Naveed e Fikr

Naveed’s Fikr (Omen of…)
Sibte Hasan
Preface:
Getting enraged ( mushtail hona) is akin to failure of the faculty of analysis (Quat e Istidlal). Ideas can be defeated only by better ideas and neither waywardliness (gumrahian), nor the iron walls of inquisition (ihtisaab) can not block the way of righteousness. In the spiritual empire of the Pope of Rome, inquisition was a long established department. In olden time , they used to burn books and their authors, but that did not keep new ideas from emerging. Religious edits (Fatwa) were issued against Sir Syed and Allama Iqbal, and all they achieved, was universal ridicule. Sir Syed’s work is now published officially, and the Allama is known as the philosopher of Pakistan.
Sages of the olden days did not look at what a person was but on what he said. They inducted intellectual reform on the principle. They accepted what they thought was the truth, and argued against the false ones with reasoned analysis.
But this glowing tradition is dying down. Sentimentality, narrow mindedness and intolerance overwh4elm the thought process so much that new ideas are spurned with out a thought.

Chap 1: Theocracy.
“In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state, where the mullahs would rule, who think it was their divine right…” M.A. Jinnah, February 1948.
Theocracy is a state in which supreme power/authority (Iqtidaar e Aala) resides, not in the people or its chosen representatives, but the ruler, after obtaining power by ‘other’ means, claims the legitimacy of a spokesman of God’s commandments.
In order to understand the concept, one has to comprehend the nature of the state (riyasat ki Nauiat ki wazahat), because since the advent of an Islamic state in Iran and Pakistan, certain circles try to offer the impression that the fact of conversion to Islam changes the nature of the state.
State id the most respected political organization of a self-governing region, which makes the people follow its orders through the agency of tyrannical and ideological means. The state has not existed forever, not did it descend from heavens. It is a man made social structure, which has evolved over the last 6,000 years.
State emerged when society got divided into classes and the means to acquire wealth, (land, the produce of the land and the instruments of production from the land) became the private property of a few.
State is not the oldest human empowered social organization. Families, extended families, biradiri (kin based groups) and tribes have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. They had norms and traditions, which had arisen out of social needs. The most venerable person was designated the head of the family, tribal head and the village chief (gaon ka Mukhia). Governance was based on traditions, which though they were only moral imperatives, had to be obeyed by every one. In the times of the prophet of Islam, tribal system prevailed in Mecca and Madina. There was no state. In Madina, tribes lived in their own enclosures (Chahar deewari) and were autonomous in their internal affairs. There was no central organization of the city
In Mecca, which was the most important religious and trade city, tribes were self-governing, but there did exist a loose coalition of tribal chiefs, which had allocated the duties/functions of the hajj and trade. There was no standing army, the defense of the city was the duty of every healthy adult and in times of war, a suitable person was chosen as the commander.
Older organizations and the state are further distinguished by the fact that the unity of olden systems was based on blood kinship, religious beliefs and language, whereas a state is a regional and geographic political entity, which is not based on blood relations, but can encompass more than one tribe, race, language and creed. Further the older entities were classless, with no ruler and ruled. The very basis or the state, on the other hand is inherently class based. Its function is to secure and safeguard the interests of the rulers, whether it be theocracy, democracy, monarchy or socialism. Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring p 247) “state is not an entity which could have been imposed from on above on the society…it is product of the society and emerges at a certain stage of social evolution…its existence establishes the fact that society is now entangled in an insoluble contradiction…with uncompromising conflicts…but lest they demolish society, a force is required over and above society to moderate the conflict…”
Initially it was city states which emerged in the Bronze age on river coasts. With the use of Bronze devices surplus production was ushered in, which led to division of labor, trade, markets, bazaars and cities. The center of the city was the prayer house (Ibadat Gah), which had contributed a great deal to creation of the state. Irrigation projects, regional wars and the institution of slavery also helped.
Early states were all theocratic, whether they be in the Nile valley, Euphrates Valley or the Ganges, Yamuna valley. The temples and the clergy were the most influential and wealthy institutions of any particular area. The settlements were named after the god/goddess in the temple. In fact the whole settlement was supposed to be their property, for example the capital of Upper Egypt, Thebes belonged to the god Ammon Ra, Memphis of lower Egypt to bull god, in Western Iraq, it was god Inki, in Arek Anu god, Nefer to wind god In Leel and Ur the property of moon god Aninna.
With the traffic of pilgrims, shopkeepers, money lenders, traders and members of other professions settled in the neighborhood. The localities became the center of cities and then city states.
Maha Prohats (chief priests) of the temples were the chiefs of the rulers of the city states and were regarded as the representatives of sky gods on earth. In Sumerian language, the word for head of the state is “Patesi”, which literally means Prohat-Rajah. In the ancient Egyptian lingo, Horus was the common word for god and king. One can get an idea of the wealth of Prohat-Rajas from the fact that of all the slabs (Lauh) unearthed out of the ruins of South Iraq (25,000), 95% have the accounts of the prayer houses (Maabad) inscribed on them. Only 5% have hymns, songs, stories and Ashloks. The Prohat-Raja had unrestricted authority in religious affairs, as he was regarded as the deputy to and only answerable to god, but in temporal affairs, he had to abide the decisions of a consultative assembly (Majlis e Shoora), which was an organization comprised of the notables of the city. It had the responsibility for maintenance of canals, law and order, court and arbitration systems. In addition there was a ‘house of aristocrats’ as well. Decisions in both houses, were made per tribal custom, by consensus.
The system of dual responsibility and limited democracy could not last long as city-states fought with each other constantly. The situation proved most favorable for rule by an individual, as during a war all authority had to be inevitably assigned to the commander, called Logal-big man in Sumerian. The office was initially temporary, and authority had to be returned to the consultative council (Majlis e Shoora) after cessation of the emergency conditions, but the catch was that only the Logal was competent to announce the end of emergency. Over time, the Logal decided to prolong the state of emergency, and the Logal became the head of the state. But the system of consultative council (Majlis e Shoora) survived for a while, as indicated by line in the Story of Gil Gamesh “Gil Gamesh forced his way into the house of Majlis e Shoora, though the premises belonged to the people”. Gradually, rulers came to rely more on their ministers and advisers.
In the early stages, the king had Iqtidar e Aala (over all authority), but courts and Muqanana remained in the hands of the Prohats, who made laws in accordance with religious commandments (Shariah), and decided as to what legitimate under the creed, and what punishment to give for various crimes, what were the duties of the people, so that the division of labor not only offered the kings the collaboration of the priestly class, but also gave them legitimacy under religion.
The kings not only did not interfere with the status (waqar) and administration of the prayer houses (Ibadat Gahoan), but also awarded them gifts. Repair of the houses was a religious duty of all citizens, and the king led the ceremony.
The Prohats accepted the arrangement with alacrity and sacralised the king as god, incarnation of god (Autar), and deputy to god. The convention lasted a long time. In the Muslim period, kings were addressed as ‘shadow of god (Zille Ilahi). Among others, the advice given by Qazi Mavardi in “Ahkam al Sultania-ordinances of the Empire), Imam Ghazali in “Naseehatul Mulook”-advice to the kings, Nizamul Mulk Toosi in “Siyasat Nama”-Chronicle of Politics, Abu Nasr Farabi in “Al Ara Madinatul Fazila”-the views on the sacred city, Ibne Khaldoon in “Tareekh”-History, through misinterpretation of “Ateeullah wa Atteurasool (obey god and his prophet) and Ululamar Minkum (obey the ruler), to obey the ruler, is no different from the dicta of Prohats dating to 6,000 years ago.
In olden times, the state did not have resources to keep an standing army or police, to coerce the public into obedience, it became necessary to devise belief systems to inculcate the culture of abiding by state rules and regulations (Pakistan and Iran are not exclusive ideological states). In Babylon, Egypt, Iran, Greece, Palestine, India and China, the state was, therefore, deemed a gift from god (attiya e Khudavandi), the ruler a god, or his incarnation and the laws and rules commandments of god.
In Arek in South Iraq, the king Atu Hegel (2120-2114 BCE) compiled a list of kingdoms in the Euphrates valley, ‘descended from the heavens’. The first was in Aredo, the oldest Sumerian city, lasted for 64,800 years, between just two kings, then was shifted to…and then ‘the earth was flooded’.
After the flood, another kingdom descended from the heavens, but this one lasted, between 23 kings, only 24,500 years (Will Durant: Our Oriental Heritage Vol 1 p 147-201).
The laws descended from ‘on above’. When the first Pharaoh, Meneses (3,400 BCE) united upper and lower Egypt in his kingdom, and inducted the first laws, he claimed that the code of laws had been conferred upon him by the moon god (Toth).
His successors went beyond that and declared themselves sons of the great god Ammon Ra (sun) and claimed divinity and combined the offices of secular and religious rule.
The mode of transmission of divine edicts was very similar. Access to the sky was not possible, so the top of mountains became the sign of ‘on above’ and kings started receiving god’s commands there. Hamurabi’s slab in the Louvre museum has the sun god awarding the manuscript (khareeta) of the constitution to him. This was, of course, the first written constitution of the world. In the preface it states “At the time, the great god Anum and the master of the earth and sky, In Leel, who determines all fates, appointed Marduk the ruler of the whole mankind and conferred the great name to Babylon, and conferred fazeelat (superiority) to it above all other places, at the same time, Anum and In Leel nominated me. I am Hamurabi, Mardak is pleased with me, goddess Ishtar is happy with my achievements. I make people follow laws. Marduk directed me to guide the people on a righteous path, guard the country, so I inducted law and justice in the country’s language.
Tradition would have it that Minos, the king of Crete received the slabs on law from god Zeus on the mount Dicta. Greeks believed that god Dionysus had laws inscribed on two stone slabs and sent them down to earth. The Iranian belief was that the prophet Zartisht climbed a mountain and pleaded with god Hormuzd. Then lightening fell (Bijli chamki) , the sky screamed (Aasmaan Garja), Hormuzd descended on the mountain and bestowed the book of laws to Zirtisht.
Exactly the same incident happened to Moses, “And god descended on the mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mount and said that I will give you stone slabs and the commandments I have written on them, so you can teach them” (Book of Exodus chap 24, p12)
Darius, the great (522-468 BCE) had a similar declaration (Farmaan) inscribed on the Naqsh Rustam hill. Laws descended from the heavens in Sparta too.
India, china and Japan were not left out of heavenly commandments. In Manu Smirti, believed to be a 4th century BCE writing equates the ruler with a god and states that “Bhagwan created the ruler (Raj Pati) to protect all people (Jeo). He is a composite of the eternal grains (Abadi Zarrat) of Indra Vayo (wind/air),Yum (death), Suriyya (sun), Agni (fire), Varuna, Chandrama (moon) and Cobair (god of wealth)…thus beware no one disobey the Raja…”. Manu (the law giver) does not camouflage the tyrannical power of the state, in stead, he deems even the punishment sacred, because the staff/staff (Danda) is the son of god Brahma and the protector of all creations. “The wise equate the stick/staff with the law (Manu Smirti: Ed A. Buhler, p 216, Oxford, 1886).
Chinese rulers also called themselves the progeny of the heavens ‘T’ien Tse’ and represented the god above. They combined the offices of secular and religious rulers…if a king lost a war or was deposed by the people, the explanation (Taveel) was that god had deprived him of his caliphate (Hemrich Zimmler :Philosophies of India p 97 NY 1953). They ruled till 1911.
In Japan, the situation obtained till 1945. The king was called sun god. No Japanese dare look him in the eyes. WW II reduced the Emperor to a ceremonial status.
According to the so called monotheistic creeds (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), the dual role of prophet and king was first bestowed on David. Even Moses, the emancipator of bani Israel, did not ascend the throne. What social circumstances led to the abandonment of an ancient tradition? When bani Israel left Egypt after living there for 430 years (in 1220 BCE), they numbered 600,000 per the book of exodus. It is highly inflated number (considering the estimated world population at the time). They were divided into twelve tribes and hundreds of families (Khandan). Every tribe had a headman and a council of elders, which functioned as the court as well. Tribes only cooperated with each other under an emergency. They were so independent and bull headed that Moses had a hard time keeping them united and obedient to God’s commandments. (The nationality of Moses is hotly disputed by Western scholars. Some including Freud, who was Jewish himself, claim that Moses is not a Hebrew word, but an abbreviation of the ancient Egyptian word Ahmos. Freud opines that Moses was a courtier of the unitarist (Wahdaniat parast) Pharaoh Akhnatun. After the Pharaoh’s death, the Prohats overturned (Takhta ulat diya) the unitarists, and Moses led the god fearing (Khuda parast) Israelis out of Egypt).
After wandering for forty years in the deserted lands of Sinai and Faran, they entered Canaan, where there were numerous tiny kingdoms of Amqeelis, Moebs and Fistions (p 21). The Israelites massacred them in hundreds of thousands, seized their orchards and farms and Takistans. The pillage continued for a long time till various tribes of Israel settled in different areas in the region.
But they maintained their social norms, and designated Qazis (Cadis) who ruled according to Mosaic Shariah (codes). This was the beginning of theocracy, though no state had been established yet. There was no king yet (The Book of Qazzat chap 17:6).
Because of the massacres non-Israelites states hated them, and Israelis were always on guard against their attack. They fought together over the loot as well, and class distinctions had started emerging in the tribes themselves, and a central authority had become a necessity.
The emergence of a central authority has been dramatically described in The book of Samuel. Samuel was the Chief Qazi (Cadi) of bani (progeny) Israel (Israelites). Samuel all his life ran a court of law for the Israelites. He made extensive tours of Beit El, Jaljaal and Masafa…when he got old, he designated his sons as Cadis, but they did not follow his oath, were greedy, took bribes…Israelis went to him…to tell him that his sons did not follow his path, and requested him to designate a person as king (The Book of Samuel Chap 7 to15, 8:5) Samuel was cognizant of the reality of kingship and did not like the idea. He complained to God, who told him to accept the request, but apprise them of the consequences “and Samuel told those who sought kingship what God had told him and that whoever will rule over you as a king would enlist your sons as charioteers and cavalry men…others he will make farmers out of, to harvest his crops and to make weapons for him, and use your daughters as cooks and kitchen maids, will gift the better orchards and farms to his loyal servants, will take a tenth (tithe) for his servants, will use your servants, slave girls and good looking youth and donkeys for his use, and will take a tenth of your sheep and goats as well. You will become his slaves (ibid chap 8:10-18). But they insisted on getting a king and Samuel designated Saul, who was a warrior of the bani Yameen tribe.
Saul ruled for 13 years 1025-1012 BCE0, but could not get along with Israelites. Finally god was also put out and after his death designated not one of his progeny, but David, who was the arms bearer for Saul and belonged to the biggest Israeli tribe, Yeshiva, as the king.
David achieved fame when he killed Jaloot, the most famed wrestler of Palestinian and whom only Saul had hitherto taken on, on a
Battle-field. Saul was apprehensive that David would claim kingship after him and tried to eliminate him, but David escaped.
The offices of the religious and secular head, which were separate in the time of Saul were combined in one person, but had to be separated again after Solomon, son of David.
In ancient times, the divine (Uloohi) concept of state obtained universal acceptance among the believers and non believers (Kafir, Mushrik and Momin), that ruler-ship (hakimyat) and laws descend from on high.
The Prohati (clerical) concepts retained currency during monarchy, as they sustained the system. Further the means of production and economic structure did not change. The ownership of land was simply transferred from the hands of Prohats to that of the King and courtiers.
The agricultural system could not sustain any other ideas, as farmers are dependent on the vagaries of nature and due to lack of knowledge, could not comprehend the reasons. Religious leaders also persuaded them to believe that it was all in the hands of fate.
But theocracy was not just a feudal concept of the state. It was a social code of life (Muashrae ka zaabtai hayat). All ceremonials of birth, weddings and death, even the code of sexual act were codified. Over and above all were the codes of worship (Kaemiay Saadat by Imam Ghazali and Hujjatul Balagha by Shah Waliullah).
Theocracy was the opium of the people. The royal family, and aristocrats only paid lip service to it. The king did not share his divine privileges with any one. Members of the royal family and the aristocrats indulged in frequent rebellions, in which the shadows of god on earth were assassinated on a regularly irregular basis, victims of poison or sword and the throne changed hands. Of the nineteen kings of Israel, eight were assassinated. The same happened to Iranian and Indian kings.
As long as the king and the people subscribed to the same religion, compliance was not much of a problem. But when Romans captured Israel and tried to impose their codes, Israelites resisted and it all ended up in bloodshed. A compromise was finally reached that Israelite courts would deal with their own issues, but as Roman citizens, they would have to follow civic laws the “Unto Caesar and unto God” formula of Jesus, separating state from religion ( certain Muslim and clerics of other religions as well, object strongly to separation of the state and religion. Under the British, civil laws were different for Hindus and Muslims in India, but criminal laws were the same for every one. Where they are in a minority, Muslims have no other recourse).
Under absolute monarchy, religion became subservient to the state. Religious dogma, if it was compatible with state interest, was tolerated, but in case of conflict, Padres, Pundits and Muftis attached to the court gave religious edicts favorable to the court.
Under the theocratic dispensation, the king and the clergy were two stones of the mill which crushed the people between themselves (sar barah e mumlikat aur mazhabi idarae chakki kae doa paat thhe). Both obtained their rights through god’s commandments. The king was not answerable to any one. The clergy collaborated with the king and were suitably rewarded with offices and estates. They indoctrinated the people into obedience to the ruler. If people had followed them, they would still be ruled by absolute monarchs and colonial rulers (circa 2009 CE, the only Muslim country ruled by an unfettered elected government is Malaysia. In Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Algeria the army rules from behind the scenes. Iran is a theocracy. Other countries have satrapies or dictatorships).
After the end of Prohat Raj, religious leaders in the East never had political power (till the ayatollahs took over in Iran in 1979, or the brief and brutal Taliban rule in Afghanistan). Under Hindu Rajas, government was assigned to Rajputs, and guardianship of religion and advice to the king fell under the purview of Brahmins. In the Muslims, from Umayyad to Ottomans to the Moghals, the head of the state was never from among clerics. There never developed an institution like the roman Papacy. In fact, if a religious leader confronted the ruler, he was punished. Imam Abu Hanifa spent twelve years in jail and died there (among Sunni Muslims there are four schools of jurisprudence named after the four Imams-Abu Hanifa-Hanafi, Shafai after Imam Shafai, Maliki after Imam Malik and Hanbali after Imam Hanbal). Imam Hanbal was flogged on bare back. The governor of Madina Jafar ibne Suleman had Imam Malik tortured so his shoulder was dislocated. Qadris and Mutazallites (write about these) were deemed Kafirs, so there was no hesitation in killing them. But when these creeds got into favor under caliph Mamoon Rashid, they treated their erstwhile foes the way they had been treated. The great Ashraqi Sufi Shaikh Shahabuddin Suharwardy was killed under orders of Salahuddin Ayubi (Saladin), as his teachings were a ‘threat to Islam’.
On the contrary, in the West, the church emerged as a powerful political force. Before Constantine converted to King Christianity in 313 CE, numerous priests were crucified in Rome. Christians started doing to their opponents what had been done to them not too long ago.
The Pope claimed that he was the deputy (Khalifa) to Jesus on earth. Christianity was the state religion, and therefore, all laws must conform to the beliefs of the faith, and only the Pope could interpret and explain (Tashreeh wa Taveel) the tenets of the faith. The administration and court ( Muqanana aur adalia) must be subservient to the Church.
The downfall of Byzantines paralleled the rise of the clergy, and hundreds of thousands of priests appointed by the Pope spread far and wide over cities and villages. Like state officials, they were graded in ranks-Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, down to village priest. The clergy were not subject to state laws or courts. If they did not baptize a baby, it was outcaste, if they did not perform marriage rites, the progeny would be deprived of inheritance, if they did not perform death rites, the person would burn in hell. Only they could teach or establish schools.
The clergy had temporal power as well. It was the largest feudal landowner of Europe. They had, a fourth in Spain, a fifth in Britain, a third in Germany and a full half in France. All lands were free of state taxes, and all citizens were required to give a tenth of their income and produce to the church. Besides all that, the church was the recipient of additional gifts and offerings. Every one was supposed to bequeath a portion of their property to the church or they would burn in hell, forever.
In the middle of 8th century, the church was able to establish an independent state in Italy (Vatican), and as a head of a state the Pope started taking direct interest in European politics.
The Pope and senior clergy were chosen from the royal houses of Italy, live like kings. They could not marry but openly consorted with kept women. Like other feudal landowners, they looked down upon tradesmen and industrialists and to curb their growth, interest was strictly forbidden.
The first clash of the Roman church was with the royal houses of France, Germany, Spain and Britain. The rulers accepted the Pope’s spiritual superiority, but denied him the right to interfere in temporal affairs. The kings also complained that the church supported autonomous aristocrats and set them up against the kings. The conflict climaxed into an attack on Rome by the French king Phillip, the fourth, who arrested Pope Clemeneu. He shifted the church HQ to Onion, where the Popes had live under French supervision of 70 years (1309-1378 CE). Though the pope was allowed to return to Rome in 1378 CE, the Church never regained its prestige.
Historians call the 1000 year period (4th to 14th century CE), the Dark Age, as prejudice, narrow mindedness and superstition had blocked rationality. There were clerical courts all over the place, hundreds of thousands were arrested on charges of sorcery and atheism. They were flogged, their bones broken, dead bodies dragged on the streets and consigned to fire. Their homes were burnt and property confiscated.
The Church had monopoly on education and only taught the subjects which would potentiate religious beliefs.
In the waning days of the Middle Ages, especially in Italy, trade and industry developed and hurt the interests of the Church. Venice, Florence, Geneva and Milan established prosperous trades men’s republics. The emerging capitalist class gradually extended its hegemony over all major cities of Italy.
Trade and industry in the cities had an impact on rural life too. Indentured workers fled the lands of churchmen and other landowners and sought refuge in towns. Florence declared that all refugees would be considered free citizens.
Other West European cities followed suit and kings encouraged the decline of aristocratic authority. London and other cities acquired municipal administration, but on continental Europe, the church vehemently opposed municipal authority. Armed conflict between the church and municipalities ensued, eventually the church lost and Marseilles, Hamburg and Amsterdam gained municipal powers.
But transport of trade goods was greatly hampered by tariffs and transit fee imposed on by autonomous aristocrats, who had their own courts, jails, police and army. River Rhine had 62, Loire 74, Alb 35 and Danube had 77 Chungis (Tariff houses) Traders and capitalists demanded abolition of Chungis. The kings supported the demand.
During this period Europeans ‘discovered’ sea routes to India and America and the center of trade and industry shifted from Italy to Western Europe. A lot of industrial; firms were initiated and the East India company (1600 CE) ushered in the age of colonialism.
Printing press was invented in Germany in 1465 CE. That had far reaching effect. The clergy lost its monopoly on education, literacy increased and a lot of journals and books were published and some detailed with relish, the loose morals, greed and worldliness of nuns and priests.
We also owe the initiation of scientific discoveries and mind set to this period. The telescope of Galileo, gravity of Newton, the steam engine and electric power shook the foundations of clerical hegemony and ushered in social revolution. The clergy continued to insist that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it, but fewer and fewer people took them seriously.
The church reacted furiously. Bruno, though a priest, was burned alive. Galileo was tried in a court and had to retract. Scientific books were burnt. But the tide could not be stemmed.
Priests used to extract money from simple minded people for ‘pass to heavens’, and other amenities Church rebels, Martin Luther, Thomas Muenzez, Zwengeli and Calvin, protested and also hurt the church. The rebels were excommunicated and the protestant movement emerged. It urged the people to read the bible and pray in their own language, listen to reason and that there was no need of an intermediary between God and people.
The social changes had an impact on governance too. Trades men and industrialists demanded in a share and to gain support of the common people adopted human rights in their plank. In Britain king Henry the 8th (1509-1547) broke with Rome, confiscated church property and threw them out of schools. But the feudal system stayed. In fact Henry took on Rome under cover of the system. By the 17th century CE, the parliament in London was under the sway of trades people. They even started protesting taxation by king James I (1603-1625) with out their consent. “ City Freedoms (shehri azaadi), duties, amenities and the authority of the parliament are the ancient birth rights and heritage of the people…(1621 CE).
The king dissolved the parliament, arrested leading members, but the movement could not be suppressed and his successor Charles I (1625-1649) had to face a civil war, lost and was beheaded. Britain became a republic and the divine rights of kings died with Charles I.
Monarchy was restored in 1688 CE, but the landed aristocracy made a deal with the ascendant capitalists, and monarchy became subservient to the parliament.
It took Europe another hundred years to do away with theocracy. The French Revolution stuck the last nail in the coffin of theocracy. The three columns of the feudal system, monarchy, clergy and aristocracy were demolished and the Vatican was reduced to 19 acres.
The 17th and 18th centuries CE are dubbed the age of reason and enlightenment in Europe. It produced Bacon, Hobbs, Locke, Milton, Voltaire, Deredo, Olbach, Ellotesis, Gecindi, Descartes, La Marti, Kant, Espinoza, Rousseau, Libenz, Monteco (check spellings) and many others. Democracy, equality, representative government, division of rights, love of mankind, people’s sovereignty, socialism and communism came to be widely discussed.
The campaign to revive theocracy is an attempt to take human kind backwards in time. It promotes Taqleed (imitation) in stead of Ijtihad (innovation), tradition and Manqolaat (dicta) in stead of research and quest (Tahqeeq aur Justoju). It is last sigh and weapon of reactionaries (Zulmat parast) who want to impose theocracy under the camouflage of God’s reign.

Chap 2: The Islamic State
“ I can still recall the interminable official and private discussions of the early days of Pakistan on the ideology of the country (Nazaria), but not once did I hear any one mention the idea that abolition of poverty and illiteracy was also one of the objectives in the core ideas” Dr A. Salam, presidential address, 13th All Pakistan Science conference Dacca, January, 11, 1961.
Social institutions, ideas and beliefs ought to be studied with historic perspective, so the dynamics (Moharrikat was Awamil) which caused them to appear may be discovered. This discipline is known as Historical Mindedness (analytical study-refer to the book which details a study of the bible and establishes that it had multiple authors) with which scholars pf the past discovered the Shaan e Nuzool (the preceding circumstances of a particular Quranic ayat-verse).
Allama Iqbal laid great emphasis on the dynamic and evolutionary aspect the universe “Sabat ek tagayyur ko hai zamane mein-In life, only change is stable. He has referred to the theme in his poems “Saqi Nama, Irtiqa, Zamana and other poems. He has discussed the subject in details from the Quranic perspective, in his “Khutbaat e Madaris” Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam p 55, Lahore. Referring to Asharis, who accepted the existence of atoms, he said “the creative act of God continues…ibid 68”. He also believed in human evolution and deemed it to be in conformity with the spirit of the Quran and quoted Ibne Maskorea and Maulana Rom ibid 133…
The title of one of his addresses is the Dynamic Principle in Islamic Structure (check exact title). In his opinion Islam’s perception of the universe is dynamic. ibid 146…how does Islam act on the dynamic principle?. He responds, with Ijtihad-innovation ibid 151. To him, the false worship of the past (Maazi ka Ghalat Ihtiram) and traditionalism (Zabta saazi) was a negation of inner impulse of Islam. He lauded the Turks, who had innovatively abolished the Caliphate.
The perception of the rulers and Maulanas of Pakistan is diametrically opposite of the views of the person, they do not tire of calling the philosopher and Hakeemul Ummat (the wise man) of Pakistan. In the view of the former, Islam is life less stone idol, which is impervious to the upheavals of time, though the last 14 centuries have wrought innumerable alterations in the life of Muslims, in social relations, means of production, social values, traditions, mode of living, food and dress, state system and constitution, laws and codes, morals and habits and the way of thinking and feeling. Knowledge and arts have been transformed. We use electric rather than oil lamps and travel in cars, railways and air planes, and not on camels. We sleep on beds, not mats, write with pens, use phone, watches, radio, TV, air conditioner and refrigerators. But Mullahs discount all entirely.
But reality, viewed aside from the period and time (zaman wa Makan), would tell us why a certain reality emerged/appeared at a certain time, and why it dissolved away. Slavery was a common practice and Aristotle has vigorously supported it. It was extensively practiced in the time of the prophet of Islam, but under current international laws, slavery and sale of flesh (Barda Faroashi) are crimes. If some one like Maulana Maududi claims that slavery-male and female- were still legitimate, it would ant-historic argument (Ghair Tareekhi Istidlal). On the other hand if one viewed the past with the spectacles of the modern times, and objected to the approval of such practices by the prophet and Aristotle, that would also be ant-historic attitude, because in both arguments, the historic perspective has been set aside.
The other glaring example is that of Ghazwat e Nabvi (the prophet’s raids). From the modern perspective, they look like loot. But history tells us that it was a common practice among Arabs, and seizing the livestock, assets and humans of the opponent was a norm.
The insistence on establishing a Islamic state in Pakistan on the pattern of the prophet and the four righteous successors’ government is also based on the same anti-historic mindset. The proponents do not have a conception of the dynamics of Islam. They do not comprehend the fact that the type of state is predicated upon the prevailing conditions of living. They do not realize that the objective conditions of the state of Madina can not return. They do not want to learn /face the inner contradictions which transformed the righteous caliphate into an absolute monarchy, after a short 32 years. The terror, cruelty and anti-Islamic measures of the dynasties are glossed over or apologetics are resorted to.
Let us consider the conditions under which the state of Madina was established. Before the prophet, there was no state as such in Hejaz, though in the surrounding regions there was the Sassanian empire in Iran, Byzantines and their Arab satrapies in Hira, Ghassan and Yemen. So Hejazis (people of hejaz) were not unaware of the system, but had never felt the need to adopt it. At the instance of Byzantines, one Usman bin Horace, a wealthy Meccan of the Bani Asad tribe had planned to become the king, but a fellow tribesman, Aswad bin Al Muyallib had exposed the intrigue (W. Montgomery Watt: Muhammad at Mecca Oxford 1965 p 15).
There were only three noteworthy cities in Hijaz- Mecca, Yasrib (Medina) and Taif. Mecca, with a population of 10,000, was the largest and because of Kaaba, which was visited by thousands of Arabs during the Hajj, the most important. No body could enter the city with arms during the Hajj. The city held a huge bazaar, and competition between poets. Due to its location as a trades route from and to Yemen, Syria and Ethiopia, it had become a great trade center. Meccans charged the caravans for room, board and tariff. Trade was their livelihood, as nothing grew there. They used Byzantine currency. Some reports would have it that there were silver mines near Mecca (Life of the Prophet vol 1 Karachi by Allama Shibli Nomani).
The majority of Meccans were polytheists Quresh, but Christians, Majusis and theists (Wahdaniat parast) of deen e Haneef also lived there. The particular God of Quresh was Allah, but Quresh also worshipped Uzza (the morning star-Zohra) and Hubal (soul or air). Hubal's idol occupied the most prominent location in Kaaba. There were no Jews.
All tribes were autonomous, but there was loosely constituted council consisting of notables of the city for common affairs, which was called ‘Mallai’ made decisions by consensus. Different tribes were assigned different duties, but inner equality in the tribes was losing ground.
Bin Jarham were the early inhabitants of Mecca, but were subjugated by Ghazai, from whom one Quresh, Qassai snatched control ( according to Ibne Ishaq, he married the daughter of the Ghazai, the caretaker of the Kaaba).. The word Quresh literally means Tegha fish, which probably was their totem.
After Qassai died his sons Abd Munaf and Abduldar started fighting over the inheritance and were backed by different groups of tribes. Finally Bani Abd Munaf was assigned the function of offering drinking water to the pilgrims (Saqawa) as well as collecting tariffs (Rafada). Bani Abduldar got the right to call the Mallai, the key of the Kaaba and the authority to appoint the Alambardar (flag carrier).
After Abd Munaf died, there was a tussle between his sons Hashim and Abdul shams. After Hashim died, Shams’s son Umayya got the upper hand, and thus started the rivalry between Bani Hashim and Bani Umayya.
Medina, situated in the middle of an oasis, was on the other hand, fertile. It was actually not a city but a collection of hamlets and farms spread over some twenty square miles. It was surrounded by hills, rocks and arid uncultivable land. The range of oasis went to Fidak, Khyber and Tabuk.
Medina had a mixed population. There were three Jewish tribes, Qinio Qaa, who were goldsmiths and money lenders, and Bani Nazeer and Bani Qareeta, who owned fertile lands. Jews were the most prosperous settlers. A few Arabs had preceded Jews in Medina. Most of them belonged to Bani Oas and Bani Khazraj, but had gradually divided into supplementary tribes and had intense rivalry with each other.
“Every tribe was a tiny autonomous state with in itself. Shedding blood of a fellow tribesman was an unforgivable crime, so peace was held inside, but life was not safe outside its or an ally’s confines (Montgomery Watt: Muhammad at Medina p 173, Oxford 1962).
Medinan tribes were not prepared to accept any one’s over lordship. The only security was the fear of revenge.
Oas and Khazraj had fought a war at Baas (617 CE). It was not decisive, had hurt both terribly and ended in temporary truce. They had exhausted themselves fighting and were looking for a peaceful and honorable deal.
These were the objective conditions under which the prophet of Islam gave the call of Islam to Meccans, offering the people unity of God, universal brotherhood and an egalitarian social concept above considerations of cast, color, race, nation, homeland or tribe. But the idea was not acceptable to Meccans, who depended on trade and Hajj for their livelihood and could resolve their differences in the Mallai and unlike Medinans were not victims of incessant internecine blood shed. The prophet could, thus, gather only about 150-200 adherents after 12 years of work.. “What arrayed Meccans against him, prophet hood and its political implications, were the very factors which gave hope of peace and amity to Medinans”( Montgomery Watts ibid). Representatives of Oas and Khazraj collectively accepted Islam, the leadership of the prophet in Al Aqaba in 622 CE and invited him to move to Mecca establishes that both tribes were sick of the sanctity of blood relations.
The prophet used to offer the message of Islam during Hajj and other festivals. When before the war at Baas, Bani Oas sent a delegation to Mecca to seek the help of Quresh against Bani Khazraj, the prophet advised them to refrain from fighting, and that he could offer something better, Islam which offered the good news of peace and amity and worship of Allah and recited a few verses of the Quran to them “Then Ayaas, who was young said, by god people, this is better than what you are here for”. But he was silenced (Ibne Ishaq English translation p 197).
In 620CE, the prophet came across six members of Banu Khazraj in Al Aqba. They were allies of the monotheistic Jews of Medina. When they heard the prophet, they said that no other people are as disunited as we are, converted to Islam and expressed the hope that god would unite us through you (prophet) and let us go to Medina and invite you to your faith. If we are united, no one will be more powerful than us (ibid p 198).
The following year twelve persons visited Mecca from Median, nine from Bani Khazraj and three from Bani Oas. They all accepted the faith, and the prophet sent Musaab bin Umair with them to teach them Islam and lead prayers because neither tribe would accept an Imam from the other side (ibid p 199). He converted people from other clans to Islam as well.
The prophet met the pilgrims from Medina for the third time in June, 622 CE. During the encounter, 73 men and 2 women from different tribes converted to Islam.. the pledged to protect the prophet through thick and thin (ibid p 208). They also invited Muslims to migrate to Medina and they, in small groups. The prophet migrated on July 16, 622 CE and arrived in Median in September and stayed in the home of Abu Ayub Ansari, who was related to the prophet’s grand father Abdul Muttalib.
One of the reason Medinans accepted Islam spontaneously and Meccans only after they conceded defeat, was that people of Median felt close to the prophet, a relative who did not desire a share in the oases and lands, one who will be impartial and just (the prophet had been related to Bani Khazraj for four generations. His grandfather, Hashim was married to Salma bint Umar (Bani Bukhar). Salma was a lady of high status and would marry only on the condition that she would manage her own affairs, and would divorce the husband if she did not like him. She had been married before she married Hashim and stayed with her son Abdul Mutallib in Medina.
In Median, the prophet faced several problems. First was too to resettle the immigrants. Second was to make the concept of one people more effective and popular, so the civil wars among Medinans would stop, peace and amity flourish and Islamic solidarity grow deep roots, third undermine the trade hegemony of Meccans, which was the biggest impediment in the way of wide acceptance of Islam and finally make a treaty of peace and friendship with the Bedouin around Medina.
During the time of the prophet, the Islamic state passed through two phases, the first the Peace Treaty of Medina (Meesaq e Medina) to victory at Khyber, the second from Khyber to the victory over Mecca.
The peace treaty is a historic document, presented in Ibne Ishaq’s “Seerat Rasul Allah”, the Life of the prophet, but he does offer he got hold of it, neither the date nor the place, the document was signed. Historians believe, the Meesaq is a collection of several documents. Montgomery Watt opines that the first part relates to the occasion of acceptance of Islam by members of Bani Khazraj (Bait ul Harab), as it relates to the peace deal between Medinan tribes, the articles related to Jews are from the same period or early post Hijra (prophet’s migration to Medina).
The agreement was among Muslims, so the first article is about the unity of God and acceptance of the prophet hood of Muhammad. Jews were also included in the Ummah, though they were not a part of the agreement “the deen (religion) of Jews for them, and the deen of Muslims for the Muslims”. A very significant article of the treaty is declaring Medina, an abode of peace (Darul Aman), but that offered no immunity to mischief makers or traitors (Khatawar or Ghaddar). “If you disagree on something, refer to God and Muhammad”. “No member of the Ummah will take part in a war with out Muhammad’s permission”.
The treaty did not stipulate that Medinans would obey the prophet, nor did it affect the autonomy of the tribal chiefs, but they had accepted him as spiritual guide and had surrendered decisions about going to war and arbitration of disputes to him.
Jung e Badr (The Badr war) was decisive/tide turning event, which sowed the seeds of a state. The booty was distributed among the immigrants, so they were no longer dependent on the Ansar (indigenous people of Medina) foe sustenance. A few months later Banu Qinoo Qa (Jewish tribe), who controlled the biggest bazaar of the city, are expelled, allowing the immigrant tradesmen facilities for business and the immigrants and locals are freed of the loans they owed Qinoo Qa. A year later Banu Nazeer are also expelled and the massacre of Banu Qareeza (another Jewish tribe who had acted as fifth columnists for Meccan invaders in the only war with the Uhad war, which Medinans lost), the lands and oases of the Jews are given over immigrants and a few indigent Ansars (locals).
Medina was now exclusive to Muslims and the prophet controlled the distribution not only of the war booty, but also of the lands of the enemies, and he now combines the offices of spiritual as well as the temporal ruler of the incipient state. The same year, Quran handed down the law of inheritance. The prophet dispatched ambassadors to Iran, Egypt, Constantinople, Yemen and Ghassan, with letters of invitations to accept Islam. The letters from the prophet do not advocate any particular mode of government, nor do they criticize the current form. Peace agreements are also signed with the Bedouins around Medina.
The next step is victory over Khyber. According to Shibli Nomani, this was the first Ghizwa (religious war) after which non-Muslims were made subjects (Riaya) of the state and a mode of government was enunciated (Tarze Hukoomat ki bunyad Qaim hoi-Seerat un Nabi-Life of the Prophet. P 480-500). There were no Muslims in Khyber and none wanted to live there., so the prophet made the Jews share-croppers on the land (per custom of the time, the losing party lost all claim to assets/property previously theirs). The same procedure was adopted in Fidak, the Al Qari valley and Teema. Historians believe that some part of the land was kept as collective property of all Muslims, and the rest as private property of individuals (Seerat un Nabi: vol 2 p 82, compiled by Syed Suleman Nadvi).
Writing about the events of 9th year post Hijra, Shibli Nomani says “the era of peace in the state has arrived, there are opportunities to acquire wealth and Zakat law ( religious charity obligatory on well to do)was promulgated, Zakat collectors were also appointed…Riba (usury) was also forbidden (Seerat un Nabi p 572). With the victory over Mecca and appointment of Vaalis (viceroy/administrators) in Yemen, Hazr Maut, Teema, Najran, Mecca, Oman and Bahrain, the Medina was now functioning as a state, though it did not have an army, police, administrators, ranks, consultative assembly…separate/sequestrated from the people (Seerat un Nabi vol 2 p 59 Syed Suleman Nadvi). By definition, it was a city state, though three fourth of Arabia was subject to it. It was a theocracy, as the prophet of god was the supreme rules, who issued orders based on Quranic injunctions.
But the core questions are whether Islam was sent in order to establish a state, if god favored one mode of government over another, if the sole purpose/objective of the message of the prophet was to establish a theocracy? History and rationality respond in the negative. God is not concerned if the government was monarchy, dictatorship or socialist. If that had been so, He would have apprised humans of his will and all the social/political experiments of the last 5-6,000 years would not have been necessary. In the Quran, Abraham does not object to the absolute rule of Namrood (Nimrod), but only to his claim to be God. Yusuf (Joseph) takes employment under a Pharaoh. Moosa (Moses) does not oppose the mode of government of a Pharaoh, only to his claim to God hood. Suleman (Solomon) combines the offices of prophet and king. The prophet of Islam invited different kings to accept Islam, and did not refer to the mode of government at all.
One can infer from the foregoing that God had made humans autonomous in the choice of government. Syed Suleman Nadvi writing of the objective of the call of the prophet (Boasat e Nabvi) says “the objective of the call was invitation to the religion, reform of morals and ascetism (Tazkia Nafoos). All other duties were merely supplementary (Zimni). He only imposed administrative dicta only to the extent that anarchy (Bad amni) might not impede the dissemination of the call (ibid p 59).
The emergence of a state in Medina was owed to the same historic dynamics because of which other settlements transformed into cities and cities into city-states.
Professor Qamaruddin, a highly accomplished academician, wrote an article in the Daily Dawn (the leading English daily of Pakistan) published on august 14, 1980 CE, titled “Islam is a social system (Muashra) not a political system” (Islam eik muashra hai, na kae siyasi nizam). The objective of Islam was not to establish a state, neither the Quran directs Muslims to establish a Islamic state. “The foundational concept of the philosophy of politics is state…but there is no detailed or practical concept (Ajmaali Nazaria) of a state in the Quran…The Quran did not in fact dwell (Tashrih) on any principle of state. No where can we find in the Quran a mention of constitution Dastur e Assas) or supreme authority (Iqtidaar e Aala), or the principle of franchise, human rights, political institutions or code of organizations. The Quran is silent on all these issues as the meaning and sense of the concepts change with historic evolution….the absence of any reference to a state or state constitution is a good augury for Muslims, as they may keep up with times and deal with new conditions and circumstances…the Sunnah (traditions of the prophet, composite of his sayings and examples from his acts) is also silent and explains why his immediate successors adopted differing procedures of succession the first caliph was chosen by a consensus of immigrants, the second was nominated by the first, the third by arbitration and the fourth by public acclamation following the anarchic situation obtaining after the assassination of the third). ..In the early days of Islam, there was no conjectural discussion (Qayas arai) on Quranic state. It started only in the early Abbasid period and the concept of caliphate was solely based initially on non-credible ( Ghiar moatabar) Ahadees (sayings of the prophet) and later historic events dictated it. The concept of caliphate had nothing to do with the Quran. It was the product of political maslahat (necessity) and religious requirements and were all invented in the monarchical period…misinterpretation (Ghalat tarjumani) of the Quran is repetitious (Bil takrar) tradition of Islamic history. Thus even in current times, some Maulanas sequestrate isolated (Ikka, dukka) verses of the Quran from their context and use them to support unrelated views and institutions…formation of a state, rather than revival of faith is being currently emphasized, and that the state should be equated with faith (Jamaat e Islami’s slogan “Pakistan ka matlab kya, La illaha illal lah-the meaning/ reason for existence of Pakistan-there is no god, but god.. It is rather difficult to explain and comprehend why so much work is being put in a function which God himself did not deem proper. He could easily have detailed the principles and structure of a state…State is one function among several of the society. Society changes with time and passes through evolutionary stages, therefore, the Quran did not ordain principles of state…that is why the great scholars like Imam Shafai, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, imam Ghazali and Ibne Tammayya serve hereditary states…it is said that prophets were sent to establish political states based on divine commandments. If that claim is true, most prophets failed in their mission. But the truth is of all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, none was given any commands that it was their function to establish an Islamic state on earth. All they were told was to preach good deeds, avoidance of evil and worship of the maker. The reason behind the conflict between the prophet and Meccans was not the prophet wanted to establish any particular form of government, but that he had rejected idolatry…it is said that sovereignty belongs to Allah, not to the people, but it should be obvious that god would not come down and make decisions, people would and claim legitimacy in the name of god. Islamic history is replete with the worst kind of oppression ushered in, in this mode”.
The political concepts in Islam are derived from the opinions of opinions of the Sahaba (companions of the prophet) and the policies of the righteous caliphs (Sunnis among the Muslim, call the first four caliphs, the righteous ones). They do not have any scriptural sanction. The concept of state was never used in Muslim history till the 20th century CE.
The so called Islamic parties extract ideas of state, that they have invented themselves, from the Quran and Hadis by taking verses out of context. This illicit/illegitimate (Beja) use of the Quran started in the Umayyad and was further nurtured in the Abbasid Imperium. There is an abundance of such masterpieces. Even Imam Ghazali (1058-1111)was not immune “You should know that God created two superior classes among the progeny of Adam, one the prophets and two, the kings…, because God says Ateeullah wa Ateerurasool wa oola al mer minkum” (Naseehatul Mulook, vol 2) though the verse of Surat un Nisa has no relevance to obedience to rulers. Abul Hasan Ibne Ahamd al Wahdi (d 1075 CE) describes the context of the Surah (Shaan e Nazool-context/background/precipitating cause) “It is attributed to Abdullah bin Abbas that this ayah was revealed in the chapter on Abdullah ibne Hadifa, whom the prophet had sent on a campaign. Ibne Abbas also relates it to the campaign the prophet had sent Khalid bin Waleed ( a famous and highly successful Muslim warrior of the prophet’s time) against an Arab tribe. Ammar bin Yasir had gone along and gave sanctuary-panah) to an Arab who had just converted to Islam. Khalid arrested him. Ammar told Khalid that the man had converted and was in his protection and to release him. Khalid snubbed Ammar, that he not Ammar was the commander and had no right to make the offer. On return, both presented their case to the prophet, who decided in favor of Ammar that it was right to offer sanctuary to a new Muslim (Nau Muslim), but also that sanctuary should not offered except with permission of the commander (Asbaab e al Nazool, published by the Indian Press (Matbaa Hindia, Cairo 1375 H).
During the Abbasid period many Ahadees (sayings of the prophet) were concocted which purported obedience to the ruler obligatory. Maulana Maududi quotes one from Imam Bukhari’s Kitabul Ahkam- the book of orders p 142 “listen and obey, though even a Negro be made your chief”.
Establishment of the state in Medina facilitated the spread of Islam and offered astonishing increase in the means of acquisition of wealth, but failed to offer stability to the Ummah, because that required collectivity and in Medina, the emphasis was on individualism and the economic structure promoted private property. The contradictions had been overshadowed by the personality of the prophet, came out in the open as soon as he passed on. Even before, he was buried the notables among the Ansar (the natives of Medina) gathered in Saqifa Bani Saida, and chose Saad bin Abadah as the head of the state. When Umar heard the news, he took Abu Bakr along to the place. Imam Abul Hasan Ali Mavardi writes of what transpired at the meeting/confrontation “Abu Bakr offered the reason for preferring him (for the office) that he was of the Quresh. Though they had sworn allegiance to Saad bin Abadah, yet Abu Bakr offered the saying of the prophet that Imams will be from among the Quresh. They (Ansars) accepted the saying and…said one of us should be a leader (Ameer) and one of you too, be a leader. Abu Bakr offered that I will be the Ameer, and you be the Vazier (minister). The Ansars accepted that (Al Ahkam al Sultania by Imam Mavardi Lahore p 5-6). *This is the Sunni version of the event. They also potentiate their argument by saying that the prophet, while on the death bed, had asked Abu Bakr to lead the prayers in his place, thus anointing him the successor. Shia believe that the prophet had designated Ali, his cousin, the first to accept Islam, unarguably the most learned man among the Muslims of the time, the bravest among braves and husband of the prophet’s favorite daughter Fatima. Umar, according to them, pulled Saad bin Abadah off the floor, screamed at him, tore at his beard and shouted at the gathering that the prophet had designated Abu Bakr as his successor and they better accept I or else. Considering the temper of Umar, the Shia version seems more credible, and the story of his conversion bears it out, he had gone to visit his sister who had secretly become a Muslim, and heard her reciting the Quran. He barged in and demanded that the parchment be handed over to him. The sister told him that she would rather be killed than hand over the holy script to a non-believer. Umar beat her up, bloodied her head, while her husband looked on (no comment on the man’s cowardice). Umar was impressed by her passionate faith and asked her to recite verses for him. He was convinced, wept and proceeded to the home of the prophet, whose followers prepared to defend him. The prophet asked them to hold their peace, that Umar did not have aggressive intentions. Thus Allah granted the prophets prayers-he wanted Umar or Abu Jahal (find real name, the prophet called him that because of his mulish behavior.
During the righteous caliphate, disunity and inner conflict kept pace with victories and expansion. A large number of Yemeni Muslims were killed for non-payment of Zakat. Retraction also raised its head. Three of the four caliphs were martyred. Iraq and Egypt rebelled against the third and fourth caliphs, the fourth caliph and Ayesha, wife of the prophet went to war. Muaviya took up arms against the third caliph. .Kharjites became a menace (add note on them).
The Medinan state was of a transitory nature between tribal dispensation and monarchy. When the state expanded into a big empire, vestiges of the tribal system dissolved into extinction. After the victory over Iran, when the bounty was heaped high, Umar started crying. On being asked why, he responded that he was witnessing the destruction of Islam. He recognized the peril of expansion, but could not circumvent it. His apprehension came true. The caliphate gave way to Umayyad monarchy.
Discussing the reasons why democracy did not flourish among early Muslims, Iqbal says “the life of early Muslims was largely one of victories. All their faculties, courage, fortitude and inclination was applied to the empire’s stabilization and expansion. Under the circumstances, it has always been customary that the reins of government be in a few hands…it is a historic fact…democracy and emperorship can not coexist (Maqalaat e Iqbal p 111).
In the 7th century CE, there were no democratic regimes any where in the world. True that the Greeks had initiated a limited democracy (white men and citizens only In the city state of Athens, solon had drafted a constitution. Out of a population of 315,000, only 43,000 were enfranchised.), a thousand years before the prophet, but Arabs were probably unaware of it.
In a democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people, and all organs of the state, administrative, legislative and judiciary function according to the will of elected representatives.
The nature and form of the state did not come under discussion till early Abbasids. The scholars/jurists who wrote on laws and codes, were all products of a monarchical dispensation and all they wanted was to somehow legitimate monarchy by convincing people that it was in exact accordance with Islamic Shariah. (Kitab al Khiraj-Imam Abu Yusuf- part 1, 798 CE, Kitab al Taj, Kitab al Sultan by Ibne Qateeba (828-889 CE. Araai Madinal Fazilah by Farabi 950 CE, Uqda Al Fareed by Abdul Rahiba 640 CE, Al Muhasin wa Al Masavi by Ibne Bahiqi, Ahkam Al Sultania by Qazi Al Mavardi, Adab ul Fars wa Al Arab by Ibne Miskovair 1030 CE, Qaboos Nama by Kaikous Ibne Sikander 1082 CE, Siyasat Nama by Nizam ul Mulk (1018-1092), Naseehat ul Mulook by Imam Ghazali (1058-1111 CE)
The jurists only tell us what should be the qualities and qualifications of the ruler and what should he do to implement the Islamic Shariah (code), and we should obey him, but not any political philosophy, nature of sovereignty and the rights of the ruler. They do not say how should he be selected/elected, or should a person who grabs power by strength of arms be accepted as legitimate. Ibne Jama (1241-0333 CE) accepts the legitimacy of force Qahrul Sahib Al Shaukat (E. I. J Rosenthal: Political Thought in Medieval Islam p 45 Cambridge 1962).
Perhaps the most comprehensive book on the issue of governance is by Al Mavardi, who was the Qazi under Caliph Al Qadir (991-1031 CE). That was the waning period of Abbasids and the reins of government were actually in the hands of Bohemian aristocrats.. He claims that caliphate is an agreement between the caliph and the people, but such a compact should be between two free components and with free will. The oath/pledge (Baiaat) of allegiance is presented as consent, but the caliph had already seized the reins of power, before asking for it. Any one not willing to swear allegiance had a rough time (Only a person of the caliber and status of Imam Ali could get away with it. He delayed taking the oath for Abu Bakr and Usman for a few weeks).
There was no mechanism for ascertaining the will of the people. The most that could happen was that the notables and academics would choose an appropriate person and install him as head of the state.
Al Mavardy was cognizant of the objective limitations of his age and deemed the approval of Ulema (Islamic scholars) essential, but there was no criterion of eligibility in the ranks of scholars, and they did not have any central organization. Generally those who toed the line of rulers were regarded as Ahle Al aqd wa Al Hal.
The real objective of a state, be it Islamic or non-Islamic, is preservation and security of the interests of the ruling class.
Though it movement became a popular movement after the passage of the Pakistan resolution, the Muslim League was averse to direct action against the British colonists to achieve independence. For them the foes of Pakistan were not the British, but the Indian National Congress, which it regarded as a Hindu representative party The only platform of the League was to emancipate Muslims of India from the domination of the Hindu majority and their exploitation.. During the campaign the leadership gave nary a thought to the nature of the state, what its political structure would be or what its social and economic structure would be based on (I have as simple explanation. Minus Jinnah and a few others, they were clear on the objectives of the new state-preservation and security of the interests of the feudal class. Almost the entire non-feudal leadership came from Bengal and Bombay. Though a democrat in principle, in practice an autocrat, Jinnah had excluded all the bright and independent leaders from the mainstream. He proposed a secular egalitarian state, but died soon after creation of Pakistan. But even he had lived longer, he would have had to compromise with the reality on ground. No one can overcome social forces, which in the case of Pakistan, were and remain feudal in nature,. The army and mullahs are in the nature of appendages. Bureaucrats are mere hangers on. They did rule the roost in the first decade of the existence of the country, but instances of slave dynasties are not uncommon. The congress had set up a national planning commission under Professor K.T. Shah, as long ago as 1935. The socialists and communists were also pushing their agenda.
On the Muslim side, Allama Iqbal had already published Baal e Jibrael and Zarbe Kaleem in which he had enunciated his views in support of democracy and socialism with great clarity. He wrote to Jinnah “the League will have to decide if it will continue to represent the upper classes or the Muslim masses, who have, for good reason, not taken any interest in the League. I personally think that a political organization which goes not promise to improve the conditions of life of ordinary Muslims, will never attract the people to its fold” May 28, 1937.
But the class character of the League, it was held in the tight grip of Nawabs, Rajas, Sirs, Sirdars and Khan Bahadurs (a British title for Indians Muslims lower than a sir. The lowest was Khan Sahib. The corresponding title for Hindus was Rai Bahadur) and even Jinnah was reluctant to go into details of what the new state would be like. He would just say that it will not be a theocracy. When pressed on the plans and policies, he would say it was premature.
The League did not pay any attention to political education of Muslim, in stead it polluted the mind of the masses with emotional and jingoist slogans. The masses, therefore, remained completely ignorant of the reconstruction (Tashkeel e Nau) of the state. Professor Gunar Myrdal avers that Muslim league leaders had no cleat concept of make up (Nauaiat) of the new state (Gunar Myrdal: Asian Drama Vol 1 p 248 London 1968). Jinnah, as is evident from his speeches, favored the British parliamentary system, but the dominant feudal element had little affinity with democracy, it was not a part of their social concepts, neither would it their class interests. In fact the lust of ruling the new state drove them into the arms of Jinnah. They did not draw up any program/plans for social and economic development of the country, as a matter of deliberate policy.
Pakistan started off under the 1935 India Act (as India did). The act had had no input of any Muslim (or Indian) politician and had been devised with the sole intention of serving British interests. Sovereignty belonged to the governor General, not to the people. It would not allow any radical (basic-bunyadi) changes the social/economic structure of the state. Further, the political administration had been made totally subservient to bureaucrats, who were British trained, oriented and were obedient to them. They looked down upon democracy, its institution and their fellow blacks (the British called Indians black. Dadabhoy Nauroji, a venerable Parsi (Zoroastrian) gentleman contested for a seat in the British parliament in the late 19th century CE. His conservative opponent called him black. He was actually more fair than the Englishman. Happily, the bigot lost). In the name of defense, the army had been given an autonomous status.
This dictatorial dispensation was totally in accord with the aspirations of the ruling class. They sacked several provincial ministries, imposed martial law in Lahore, and finally, Ghulam Muhammad, the governor general dismissed the central government and dissolved the central assembly.
The constituent assembly, which the country had inherited, passed Qarardad e Maqasid (Objectives Resolution) in which the country was named “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” and sovereignty was handed over to *Khuda (Allah now) and that the new constitution would conform to the Quran and *Sunnah .
Those were times in ferment, and Pakistan was not a sequestrated island. Winds of change were blowing, socialist states had been established in Eastern Europe, Mao had defeated and driven Chiang Kai Shek from mainland China, Soekarno was transforming Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, into a state run on a socialist pattern, Burma had declared itself a socialist state, Indian constitution had incorporated socialist principles, Nehru was advocating socialism, even Britain, the core of colonialism, had a labor party government, which professed socialism. (Those were the heady days. The nightmare of Afghan war, Gorbachev, Deng and Yeltsin were in the future). Even Liaquat, the Prime minister of Pakistan and a hereditary Nawabzada (progeny of a Nawab? difference between this appellation and Nawab) scion of a fairly large feudal state in the Punjab (Indian) could not escape the influence and raised the slogan of “Islamic Socialism” . addressing a public meeting in Lahore in august 1949, he said “for us there is on one ‘ism’-Islamic Socialism…every one has a right to “Roti, Kapra, Makan, Taleem and Tibbi Sahulat (roughly bread, clothes, home, education and health care-later aped by ZAB))…this economic program was offered by the prophet 1350 years ago.
Liaquat was an obstacle in the way of total control by the duo- the bureaucrats and feudal land owners (his estate had been left in India. Altruistically and to the regret of his progeny, he did not claim evacuee lands in Pakistan, as was his legitimate right under the India-Pakistan agreement on the issue) and was conveniently gunned down. the assassin was also conveniently gunned down immediately afterwards.
After Liaquat court intrigues became the norm of political life in the country. Bureaucrats now controlled the government completely.
A new constitution was passed in 1956, it was a replica of the 1935 India act, and Iskander Mirza, (a descendent of Mir Jafar who had stabbed Sirajudaula of Bengal in the back, and handed the British the first and crucial victory in 1757), Sandhurst (Army college in England) trained officer, who had transferred to the ‘political service’ of British India, was elected the first president of the Republic. He started off with laudatory speeches in favor of ‘Controlled Democracy”. Though he had sworn to protect and guard the constitution, he abrogated it before the first elections due in January, 1959, declared Martial Law in October, 1958, and appointed Ayub Khan the chief Martial law administrator. Ayub felt, and rightly so, that Mirza was superfluous and exiled him to Britain ( to give the devil his due, he only stole power and not money. He had to take a job as the manager of Veeraswamy, the oldest Indian Restaurant in London, and was often seen by Pakistanis grocery shopping. In fact the early leaders of Pakistan, Liaquat, Suhrawardy, Ghulam Muhammad and others were all fiscally honest and compare favorably with Ayub (through Gohar Ayub), BB, Nawaz and their minions. ZAB, in this sense, belonged to the early category-he only helped sabotage the only free and fair elections in Pakistan).
Ayub enunciated the concept of “Guided Democracy” and pontificated “I think that in stead of blindly following the west, we should run our representative institutions on the concept of consensus of opinion. If we can do that, and there is no reason that we can not, as all our historic and religious traditions are based on that, we would soon be able to get rid of the curse of the party system (Pak Jamhhoriat-Pakistan democracy-October, 27, 1960).
Borrowing from Orientalists, he devised certain formulas like democracy was suited only to the cold climates.
Ayub was swept away on a tide of popular discontent and Yahya Khan, the army chief conducted the first adult franchise elections in the twenty three years of existence of Pakistan. Awami League of East Pakistan won a majority in the parliament and with the votes of the progressive parties in the West, could garner 2/3 majority to pass a constitution. But the feudal, religious elements, supported by the army would have none of it, and east Pakistan seceded, but not before the army and the collaborating mullahs had subjected it to mass rapes, genocide and scorched earth regime.
Bhutto took over from a discredited and defeated army, passed new constitution in 1973, with a unanimous vote and suspended it with in hours under the ordinance of a captive president-Chaudhury Fazal Ilahi ( a story current at the time; some one painted a sign on the walls of the president’s house-Chaudhury Fazal Ialhi ko Riha Karo-release Chaudhury Fazal Ilahi. The police hastily brushed it over. The sign appeared again and again. Bhutto sent officials of secret police to investigate and apprehend the miscreant. They hid in the bushes. A man covered with a black blanket came out of the presidential home and started painting. You have guessed it, it was the president himself.
Thus was ushered in a new phase of dictatorship, this time civilian.

Secularism:
Lahore; April 13, 1981.Thus spoke “Maulana Muhammad Abdullah Darkkhwasti, Ameer, Nizam e Ulema, (head of the party of religious academics) Pakistan “political leaders, workers and Moulvis (clerics) should unite to face the hazard of secularism in the country”. He was addressing a gathering of Ulema (religious academics) in Medina Karim Park.
Padre Yunown Tera (1221-1274 CE). “The tree of knowledge misguides many from the tree of life”.
Ibne Khateeb Gharnativi (1313 1374 CE). “To people who say, how can we accept that diseases spread through the air while the Shariah denies it, we say the existence of epidemic diseases is established by experimentation, research, the evidence of our senses (Hawas e Khamsa) and credible traditions (ravayat). The reality of the epidemic is apparent when a research worker observes that a person who has touched an afflicted person, falls victim to the same disease, while a person who stays away does not….”
After Socrates had drunk the cup of poison, his disciple, Creto asked what ceremonials would he like to be performed at his funeral. Socrates was amused, then turning serious, told him that in spite of life long teaching, he (the disciple) had not learned adequately that incorrect use of words was the biggest sin.
The term Secularism is t5reated in the same shabby manner. Not only Moulvis, but fairly educated persons, editors of newspapers (and other persons with vested interests) distort the meaning of the term and try to create the impression that it was akin to an epidemic, that it was such a monstrous system, which disseminates irreligiosity, atheism and immorality., and is a peril to Islam (and Pakistan).
Let us consider the facts in the light of historic facts/objectivity.
Secularism is purely a term of Western society. Derived from the Latin word, Seculum, it literally means ‘world’. In the middle ages, catholic priests were divided into two groups, one who lived like hermits in monasteries, and the other who lived like ordinary people. The latter were called secular priests. All institutions not run by the church were also dubbed secular….(). In the current , the term denotes separation of church and the state. Secular system of education is the one in which theology is separated from education. (Encyclopedia Britannica Vol 20 p 264).
The term is more clearly defined in the Encyclopedia Americana “Secularism is a moral system which is based on natural values and is distinct from divine religion and the supernatural. Its first formula is freedom of thought, second freedom to differ, third, the right to discuss all core issues (bunyadi Masail) like the infinity/indestructibility of God and soul. Secularism does not claim that nothing besides the good/merits (Khoobion) of current life, could be good, but its objective is to create material conditions which would make human poverty and want impossible (vol 24 p 521).
Secularism has existed for a very long time, but the term was first used by an open minded Englishman, George I. Holyoake in 1840 CE. For supporting the famed British idealist socialist, Robert Owen (1771-1858), he was dismissed from his work as a teacher from Birmingham Mechanics Institute and became a full time activist. In 1841, when the editor of a London magazine, Nidai Aql-Call to Rationality-was imprisoned for a year, on charges of denigrating Christianity, Holyoake was appointed in his place. But a few months down the line, he too was put in jail for six months for making a speech. On being released, he continued writing and making speeches and in 1851, set up an organization called Central Secular society. His platform was:
-Science is the true guide of humans.
-Morals predate religion and are separate from it.
-Every person should have freedom of thought and expression
-Wisdom is the only measure of knowledge and understanding.
-We should endeavor to improve this world.
Regarding secularism as a positive factor for the society, does not change a religious, God fearing person into an atheist. It is no hazard to Islam (or Pakistan). In fact, the country (and other Muslim countries) would develop into progressive, prosperous and open-minded society. Our Sufis taught us to seek the truth and love. A story is related about Rabia Basri (a rare soul, a female saint of Islam, a few hundred years after the prophet -check year. All the other venerable ladies of Muslim history belonged to the family of the prophet or early Muslims). She was passing through a street in Basra, with a candle in one hand and a water jug in the other. On inquiry, she said that she was going to burn heavens (Jannat) and extinguish the fire in hell, so that Muslims could learn to love God without a thought of the aftermath.
People who insist on conformism are not aware of the history of religion. If Abraham had not rejected his traditional faith with reasoned arguments, there would be no Abrahamic faiths.
Secularism is based on free will. Coercion is a negation of Human rights and a confession of failure to use reason. Censorship, restrictions on free speech and writing are perilous for society. It creates an oppressive milieu , bends the back of people and as Iqbal would have it, Sajdae (prostration in the act of Muslim prayers) become longer. Faculties of research, innovation, observation and experimentation dwindle. A intellectually handicapped nation with slavish mentality emerges.
Conformance (Hum Ahangi) with laws of nature is secularism. Defiance of the laws leads to dire consequences. All creative effort has to abide by the rules on nature, whether one writes poetry, paints picture, weaves a cloth or flies a plane, one has to adopt a secular attitude. We are responsible for our acts. We can get away with the plea that we were ordered to kill some body in dreams. We have to treat diseases with secular methods.
Mankind did not have enough knowledge, so the primitive human worshipped nature’s manifestations and sought to appease them and elevated them to the status of gods and goddesses. In the Bronze age, great civilizations arose in the Euphrates, Nile and Indus valleys, but knowledge was still experimental and not reasoned and humans could not derive any scientific principles from their inventions.
In the West, Naturist philosophers of Ionia in Western turkey (Asia Minor) initiated secular views. They were actually Greek. Talees, Anaximander, Heraclites, Democritus, though most of them believed in God, tried to explain the natural phenomenon with reference to natural elements. Some said it was all air, others fire, still others that it was (constituted by) atoms. The administration of Greek city states was secular, though they worshipped gods too.
After the decline of Greece, the center of western political system moved to Rome, and the establishment there too had to adopt secular ways.
In the beginning the Prohats, who belonged to the wealthy classes, controlled legal documents, interpreted them and directed their application. They are performed the religious ceremonies, and took full advantage of their hegemony.
In 151 BCE, Romans rebelled against the hegemony, the Roman Senate had the laws inscribed in twelve slabs (Lauh), started making laws, and thus was the secular phase of Roman Law was ushered. In the 3rd century BCE, lawyers, in stead of priests began appearing in the courts. that reduced the influence of priests on the state further.
With the fist century CE, a new actor entered Roman society. That was Christianity, which had a great impact on Europe. Jesus had ordained that “give unto god what is God's and unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s”. hid adherents followed the dictum, but the Roman Emperor would not tolerate that. Peter and Paul, when they entered Rome for proselytization, were given crosses. Other preachers were treated the same way. For three hundred years, Christians, who were generally poor or slaves were tortured, till King Constantine (274-337 CE) had to declare that no one would be deprived of religious freedom. But when in 313 CE, he himself converted to Christianity, the same repressive measures were visited upon non-Christians. In 346 CE, all non-Christian prayer houses were closed, punishment for offerings to old Roman gods was death, assets of the prayer house were seized and handed over to the Church. Rome was declared the capital of the church, because Peter and Paul had been interned there. Pope of Rome was declared the successor of Peter and spiritual head of the Christians.
The era of Church ascendancy had started.
To escape the depredations of the wild tribes of Northern Europe, Constantine had shifted his capital from Rome to the safer Constantinople. After his death, the realm split into an Eastern Byzantine and Western Roman empires.
The new roman empire had no time to stabilize, when The Goth and Hun tribes from Eastern Europe started to invade Western Europe on a large scale. In 410CE, they demolished Rome. This loot and mayhem continued for 50-60 years, during which time the Goths established states in several regions of Spain, France and Italy. Roans emperors were reduced the status of their stooges. Finally, in 476 CE, one of Goth chiefs dethroned the Roman king Augustus. That was the end of the Roman Empire. A while later, no traces of knowledge and learning were left and Europe entered the Dark Age.
The fall of Rome was a boon to the church. If there had remained a stable and potent government in Rome, as it did in Constantinople, Roman priests would have been reduced to the status of Byzantine ones. The vacuum created in Europe by the fall of Roman empire and invasions of the wild Goths helped the Church establish its hegemony. The priests, no doubt saved vestiges of Italian civilization and were the only the bright spot in the general gloom (H.A.L. Fisher: History of Europe Vol 1, p 186 London 1972). The priest knew how to read and write, could calculate the day and date of Easter and other religious days, performed birth, wedding and death ceremonies.
The new rulers also tried to gain favor of the priests, as they could not control the government with out their cooperation. Roman rulers, educated and cultured, did not pay much heed to the priests. The new ones were uncultured and illiterate, and listened to the priests with fervor. The Church, as is their wont, was not averse to collaboration either.
According to the Western historians, the period between the 5th and 15th centuries CE, was a time of social, moral depth. But the secular movement had already started in the 13th century CE. In this very century, capitalism emerged in Italian city-states, and Muslims introduced secular though to Europe through Spain and Sicily. It is an irony of history that the academics of the religion, al-Kindi, Abu Bakr Raazi (Rhazez) Bu Ali Seena (Avicenna), Ibne Hasheem, Khwarazmi, Al Beruni and Ibne Rushd (Averroes), who brought secular ideas to the West, the so called thekedars (hegemons) of the same religion accuse secularism of undermining Islam.
Professor Fisher is surprised that Italy, the stronghold of Christianity nurtured secularism. “This is strange that historically Italy, which was the center of the Church, was the most secular among the Western countries” (ibid). But it should not be surprising at all. During the crusades, Italy was the first to forge ahead in industry and commerce. The ostensible reason of the crusades was to recapture the holy cities Jerusalem, and Bethlehem etc. But the actual reason was to seize control of the trade and trade routes across the eastern Mediterranean. They could not regain the
Cities, but the city states of Italy-Venice, Milan, Florence, Geneva managed to capture the trade. The capitalist states promoted secularism, and were in constant state of tussle with the feudal Church. Educational institutions were run by the Church, which vehemently opposed technical education required for the city-state, so the latter established schools. The church was dead set against them, but could not prevail. Several universities opened their doors, in short order.
The other boost to secularism was the popularity of civil law compared to the religious law. The Italian republics encouraged that trend too. In the 13th century CE, Law schools opened in Rome, Milan, Verona and Bologna. That was deleterious to church influence. Saint Bernard, a priest before Sainthood, complained that “the courts of Europe were resounding with the laws of Justin. God’s laws are nowhere to be heard” (ibid p 260).
France, Belgium and Britain also made great strides in trade and industry in this period and secular academies were established. Oxford and Cambridge in Britain were still in the sway of the church, so the trade circles in London opened their own schools for teaching civil laws. They are still called Inns (sarai). Most of the leaders of the independence movements were trained in one of the Inns.
European society was still not capable of creative thought. Arabs filled the vacuum in Spain and Sicily. Professor Fisher admits “the rays of light that reached 13th century CE Europe arrived with Arabs I Spain and not from Greece. “ Muslims wrote the glorious chapters the intellectual history of middle ages Europe writes Professor Philip Hitti in History of Arabs.
The caravan of knowledge and reason has indeed passed through tortuous ways. It traveled in the 3rd century BCE Alexandria to Greece. And the Jewish and Christian academics of Syria and Iraq eventually benefited from it. In the Abbasid period, Greek works were translated into Arabic. Hispanic Arabs inherited the mantle of the Abbasids who were in a steep decline. They spread enlightenment to the West. Western academies amassed Latin translations of Arabic works.
The leading figure among translators from Arabic to Latin was Gerard of Cremona (1114-1187). He moved to Toledo and translated eighty books from Arabic to Latin from such as Al Masbit of Betelemoos, Algebra of Khwarizmi, Book of Medicine by Bu Ali Seena (Avicenna), which remained the standard text in Europe for centuries, Kitabul Sirrul Israr by Abu Bakr Razee (Rhazez), which was the most authentic book on chemistry for 250 years. All the Arabic writers were physicians by profession (does not bear comparison with APPNA members). Professor Lange of Germany “Arabs should be considered founders of physical sciences”.
Al Beruni refers to 56 writings of Abu Bakr Razee (d 925 CE). Razee (Rhazez) was an ardent opponent of Aslaaf Parast (veneration of ancestors) and declared that we had a full right to criticize both religion and philosophy. He denied miracles, as they defied nature. He was not overly fond of religions as they spread hatred and rivalry. He agreed with the evolutionary concept of Aristotle and favored the division of labor. He argued for the atomic concept of Democritus and Epicurius. Unlike Aristotle, he accepted the existence of vacuum on its own (Wajood bi Zaat) Cambridge History of Islam Vol 2 p 801 Cambridge.
Though he too was a physician, Ibne Rushd’s ( Averoes) fame in Europe was based on philosophy, especially Aristotle’s Sharhain (analysis/exposition of writings). Though the priests condemned his writings, he dominated the minds of thinkers in Europe from 12th to 16th centuries CE. The core of his philosophy was that the universe, and matter are indestructible and eternal, god does not interfere in worldly matters and wisdom was the way to knowledge and indestructible.
When his expositions (Sharhain) of Aristotle’s work, especially of ‘Physics’ and The ‘Supernatural’ arrived in Paris, they cause a storm in Clerical circles. The uproar was such that the 1210 CE, Church conclave of the Church council banned Aristotle’s teachings especially Ibne Rushd’s commentaries.. In 1215, the Pope banned the books in the whole Christian world. That enhanced the popularity of Ibne Rushd greatly. Pope Alexander the fourth had a priest Albertus Magnoos write a refutation of Ibne Rushd, but the poor man was reduced to referring to Ibne Rushd’s and other Muslim writer’s work on every page. In 1269, thirteen of Ibne Rushd’s comments (Maqoolae) were declared heretical, some of which are: the structure ad shape of the brains of all humans is the same, universe is eternal/indestructible, the story of creation of Adam is a fable, humans have free will, but subject to his needs, God was unaware of current affairs/what happened every day, God’s will is not a part of , human acts. In 1277, there was another edict against his commentaries that creation incredible (Muhaal), a dead body can not come alive again (resurrection), Christian faith was an impediment it acquisition of knowledge, happiness could be attained only in this world, there was no after life.