Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

islam was used as a political weapon by jauhar brothers and later by jinnah right from 1927.what about that .the muslim higher and middle classes for gaining an unfair advantage created pakistan.

The most crucial developments in this regard took place under the civil and military regimes of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971-1977) and General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988);


yes..there was a hole in the space time continuum and time, in pureland, jumped from 1988 to 2008. All the periods in between when the pakistani army used political islam to create the jihadis for it's battles in kashmir and afghanistan...it's like that never happened...

Perhaps it was Pakistan not the West that Iqbal wrote this couplet for:

Tumhaaree tuhzeeb apne khunjar se aap hee khud kushi karay gee/

banay ga jo shaakhay naazuk pe aashyana hamesha na payedaar hoga

Translation:

Your (mulla-military) culture with its own dagger(Islam)will one day compel you to commit suicide on your own volition,

A (political) nest built on the weakest branch(religion) will always remain on the verge of falling on the gound.

Half of Iqbal's prophesy was fulfilled in 1971 -- the rest will, under Mehsud Musharraf.

For post #1 FakirIppi- You are quite ignorant about history my friend. It was not Jinnah that used religion but Gandhi and the congress who had a false facade of secularism. Jinnah was a strong opponent of the Khilafat Movement and thought it will procreate fundementalism while Ghandi supported this movement to get sympathy muslim votes. Jinnah never used Isalm as a tool but the geopolitical situations of the muslims in the subcontinent and congress's short sightedness, stuborness and lust for power as a political tool.

God knows what world you live in, Mubarka Ahmad sahib. Even someone as ignorant as I am knows that few Pakistani leaders have advocated a theocracy, not even ZAB whom you accuse of 'abusing' and 'misusing' Islam.

There is a vast diversity of opinions within Islam, and it is natural and probably ok to accuse others with whom you disagree of abusing and misusing Islam.

THAT STRATEGY is a political tool/weapon, and it is used commonly even outside of Islam.

------------

People have already propagaged Islamic democracy, Islamic liberalism, Islamic progressivism, and Islamic socialism. Surely someone must have spoken of Islamic secularism. You might want to dig it out and actually join the fray.

Relevant article … addresses some of the core problems plaguing Pakistani politics.

Saudi/UAE support for ZAB’s “Islamic policies” … out of fear that Pakistan may fall under Soviet influence … is interesting. It is similar to the US/western fears of Iran gravitating towards the Soviet orbit after the fall of Shah. This apparently prompted the west to favor the lesser evil of Islamic revolution, thereby covertly supporting Khomeni. As Khomeni and his revolution gained strength, Saddam was propped up in Iraq in order to neutralize Iran. I can’t vouch for accuracy of this narrative, but it does explain quite a bit.

From what I’ve gathered, ZAB Islamized politics out of sheer ambition and political expediency; he personally couldn’t care less about Islam or Nizam-e-Mustafa etc. Singling out Ahamdis worked for him as it served to unite the ummah behind him. Apparently Zia, on the other hand, lived and breathed Islamic politics. ZAB made a deal with the devil, and later Zia took this Islamization business to new heights. Eventually both men succumbed when matters spun out of control.

All through this analysis is a confusion of cause and effect. It was the Feudal/Colonial duo that first used Islam to manipulate the Muslims of India, using MAJ to establish Pakistan, setting a whole dynamic in place which could not be controlled by ignoring the frankenstein of that MAJ constructed (for political expediencey)regardless of the "secular state" rhetoric thereafter. This theological interpretation of Pakistan due to the partition rhetoric, legitmating mythology for which was created by MAJ's sidekick the Allama Iqbal, continued all the way until ZAB appeared on the scene and for the first time politics shifted to bread and butter issues, however the Frankenstein did not die even though it was weakened. It was again resurrected by the Feudal/Colonial (US)/Mullah trio in order to bury and push back the people's agenda. What ZAB did was the effect of such manipulation by the trio mentioned above, what he did was try to rescue the movement that would have seen a healthy shift of politics away from manipulative theology towards bread and butter issues that were of utmost importance to the masses that lived in Pakistan. Even though he tried, the shenanigans of the MAJ and the resulting catastrophie of partition had deeper roots and colonial support and ZAB was defeated and the Frankenstein was further strengthened by the Colonial/Feudal/Pak Army trio using the Mullah as fodder in Afghanistan... that is the reality behind what is described as "Islam" in Pakistani politics...

In #8 read "which could not be controlled by ignoring the frankenstein of that MAJ constructed" as

"which could not be controlled by ignoring the frankenstein that MAJ created (with help from his sidekick the Allama..)

Re: # 2
I've focussed on, and limited this article to, the two aforementioned regimes. This piece is basically about how religion evolved as a political tool in pakistani politics - post-1988 is not something i've explored, or attempted/claimed to explore here.

Re:

"#5: dryiabbasi
It was not Jinnah that used religion but Gandhi and the congress who had a false facade of secularism."

Apparently you've fallen for the FUD factor used by Jinnah & Co. to further his communal cause.

@ #11 tvarad

And you seem outrightly prejudiced. If you try to study the independence of these two countries without a bias then you will realise what i stated. It is a historical fact (and not my interpretation) tha Jinnah strongly opposed the Khilafat movement and the fundamentalsit like Maudodi opposed Jinnah and Pakistan. No one can single handedly change history without mass support, India has yet to realise this. No rebelion, revolution or independence movemnt can be sucessful unless they have masses supporting them who have a sense of injustice agaisnt them.

#10 Posted by barka on January 3, 2008 4:03:05 pm

Your article is about "Islam as a political weapon" and you didn't cover post 1988 when your country used, or attempted to use, islam as a political weapon in afghanistan and kashmir

sorry..that's a cop out...isn't that the most significant period..isn't that what's lead to this FUBAR situation in the land of the pure today?

I would think political parties continued struggle till 1970 when first free and fair election were held.
In West Pakistan or (Pakistan) for that matter although Bhutto took a majority, but that does not explain all.
First Pakistan was a defeated nation, and foremost task for Bhutto was Nation Building.
Second although Islamic Political parties had less than 10 percent seats in National assembly, but their hold was significant on Media. Secong Jamiat Ulamae Islam of Mufti Mahmood was forming the NWFP Government and also were supporting Baluchistan Government.
Third Jamat-e-Islami had started to get organized.
All these factor gave Islamic parties more strength than their poll number suggests.
I would think the election of 1970 were held in a different situation and Bhutto formed Government in a different atmosphere.
It is just a presumption that if Bhutto ruled West Pakistan of 1970 he would have not given to the pressure of Islamic parties.
After 1971 he had an entirely different task.
General Zia on the other hand was deeply Islamic to begin with and 1979 Afghan war helped in his mission.

#12 dryiabbasi:

"No one can single handedly change history without mass support, India has yet to realise this."

Megalomaniacs can also change history by conning a whole people (just ask Hitler). It is obvious that Jinnah played the pied-piper to the sub-continental Muslims to wean them away from more liberal leaders like Maulana Azad, Ghaffar Khan etc.. Pakistani Muslims are now staring at what lies beyond the cliff he led them to while Indian Muslims don't quite face the same problem, have not been swamped by Hindus, not lost their culture, have equality with other communities (all of which Jinnah said could never happen).

#12
". No rebelion, revolution or independence movemnt can be sucessful unless they have masses supporting them who have a sense of injustice agaisnt them"

were the muslim masses driven purely by a "sense of injustice"?. I believe that the "sense" was limited only to the muslim elite (zamindars, landed feudals & aristocrats) who inherited that sense from their forefathers who lost their priviledges in 1857. like any society muslim society in united india was a stratified society. each subgroup was drive by different motives.