poses democratic by part-taking in national and party-electoral process. But democracy is not that simple and superficial. Election is a tiny little part of democracy. Democracy is about rule of just law, about civil rights and responsibilities, about gender equity, about racial and religious indiscrimination, about personal freedom within social limits, about transparency of the government, about vertical and horizontal accountability of the governors to the governed and above all, establishment and protection of Human Rights. Democracy is not denying all of the above behind the curtain of electoral process, - and certainly not about hiding cruel laws behind sweet talks. It is not about confusing sin with crime and virtue with job-promotions. Democracy is not about an Amir to bless and punish people according to some people's personal understanding of the divine secret. It is about keeping a just social administration of the people by the people for the people.
Jamat’s anti-democratic character is constantly and amply reflected in its daily The Sangram. Apart from crude unsophisticated distortion of facts and documents, Sangram is full of laughable, rude and childish political summersault, crookedness, violence, taunt, selff-contradiction, white lies, enormous hate-preaching and roars. Those may be efficient BD-politics but can stem only from Himalayan egoistic singularism that is the very antithesis of democracy. See bellow:-
“Through a convention held in Dacca from 25th 27 May 1979 The Jamaat emerged with its traditional spirit, system and characteristics adopted by its founder Al-Ustaz Syed Abul A’la Al Maudoodi (Rahmahullah)” – Introducing Jamate Islami Bangladesh – page 5.
So, what are the spirit, system and characteristics adopted by Al-Ustaz Syed Abul A’la Al Maudoodi (Rahmahullah)? Hundreds of proofs there, listen to two from his books:-
1. “Islam, speaking from the viewpoint of political philosophy, is the very antithesis of secular Western democracy” - Islamic Law And Constitution.
2. “The system of this (Islamic) government is such that it does not leave much room for man to exercise his own free will” - “A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam”.
Jamat is world's THE strongest anti-democratic force with false democratic attire.
How Islamic (all religious) parties can be, rather MUST BE banned under democratic constitution is another story.
FROM - S A Hanan : Read writings of Sayyid Mawdudi to form a proper view about his stand on democracy.
Respected members, Assalamu Alaikum.
In response to the letter below on the editorial of Asia Post, I submit as follows---
1.The editorial highlighted the need for co-existence of opposing political forces and the futility of banning political parties.
2.In 1971 and 1972 , many Bengalees, Biharees, Hindus, Muslims, Razakars and freedom-fighters were killed without trial by all groups not just by one group. It is irrational to blame one party against whom also no government has been able to prove any case or bring any charge. There is no point in raising this issue in hyperbolic way against Jammate Islami Bangladesh, the party which was officially launched in 1979.Most scholars think that the continuous harping on this and keeping the nation divided would help only anti-Bangladesh foreign forces.
3.As regards Sayyid Maududi and democracy, please read the book Islamic law and Constitution as referred by the writer of the letter and also later writings of Sayyid maududi to form a proper view about his stand on democracy. He was never for kingship or dictatorship bur for an elected democracy in line with the teachings of Islam.
Shah Abdul Hannan
FROM – Hasan Mahmud – Jamat is world's strongest anti-democratic force.
Salam to all.
Sir Hannan again missed the point. I did not address the issue of dividing the nation, although a murder file never closes, let alone mass-murder (and mass-rape). I just wanted to say Jamat is world's strongest anti-democratic force that wears election-cloak only to pose democratic to become acceptable. Its mission is diametrically opposite to many necessary components and virtues of democracy that I listed before. Sir Hannan asked the readers to read later writings of Sayyid Mawdudi to form a proper view about his (Mawdudi's) stand on democracy. That actually leads us to a structured math. Sayyid Mawdudi says:-
1. "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere in the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam".
2. "If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic government in their stead".
3. "Islam, speaking from the viewpoint of political philosophy, is the very antithesis of secular Western democracy".
Clearly, this violent form of Islam is strongly anti-democratic. Then he strengthens this stand with more anti-democratic elements:-
4. "Islamic state bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and communist states".
5. "In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private".
6. "I would describe of this system of government as a "theo-democracy".
It goes without saying that Fascist, Communist or Theo-States are anti-democratic forces. But then, he slowly changes into: -
7. "The fact of the matter, however, is that Islam does not totally exclude human legislation. It only limits its scope and guides it on right lines."
And then: -
8. "Islam and democracy are not contradictory to each other".
And finally: -
9. "Democracy is the form of government based on the will of the people as well as run and changed with their consent only. This is also the form of Islamic government".
So, he metamorphoses from "Islam is the very antithesis of democracy" to "democracy is also a form of Islami government". This could be either his gradual enlightenment or utter confusion about Islam and democracy. But, as he never changed his initially proposed structure of Sharia-based Islamic government that violates many virtues of democracy, we can safely conclude that his real stand about democracy is reflected in numbers
1 - 5 above. Points 6 & 7 are probably his politically correct statements.
As in Jamat's own words - "Jamaat emerged with its traditional spirit, system and characteristics adopted by its founder Al-Ustaz Syed Abul A'la Al Maudoodi (Rahmahullah)" - it is world's strongest anti-democratic force.
FROM - Hannan: When I was in Lahore and I found Maududi a very nice person and scholar.
Assalamu Alaikum. I have very little to add on what I wrote before .Anybody who wants to know Jammate Islami or Sayyid maududi may look into their literature and also their political action in various countries to understand them. Quoting some sentences from here and there can not help understand any person properly. His books are open to all in sixty languages
and all of you can know him in the language you desire.
I was a student of sayyid Maududi when I was in Lahore and I found him a very nice person and scholar. His ideas like all other scholars also gradually matured .I found him all the time struggling against dictatorships and military rulers. He in the last part of life fought for democracy with his utmost capacity.
I can not respond on issues which are based on doubting or questioning intentions which is not known to me or anybody except Allah.( for instance this sentence of his quoteI just wanted to say Jamat is world's strongest anti-democratic force that wears election-cloak only to pose democratic to become acceptable. Its mission is diametrically opposite to many necessary
components and virtues of democracy that I listed before).
I will not respond further to this letter writer on this issue.
Shah Abdul Hannan
FROM Hasan Mahmud - I’m not here to malign Mawdudi personally. But his stand makes him and Jamat indigenously anti-democratic. .
Salam and thanks for closing the thread; I’m also making my last arguments. Maududi opposed Ayub Khan not in 1958 when Ayub came into power but much later when he needed open politics. Jamat-backed "Mulla-Military (read Dictator like Ziaul Haque) Alliance" is Pakistan's legacy since long. He also supported Fatima Jinnah in election against Ayub contradicting his own stand of following each of Prophet’s instructions (Islamic law and Constitution – page 140) that includes negation of women-leadership (Bukhari 709 Vol 5 etc). Rather, his support to dictators is amply proven by his acceptance of award from the Saudi monarch - his stand strengthens monarchy that is against our Prophet’s (SA) ideology.
He is widely respected and he must be a nice person – I’m not here to malign him personally. But his stand makes him and Jamat indigenously anti-democratic. Add this to my previous quotes and answer, - can support to slavery and rape of war-captives including “gifting” the girls (see attachments from his own) be democratic and Islamic?
• “The Islamic law on the point is that if the country of which these prisoners are nationals pays ransom, they will be released. An exchange of prisoners is also permitted. If neither of these alternatives is possible, the prisoners will be converted into slaves for ever. If any such person makes an offer to pay his ransom out of his own earnings, he will be permitted to collect the money necessary for the fidya (ransom) (Munir Report: page 225).”
• (Kindly refer to the scanned attachment below) - “Female prisoners of wars should be distributed among Muslim soldiers to have sex with them as they please without any bond of marriage. Furthermore, the military personnel should be permitted to exchange the captive girls among themselves (Tafheemat, part two, August 1951 edition, pages 290 – 324 and Tafseerul Quran, part one, edition 1951, page 340. Source: - “The Quranic concept of Nikah” by Akhtar Sherazi page 232(Also in explanation of Nisa 24 in Mawdudi’s Tafhimul Quran)).
This stand is clearly and strongly anti-democratic. He and his party want to fossilize us into tribal history while he himself admitted we need to update the anti-democratic structure of orthodox monarchy (so called Islamic State). Yet, he explains Al Ma'idah 48 in Tafheemul Quran: “Why do the religious laws propounded by the various Prophets differ in matters of detail? ….… It is God Himself Who altered the legal prescriptions TO SUIT DIFFERENT NATIONS AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES (Emphasis mine) …..”
That is exactly we want –our Islamic leaders must take Quranic guidance and develop our today’s specific need of secular democratic structure. But that could be hardly done because of his and Jamat’s strong anti-democratic orthodoxy.
It is unethical to claim all these quotes as “from here-n-there”; these are not guesswork or Maududi-bashing but analyses of a long journey through many hundreds of pages of his literature that make indisputable math. As of his and Jamat's activities 1971 and today's Pakistan are examples enough.
Salam to all, once again.