JI says no party can revive MMA on its own
Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) chief Syed Munawar Hassan said that no party has the right to revive the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) on its own.
Addressing a religious clerics’ convention arranged by the JI on Saturday, Hassan devoted his entire speech to criticising the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam –Fazl (JUI-F) over its attempt to revive the former religious alliance without the JI and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam -Sami (JUI-S).
Hassan implied that the JUI-F was responsible for the collapse of the MMA and claimed its revival was an attempt to undermine and blackmail other parties. He asserted the alliance was now being used as private property.
The JI chief claimed that the MMA was being made to support secularism by endorsing President Asif Ali Zardari. He also condemned the parliament’s committee on Kashmir, led by JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman and said it was ‘damaging the Kashmir issue’.
Clerics from the JUI-S, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Ideological, Jamiat Ulema Pakistan Noorani, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat and Jamiat Ittehadul Ulema Pakistan and other parties were also present.
The convention issued a declaration condemning the blasphemous movie and US interference in the country. It also denounced what it called the secularisation of Pakistan’s education system and propaganda against religious clerics and seminaries.
Furthermore, it called for a religious electoral alliance to contest secular forces in the upcoming elections. Lastly, the declaration insisted military operations be terminated and all issues in the region be resolved through dialogue and negotiations.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 4th, 2012.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Mj: “Would a true Islamic welfare state also charge jizya from minorities, and if the tax is refused, go to war against them?” .
A Muslim State is forbidden in the Noble Qur'an from initiating aggression, hostilities, or war...whatsoever. When war is imposed on an Islamic Shariah Compliant State than it becomes mandatory for all its Muslim citizens to contribute and volunteer towards the defense effort with their lives, treasure, wealth, property, sweat and blood...to the best of their ability.
Muslims also have to pay various taxes like Agricultural/Water or Riverine tax. Also Zakat and 'Kurz a Husna'---to the State, the poor and destitute. Zakat is fixed and mandatory. 'Kurz a Husna'---noble Loan to Allah---given to the orphan, widows, destitute, traveler, and the prisoner. It is not mandatory...but a voluntary contract between the Muslim and Allah. The Muslim cannot ask or even expect “Thank you” from the recipient of such a loan...even a desire or an expectation of thanks or return voids the 'Noble Loan' reducing it to the temporal Zakat.
The non-Muslim population of the Shariah State is NOT required to contribute, volunteer, are participate in the defense/war effort or give Zakat or any charity whatsoever. However, they are required to pay a Zakat comparable tax to the State, for all services they get as residents. This tax, comparable but distinguished from Zakat and its religious connotations, is called Jizzia.
As a perspective consider the very many taxes levied in the US: Income; Property; Estate; Sales; State and County Taxes; Others...
@Haroon Choudhry: I am a patriot above all other worldly obligations - with the exception of my family. I bleed Green.
if pakistan is to be a secular state then why it is departed from india then it should be united again with india. Banladesh was departed because of secular people not isiamists
if pakistan is to be a secular state then why it is departed from india then it should be united again with india
These old bearded man are not going to attarct anyone. They are still stuck in 1000 year AC. Their thinking full of hatred, subjugation of women, Jihadi terrorism, stoning people, and etc. They will take Pakistan backward (which it has already travelled quiet a bit), but they certainly aren't going to take it forward.
@ReasonLogicJustice: I'm afraid I must disagree with your opinion, your founding facts and your premises. Your facts are grossly incorrect. 90% of the countries on this planet practice secularism. Thank you for mentioning Russia, China, India, the US. They are all strong examples of what can be achieved socially through tolerance and respect (on the whole - barring a grotesque minority of hateful individuals). Multiple analyses have shown that if the Arab nations didn't have oil (which constitutes a greater majority of their GDP's) to support their idea of welfare - they would not be able to afford the welfare-based luxuries that they currently do because welfare is economically inefficient. Additionally, Pakistan wasn't intended to be an Islamic (welfare) state - it was meant to be a sanctuary for the muslims of India to be treated fairly and equally regardless of their religious beliefs - ironic isn't it, that the muslims of Pakistan have become intolerant towards all other religions and islamic sects. That said:
Welfare breeds complacency and causes a downward spiral of economic productivity. Discuss.
@ADEEL:
Division of the country was not to create an Islamic state otherwise religious scholars of the then British India should have not opposed Pakistan movement. If Islam was the binding criteria, then East Pakistan should have not left the federation (& that is also after the death of thousands of people). Why to divide people in majority and minority? Someone in majority doesn’t mean that minority rights could be shelved. Qaid wanted a welfare state with equal rights for every man and woman regardless of his/her religion, sect, ethnicity.
Secularism has no place in the ideology of Pakistan. Pakistan is a Muslim/Islamic welfare state that when achieved can take far greater care of ALL its citizens than a secular state ever can. The Soviet Union, Russia, China, India, and US are examples where life, position, equity, freedom and justice can rationed and bought...the Laws of Allah are not for sale: They are the bases of an Islamic state.
@Roger: What about quaid e azam, he wanted an islamic welfare state??? A true islamic welfare state will utmostly cater for the rights of minorities...
Any party that does not support secularism clearly doesn't believe in the ideology of Pakistan - and is akin to the Taliban. Discuss.