Home >> South Asia >> India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal

     Email   Print 

Interview with Pakistani Provincial Emir of Jamat-e-Islami and Senator Muhammad Ibrahim

Rooh-ul-Amin - 4/14/2010

Senator Professor Muhammad Ibrahim, for the first time saw daylight in 1954 at an extreme religious family in Bannu, Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa. He got his early education from Bannu and did his master in journalism from Gomal University. He joined this very University as a lecturer but resigned it on the persuasion of Jamat-e-Islami (JI) Pakistan, as he has been a staunch activist of Islami Jamiat Talba during his youth. And at length his strong ideological affiliations with Jamat-e-Islami compelled him to resign from the lectureship and to make entrance into practical politics. Today, he is the provincial emir of Jamat-e-Islami, and member of Senate. It is his second term as the provincial emir and senator.

Q: When and how you entered into politics?

A: I have affiliations with Jamat-e-Islami since my boyhood when I was a student of class three. I remember well that when Maulana Maudoodi was coming to Bannu “posters of his arrival” were affixed to the walls of different buildings of the area carrying the words “ Maulana Muadoodi and his address”.
At that I was too young but you can conceive that how much political acumen a boy must have. Since then JI made home in heart and mind.
Another reason that added to it is that my uncle since 1948 had been a regular reader of Tarjaman-ul-Quran (views-paper of Maulana Maudoodi). It means that JI had arrived at my home before me 7-year earlier than birth.
Q: What kinds of traits of Maulana attracted you the most?
A: He had the quality to offer solutions to troubles and entanglements of the today’s Muslims in light of Quran and Sunnah.
This quality of Maulana had a great influence on my thought-pattern.

Q: What kind of perceptions he had about the concept of Jihad?

A: His concept on Jihad is as vivid as sun. It is evident from his books. He had discussed it in his book “Jihad Fil Islam—Jihad in Islam.”
He had also discussed the concept of Jihad in his exegesis “Tafheem-ul-Quran—An Understanding towards Quran”.
Moreover he has written on this aspect in his “Khutbaat—Sermons.”

Q: But who is responsible to wage or declare Jihad?

A: State is responsible to declare Jihad and practically partake it.

Q: Why did Maulana criticize state in 1948 on Kashmir war?

A: He never criticized the participation of civilian troops there in Kashmir but equally with that he pressurized the government that only civilian troops are not enough rather state must declare war and send its army. If that is construed that Maulana disagreed with the policy of government civilians’ troops, this is not right.
Q: Don’t you think that he criticized the government that it is unfair to have peace accord with India and to send civilian troops into Kashmir?

A: This question has two aspects. First, if state is escapist and does not perform its duty rightly then what comes?
Second, Jihad in Kashmir can be a covert war for state but it is an overt Jihad for the Mujahideen (religious warriors). They have declared war on India overtly, that is why this is not unfair as is criticized in media. And in such a case when government is not fulfilling its responsibility then Mujahideen are not bound to wait for state declaration.

Q: I think you are taking support of interpretations?

A: No, the matter is quite clear. There is no need to take support of interpretations.
Mujahideen have declared Jihad in Kashmir and I think there is no need for state declaration. But I wonder that why you don’t see towards Indian aggression. It has held the land of Muslims, which changes the scenario completely.

Q: But Indian state is involved there not Indian masses?

A: Yes but Kashmir is, and will remain permanent part of our set objectives because we cannot leave our Kashmiri brothers stranded. They are being persecuted by Indian troops while in such a circumstance it is our duty to rush forward to their help. We have been always pressurizing the governments in Pakistan to solve Kashmir issue either through political process or militarily.
Qazi Hussain Ahmad (The former Emir of JI) has ceaselessly criticized military Generals for their inefficiency.
He has always been a staunch opponent to the policy of military Generals who equip and send young civilians to Kashmir and personally reside in their air-conditioned houses with their near and dear ones. That’s why JI has always looked into this policy with disdain.
This is only Kashmir issue that provides the mantle of legitimacy to the existence of such a huge army at the cost of poverty and ignorance.
If it has no capacity to liberate Kashmir, I think there is no need of keeping army.
To our dismay, unfortunately military Generals have abysmally failed to solve Kashmir issue during the past 63-year.

Q: It means if your party comes in power with a clean sweep majority then it will liberate Kashmir through the use of force?

A: Kashmir is our aorta because that is the land of Muslims.
Its political forum is UN because India herself took the case to UN. United Nations has passed many resolutions regarding this issue. If these resolutions are accepted by India then war is not our wish and if it does not follow international resolutions then we have not discarded this option.
And see towards US, if it comes to Afghanistan trans-seven-oceans and attacks Iraq then how we can accept emasculated position on Kashmir issue. Sooner or later India will have to accept plebiscite in Kashmir lest (Jihad) will remain there.

Q: It means that if you come in power, like Shah Ismail and Sayyed Ahmad you will send letters to Dar-ul-Harb to accept Islam, give Jizzia (an Islamic tax on infidels), or be ready for Jihad?

A: The prophet of Islam has set an adamant code of conduct, and he is a role model for all Muslims of all ages. He sent letters to Dar-ul-Harb (The House of War—the outside world inhabited and governed by infidels ) but he did not make it write in those letters to either accept Islam, give Jizzia or be ready for Jihad rather he simply wrote two sentences “Asslem Tasslem—Accept Islam and get peace.”
Our letters would be like that. Maulana Maudoodi had discussed the struggle of Shah Ismail and Sayyed Ahmad in his book “Tajdeed-o-Ihya-e-Deen—Reformation and revivalism of religion” wherein he has appreciated their gallantry but criticized them that they had no role model state. So it is obvious if we come in power the world will follow us itself because we will give them a role model state and there would not come any need for sending letters.

Q: What would be the position of religious minorities?

A: Dar-ul-Islam (The House of Islam—an Islamic state with Islamic law) accepts many rights of Ahle Zimmah (The People of Contract). The Jizzia, which is levied from them, is a kind of social security tax. And they are also exempted from fighting in the defense of state. If they want to defend an Islamic state then Jizzia is not compulsory on them. In this regard we have a model of our prophet. He had a contract with the Jews of Medina wherein there was no Jizzia on them while they were declared the citizens of Medinese state. Even today that is applicable hence Jizzia is not necessary.

Q: How should minorities be treated in Pakistan under Sharia because it is did not come into existence as a result of military victory?

A: Here is no Sharia Law in Pakistan; hence this is an imaginary question.
Q: What would be the position of Muslims in Dar-ul-Amn (The land of Infidels where Muslims take refuge)?

A: As was the position of the prophet of Islam and his companions in Makkah when it was not triumphed, so would be the position of Muslims in Dar-ul-Amn.

Q: What would you comment on the statement of Maulana when he said that he has no objections if Indian Muslims are treated like Malichas and Shudras (The untouchable castes) under Muno Simriti Law?

A: It is the ornament of a Muslim to practically show what he says, and it is binding on him to preach Islam and virtue. For that

Q: Maulana opposed Pakistan Movement in “Musalman aur Mojoodha Siyasi Kashmakash—Muslims and the current political upheaval” but came to Pakistan, why this controversy?

A: No, this is not so rather he opposed the ideology of Congress, which was a unionist party and claimed that Hindus and Muslims are one nation. But Maulana rejected it and many of his Deobandis teachers came under his criticism because many of the ulemas (religious scholars) were in favour of Congress that is why his teachers became his arch opponents. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni viewed that land givers birth to nation while Maulana Maudoodi rejected him and claimed that religion gives birth to nation hence Muslims cannot make one nation with Hindus.
Though Maudoodi was also a Deobandi but his school of thought repudiated him.
In response to this issue he wrote “Masa’ala-e-Qomiat—The Question of Nationality” wherein he tried to prove that Muslim concept of nation is the child of religion. That’s why Muslims cannot make a united nation with Hindus.
When Muslim League started giving its membership to Hindus, Sikhs and Christians just for two pennies, at this juncture Maulana said that the country, which will come as an aftermath of the political movement of Muslim League, would never be an Islamic State but a Muslim state. And the later incidents and history showed it true.

Q: Maulana was sent behind the bars for three times, death sentenced and attacked but despite all these sacrifices why JI could not influenced the masses?

A: if his nation has ignored his messages and teachings there it does not show the failure of Maulana rather it is the failure of nation. Had the nation followed him, it would have been a leading nation of the world but by ignoring him now it has been facing disrespect and downfall.
And I am sure that Maulana will get his reward in hereafter.

Q: Do you think if Maulana were alive during Afghan Jihad he would have backed Zia in his Afghan covert war?

A: Maulana was alive at that time and he has witnessed the eruption of Afghan issue.

Q: But Maulana died in September 1979 while USSR attacked Afghanistan in December 1979?

A: Actually Afghan the influx of Afghan refugees started in 1978 when Sardar Dawood was assassinated.

Q: Do you mean that by that time Zia administration was engaged in Afghan war and Maulana nodded his policy?

A: Pakistan never engaged there. There is no tinge of reality and weight in it.

Q: Then who were those madrassa-turned Mujahideen and what do you say about covert engagement?
A: I told you categorically that Pakistan never engaged there and if you are asking about covert action or support then you must ask those who were involved there.
And you are asking me being a political leader and I am responding you in that way. Rather I would say that Pakistan never involved there but it was USSR that remained engaged there and destroyed Afghan peace forever.
UUSR invaded Afghanistan and the Afghans defended it. In order to bring again-and-again revolution, USSR assassinated its own protégés.
For instance who was Noor Muhammad Tarrakai? He was a protégé of Moscow. Who assassinated him? Hafeezullah Amin assassinated him. Who was Hafeezullah Amin? He was an agent of Moscow. Who killed him? It is known that USSR dumped him and brought Babrak Karmal on the forefront of political arena.
All these vicissitudes caused a volcano of anti-USSR movement and sentiment among the Afghans.

Q: If Zia and his administration and allies are devoid of all this then why did he participated in Geneva Talks then the talks instead Mujahideen?

A: I would say that the very foundation of Geneva Talks was wrong and feeble. And it is evident that if start is wrong its end must be. There were mediate talks between Islamabad and Kabul in Geneva dialogues while UN was its mediator? It should not have been this way. Because Islamabad and Kabul were victims; when the war was going on between USSR and Afghan Mujahideen, then it was incumbent that the talks should have been between the two. And I am sure it would have yielded a pragmatic outcome. Zia committed a blunder in the initial phase of the Geneva Talks when he sent his foreign minister. He had debarred his foreign minister not sign but Muhammad Khan Jonaijo, his prime minister wanted to seek a way out and thus favored sign but Zia had realized that by mere signing Pakistan would not get rid of the blanket. Even then Pakistan was a victim; today it is, and will remain until a stable and transparent government of Afghans comes in Afghanistan.

Q: Who brought US here?

A: It has its own strategy and that strategy brought her here. It means that no one has brought her. US went to Vietnam but when USSR got stuck in Kabul, Washington felt that it can give it its Vietnam War it longed to come here.
Looking into the situations Islamabad framed its own policy, which was then famous as ‘Afghan Forward Policy’ and now that’s called ‘Strategic Depth Policy’. It was the outcome of collective brainchild of Z.A Bhutto, Naseerullah Babar and Gen. Teka Khan.
When Sardar Dawood Khan deposed Zahir Shah, Pakistan executed this policy on grounds and launched its movement there.
When Sardar Dawood was killed in 1978, Noor Muhammad Tarkai appeared on the political pulpit and Pakistan recognized his government. President Zia met Tarkai in Hawana. And Zia went to Kabul on official visit. Tarakai remained in political arena nearly for one and half year but he was assassinated in September 1979.
After him, Hafeezullah Amin made his debut. Here Zia government was flapping its wing to recognize Hafeez’s government that within three months he was also killed and Babrak Karmal addressed his nation from radio Dushanbe and declared presidency and backed by red forces and entered Kabul in a USSR tank. Thus it paved the way for invasion.
To exploit the situation, US started streaming a billions dollar aid to Afghan Mujahideen. And thus US came here in pursuit of its interests. Now you can conceive that how and why US came here. Rather I can say that it had come here before that.

Q: How?

A: Ayub brought America here. And if add some more information, our first ever Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan is responsible for all this evil. He was not getting official invitation from Washington that’s why he was so restless. In the meantime Nehru received an invitation from US and Pakistan informed its ambassador at Iran to report to USSR embassy that Pakistan wants to establish ties with Moscow but it needs only a formal invitation.
When an invitation letter was received from Moscow, US felt its blunder and immediately sent an invitation to Liaqat Ali Khan.
He hoodwinked Moscow and immediately circumambulated Washington. Since then America came here. But Ayub left no stone unturned in going into the US umbrella by signing SEATO and SENTO treaties in 1959 and Pakistan went into American camp.

Q: If he would have visited USSR then?

A: Joining red camp was as much a blunder as going to American camp.

Q: But USSR is our neigbour while friends could be changed but neighbours cannot be?
A: No, this is not so. An inclination to either side was wrong and harmful. Pakistan must have followed non-aligned policy.

Q: “go America go” slogans from your party could move the masses as PML-N succeeded in lawyer movement?

A: Situations are not in our favour. On one side Musharraf adopted a one-eighty degree opposite policy and direction and on the other PML-Q was not going to agree with us. Except religious parties no one was ready to support us and unfortunately anti-Musharraf parties such as PML-N and PPP also hugged America. In such a circumstance our movement could not turn into a national movement. Had these parties supported us then we would have been in the position to compel Musharraf on bringing a shift in his reeking policies. And thus we would have saved the nation from drifting into American camp and today the situation would not have been like that.

Q: There are a dozen religious parties whose apparent objective is to impose Sharia Law in Pakistan but why separate ways?

A: Actually we tested alliance also and for future the door is open. When Jamat-e-Islami was going through its initial stages, Maulana exposed that “truth is within Jamat and outside of Jamat” so this is not obligatory that one must be in Jamat, he can join another party also. For that purpose he set three paths. One who loves our Jamat (party), our objectives, our activists and our literature he is acclaimed at Jamat. Second, if one thinks that we (Jamat Islamian) are not sincere then he must join another party. Third, if he conceives that no one is sincere then he must found his own party but those who don’t have the capacity and don’t let others to work, they are surely going astray.

Q: What do you say about current happenings around us?

A: This is an overt cruelty and violence.

Q: Then don’t you feel that the concept of Jihad must die?

A: No but I have faith in that, that it will remain alive till eternity.

Q: Actually now we have .06 million army, even despite that?

A: Yes, you are right that Jihad is the duty of army. But when army does not carry out Jihad then there is no need for its existence.

Q: What would you like to say about civilian Jihadis, is it obligatory on civilians in presence of Army?

A: You see changes have been coming from time to time. The advent of new warfare changed the concept of Jihad altogether. In today’s world Jihad is not confined only to army because when war is waged against a nation, it is the civilian that is affected badly so Jihad is enjoined upon him also.

Q: When guns and weapons are given in the hands of civilians, don’t you think that it leads society towards chaos, bloodshed and anarchy?

A: This is another flank and another issue. I think you are indicating towards sectarianism. Jihad is totally different than sectarianism.

Q: Then how sectarianism crept into Pakistani society?

A: At least it did come that way as you journalists think and perceive.

Q: Up to how much extent JI has opposed sectarianism?

A: JI brought different and opposing school of thoughts on one platform. When Pakistan came into being we demanded the imposition of Sharia Law. In its response the government asked us that who’s Sharia Law to be imposed?
We dumped all our differences and at length compelled the government on objective resolution in 1949. In 1953 on the issue of Ahmadiyas (a contentious new faction) the government resumed its old stance that who’s Sharia to be imposed? We all (Sunny, Shia, Deobandis, Barelvis and Ahl-e-Hadith) jointly brought our demands to the forefront and I think that is good instance of anti-sectarianism.

Q: Imran Khan also demands the promulgation of Sharia. What kind of Sharia his will be?

A: He has the right to demand.

Q: What do you think about al-Qaeda?

A: I think it is non-existent, if, then it must be an American stooge.

Q: If American stooge?

A: No, No, why are running towards second part of the answer. Let me say that that is non-existent. If it was existent, and according to America it can attack it anytime, then why it did not attacked US once more.
Q: But it accepts responsibility of the 9/11 incidents?

A: This all is a US fabricated fiasco. Why should I accept all that is branded by US as truth? If al-Qaeda is existent then it must be cave-based or underground wherefrom that is not possible for it to release tapes and news etc.

Q: It means that you don’t believe in the existence of al-Qaeda?

A: Yes, beyond any doubt.

Q: Then who are Ramzi Bin Alshabeeh, Abu Zubaida, and Shiekh Muhammad Khalid who were arrested from the house of Jamat activists?

A: Nothing could be proved against them. Government has no solid evidences. They have been arrested only on the basis of suspicion. Even by now it could not be decided where to trial them. Have you seen any fair and free trial in law courts? And if US carry out a trial behind closed doors then it has no reliance and honesty. And above all why should we accept their trials and decisions.

Q: What do you say about Israel and its recognition?
A: Israel is the illicit child of US. JI strongly opposes its recognition and any sort of ambassadorial relations with it.

Q: According to you (the illicit child) then why relations with its father?

A: Under international laws there are no objections on establishing relations with US, but the current ties are unlawful and stand void.
Q: How do you say that these relations are unlawful and don’t you feel that these under international law?

A: Because these are not based on equality basis. Moreover my US banks are replete with my wealth. First it must give me back my wealth. Our leaders have snatched it from my nation and piled it in the American banks. But US will never return this wealth and if then it will on interest basis. In such a case my nation is bound to pay it back with ten times higher interests. Zardari has deposited millions of dollars in American banks and Nawaz has billions dollars in western banks. From these dollars we are given loan and that too with dalliances. First they must return the plundered wealth of my nation then we can ponder over whether to establish relations with US or not.

Q: It means if you come in power there will be a clean breakage with US?

A: I have never meant that there will be breakage with US but we will have some conditions.

Q: It shows that relations could be maintained with the father of Israel under certain interpretations?

A: This illicit child is a usurper. It has invaded the land of Muslims.

Q: If this is the case then US has also invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

A: Here you will have to see the basic difference. US never declared Iraq or Afghanistan as its 53rd and 54th state. But Israel has declared its state right at the heart of Muslims’ land.

Q: Anyhow American soldiers are present at the spiritual centers of Muslim world?

A: I have grievances from Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, Noori Almalki, Karzai, Zardari and my Muslim brethor. But you journalist should also look into the difference that Israel has declared Palestine, which is a Muslim land as its state and established its existence through violence.
If till this day we have no relation with Israel then why to establish today. And your question is incongruous because you ask me when I am in power. And if you journalists plead for relations with Israel, this shameful step we cannot tolerate.

Q: Why the concept of pan-Islamism could not integrate us?

A: This is the result of our own weaknesses and prejudices among Muslims. But in the overall downfall of Muslim world nationalism is blameworthy.
You see when you go to perform Hajj you are not allowed to visit cities other than Makkah, Medina and Jaddha. Contrary to it, if you are a European, when you are roaming across Europe, there are no such restrictions. We have been ruined by Europe when it destroyed Caliphate, which was an emblem of Muslim unity. During Caliphate there was no restriction on the movement of Muslims in entire Islamic state. I can claim that EU is the copy of Caliphate. If tomorrow we come in power our first ever step would be to resume Caliphate.

Q: What was the basic difference in Maudoodi’s and Sayyed Qutb’s views?

A: No difference.
Q: Don’t you feel that Qutb pleaded for a complete breakage with establishment while Maudoodi was of the opinion that through political process state institutions must be Islamized?

A: Never ever, rather I feel that you are a victim of confusion here. Even if today there are free and fair elections in Egypt I can give you in written form that Ikhwanul Muslimoon (The Brothers) will be the winner with flying colours. That’s the reason that it has been banned. And Sayyed Qutb never pleaded for a breakage with establishment.

Q: Then why was he death sentenced?

A: This is only because his opponents could not tolerate this old man. His opponents have labeled this allegation against him. He was persecuted and oppressed. Similarly Maulana was also death sentenced in a martial court. Let suppose if he would have been hanged you people would have alleged him like Qutb.