Intellectual Caravan

Imagine you enter a Hindu temple and begin criticizing their way of worship using Islamic principles.

For example, you tell them:

"you cannot sit with your hands folded and pray to God like this. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us to raise our hands while making supplication."

Then you continue:

"When you stand before God, first raise your hands to your ears, then fold them over your chest. After that, bow halfway in the position of ruku', then stand upright again. Next, prostrate completely, placing your forehead on the ground. This is the method of prayer that has reached us through the Prophet and his Companions."

At this point, most likely the Hindus would throw you out, and perhaps even beat you before doing so.

But let's assume they are peaceful people and decide to discuss the matter instead.

What would they say?

1. "You have opened our eyes?"
2. "We have been worshipping incorrectly all this time?"
3. "From now on, we will follow the method you taught us?"

No.......?..........Why not?

Because they would simply say:

"MAN, .. we are Hindus. The method you are teaching comes from your Prophet and your religious tradition. For us to adopt this way of worship, we would first have to accept Islam completely and become Muslims. Only then would this method of worship be binding upon us."

By now, you probably understand the point being made.

Let's take another example.

Suppose you enter the American legislature and try to pass a law banning interest because Islam declares interest (riba) to be forbidden.

You would probably be deported.

Now let's come to Pakistan, often called the "fortress of Islam."

The constitution says that no law shall be enacted that contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah.

But consider the reality:

Is the government formed according to the Qur'an and Sunnah? No, it is formed through a modern democratic system.

Is interest completely banned? No, the financial system depends on interest-based structures and international debt.

Is foreign policy based entirely on Islamic principles? No, it operates largely within the framework of international law and institutions.

Is the economic system derived directly from Islamic teachings? No, it largely follows a capitalist model.

Are social and political institutions built entirely on the Prophet's example? No, many governing principles are borrowed from modern Western systems.

Is the judicial system purely based on classical Islamic law? No, much of it follows modern legal frameworks.

Are borders open to all Muslims without passports and visas? No, nation-state laws and international agreements govern movement.

So if these systems are not fundamentally operating on a purely Islamic framework, then a question arises:

When discussing wars, protests, foreign policy, government decisions, political parties, or state affairs, why do some people suddenly begin arguing exclusively from Islamic history, Qur'anic verses, the life of the Prophet, and early Islamic precedents?

This resembles walking into a temple and instructing non-Muslims to pray according to Islamic rituals. If a political or institutional system is not actually founded upon a fully Islamic framework, then judging every political issue solely through Islamic historical and religious precedents may be inconsistent.

#ابوخلیفہ

If Islam were merely about issues such as cleansing after using the restroom, the length of one's trousers, raising the hands in prayer, saying "Ameen" aloud, the details of sacrificial animals, or technical discussions on divorce, then a large portion of the Qur'an would not be dedicated to justice, governance, economics, trade, war and peace, accountability, the elimination of oppression, and social reform.

The real question is: What problems are Muslims facing today?

Corruption, incompetent leadership, interest-based economic systems, judicial injustice, police abuse, failing educational systems, healthcare challenges, unemployment, political dependency, and civilizational decline.

Yet a significant portion of religious discourse continues to revolve around questions such as how far above the ankles one's trousers should be, which method of prayer is correct, or which opinion in a secondary legal matter is stronger.

This is the same Ummah that was once entrusted with the responsibility of providing moral and intellectual leadership to humanity. Instead, it has been confined for centuries within the boundaries of secondary and peripheral debates.

The reality is that many religious circles have reduced Islam from a comprehensive civilization, political philosophy, and economic framework into a collection of individual rituals and legal technicalities. As a result, the average Muslim may know dozens of rulings related to prayer, yet remain unfamiliar with Islamic concepts of governance, public accountability, economic justice, public welfare, and the responsibilities of the state.

During the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, rulers were held accountable, public wealth was treated as a trust, judges could rule against those in power, and the state was expected to protect the rights of the weak. Today, politics has largely become a struggle for power and personal interests. The tragedy is not only the condition of politics itself, but also the lack of serious engagement with these issues within much of contemporary religious discourse.

The criticism should not be directed solely at politicians. A legitimate question must also be asked of today's scholars: Have they equipped the Muslim community to understand global politics, economics, justice, education, and statecraft through an Islamic lens? Or have they largely confined public religious engagement to debates that have little impact on the major challenges shaping Muslim societies?

As long as Islam is confined to a few square meters inside the mosque and excluded from discussions on governance, economics, education, law, and social justice, Muslims will continue to win arguments over minor issues while losing ground in the larger struggles that determine the future of their societies.

The problem is not that secondary religious issues are discussed.

The problem is that the major wounds of the Muslim world are neglected while those secondary issues are treated as the central mission of the religion.

Someone should tell Mehdi Hasan that his standards have been dragged down to this level. The poor guy is out there fighting battles of arguments and narratives, while the local cockroach party has put him to work praising the leader of the cockroaches.