DO the Quran and Sunnah provide a tangible and material basis for building the structure of a political and economic system that can satisfy the requirements of today’s world? This brings us to another question: What is the function of a prophet primarily with regard to the fulfilment of the mission assigned to him by God? The second question will partly answer the first question as well.

No other book, except the Quran, claims to represent a faithful record of the Creator’s own words for humans to read and reflect on. Thus, the Quran is the most unique document that acts as a window for an insight into the Maker’s scheme the inscrutable order of things that includes the purpose of man’s creation as well.

Since we are, currently, concerned with man’s duties to God, we will touch upon this theme briefly as a starting point to launch the discussion. The Quran tells us that God created two forms of life, gifted with reasoning, rational intellect and freedom of action — the Jinn and the humankind — “only that they may worship Him” (51.56). There are a large number of verses to the effect that God wants Himself and Himself alone to be worshipped by man — the paragon among His creations. It is on this account that he will not be inclined to forgive any one who attributes partners to Him. In other words, all sinners may be pardoned but not the polytheists.

We proceed further and see what the Quran says about the primary function of God’s prophets. There are, again, a large number of verses throwing light on this subject too. The one that appears to be comprehensive states that “God sent no messenger who was not inspired with the true conviction that “there is no worshipful being except Allah” (21:25). Another excerpt from the Quran will lend confirmation to this one. In plain language, it implies that “undoubtedly, God raised in every nation a prophet proclaiming that Allah should be served and false gods shunned” (16.36).

‘Allah’ is the Arabic word for omnipotent, omnipresent, non-physical Creator, corresponding to the Hebrew word Jehovah or Yehveh for God. After creating a rational and intelligent species by “breathing his own spirit into him” and having “taught him all the names”. God wanted that the acme of his creation should recognize Him alone as his creator and worship Him and submit to Him alone. And, for this purpose, He sent His prophets in all corners of the inhabited world, to teach man the lesson that there is only One God who created him and who alone should be worshipped and none else, however powerful and awesome in form and appearance.

Preaching monotheism and condemning polytheism had to be the chief mission of God’s messengers sent to reform humans. The ‘First Prayer’ of the Jews is: “O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One”. How well it compares with Quran’s very short Surah Al-Ikhlas said to be equivalent to a quarter of the Scripture, which opens thus “Say. He is Allah the One, Allah the eternally besought of all”. These two quotes are the quintessence, or the most essential part, of Judaism and Islam — the two surviving religions which are based on an uncompromising and unalloyed belief in God’s oneness.

It is from this angle that one should view the vigorous struggle the two Prophets, Moses and Muhammad (peace be upon them), had to undertake, the battles they had to fight to subdue to polytheist tribes for preparing ground for the establishment of Jehova’s or Allah’s worship and abolition of the worship of idols and false gods. According to the Old Testament’s book of Exodus, Prophet Moses had waged relentless wars against the heathen tribes, who were the indigenous people of Palestine, to drive them out from the land or convert them to monotheism. And all this at God’s command and with divine help.

In the same way, Prophet Muhammad had to contend strenuously with his polytheist opponents, the Quraish of Makkah and other idolatrous tribes in the rest of Arabia. He devoted almost eight and a half years, out of about ten years of his life in Madina, to quell the polytheist opponents for peace to prevail so as to establish a monotheist, God-fearing, morally upright and ethically perfect society. such peaceful environment was possible only after the conquest of Makkah in Ramzan 8 A.H.

It was only after this that the Prophet turned to other things like the appointment of Zakat collectors in the tribes. It was only by the end of Farewell Pilgrimage, a year, or so, before his passing away, that he took administrative measures like deputing the competent companions as governors in regions that owed allegiance to the authority in Madina, of which he himself was the head. He hardly got time to set up a political order or even to lay down the principles of ‘shoora’ (consultative organ) or to delegate his own authority to those below him.

He left for the posterity laws, not framed by him or any kind of Shoora, but revealed from above and recorded on parchments and committed to memory in his own time. However, these laws, like Mosaic law, deal with subjects governing prayers and piety, food and drink, crime and punishment, war and peace, marriage and divorce, inheritance and alms giving. This much about the Prophet’s example or Sunnah to form the foundation of a political system acceptable at home and abroad as an ideal system or ‘Nizam’.

Those who try to build an entire political structure on the hints provided in the Quran: “consult the companions in appropriate matters” (3.159) and “their affairs are by mutual consultation” (42:38), they do so because they have such system prescribed in the holy book. Also, it is difficult to pinpoint the form of government in the Quran. It recognizes prophet-Kings, David and Solomon, the latter having inherited the high position of a monarch and prophet. It also speaks well of the Queen of Sheba and of Saul (Taalut) who was appointed a king of the Israelites with Divine blessings. The point to note is that the Quran does not concern itself with these details despite inferable hints.

As for the economic system, our religious scholars lay all the emphasis on recovery of Zakat and abolition of Riba. While the former, i.e. Zakat, or poor-tax was levied, not for the first time, on Muslims by the Quran, the latter, i.e. Riba was a social evil, the worst form of financial squeeze of the poor by rich money-lenders which was prohibited by Prophet Moses as far back as 1250 BC, as it was a widely prevalent form of the exploitation of the poor. He proclaimed to the Jews: “If you lend money to any of my people who are poor, do not act like a money-lender and ask him to pay interest” (Exodus: 25).

As for Zakat, this is also not a new form of levy for poverty alleviation in a rural Society or in small agricultural communities. This levy, like any other tax on the well-to-do section can certainly help the poor even today in any modern state but only as an auxiliary measure. This was levied as a religious obligation on communities before the advent of Islam as well.

Syed Sulaiman Nadvi has written thus: “Zakat is also one of those religious duties which had been enjoined on the followers of all other heavenly Scriptures, though these people forgot this injunction completely and it does not feature at all in their list of religious duties” (Seratun-Nabi — Vol. 5). The prime concern of religion, specially Islam, is to establish Allah’s order.

WHILE driving near Schon Circle in Clifton a sixth grader asked her father about the reason for blue sheet draping an under-construction building. It’s done to ensure that the city does not look ugly, came the simple answer. But all these ugly hoardings and wall-writings makes the city look so chaotic and dirty, then why doesn’t someone take notice of that, apparently the little girl was in no mood for simple answers.

During the last hundred years Karachi’s administration, land control and political control has been shared, divided and transferred under various jurisdictions. For example, parts of Clifton and Saddar Town come under the city government and at the same time remain under cantonment board. Similarly, parts of Sharea Faisal, the Hub river and University Road fall under the city government and Town jurisdiction, yet these are partly under various cantonment boards.

This administrative and social fragmentation provides the masters and managers of Karachi a unique opportunity to exploit the city’s resources for personal gain. At times this exploitation becomes so barefaced that it appears if all Karachiites had stopped owning the city. Neither its captors nor its native masters show any love or mercy anymore.

An average hoarding at a prime location may cost the advertisers over two million rupees for annual rental in the city. Yet officially a good location for a hoarding or tri-vision could be leased or taken in auction for a year, for as low as eight thousand rupees. This menace has always been there yet during the last twelve months thousands of hoardings, tri-visions and neon-signs have sprouted on each of the city thoroughfares and even by-lanes.

It’s not that hoardings, neon-signs or tri-visions are not allowed in other parts of the world. In fact many highway departments all over the world allow them to break the monotony on long drives. Even pedestrian zones and commercial areas in Towns and the city centre may be allowed such billboards and neon- signs. But then they are universally subjected to strict rules and regulations regarding the size, quality of illumination, and especially their location.

The number of such hoardings and other outdoor advertising materials are carefully worked out by city councils. Needless to say that such imposing monstrosities for commercial messages are treated universally with visible contempt. They not only tend to deface the city architecture and its skyline, but also cause a general sense of claustrophobia on the streets as well as for the residents of the buildings in the area.

For several years the defunct Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, the predecessor of the present city government, ran a protracted campaign that unfortunately resulted in transfer of this regulating function to the District Municipal Corporations. At present the function of regulating hoardings and sunshades rests with the 18 Town administrations. For their particular reasons, union councils, as well as the city government, may both be interested to acquire this specific function? However, for the residents of the city it is of paramount importance that a somewhat unified policy based upon basic principles of town planning is adopted at the earliest across the city, including cantonment areas.

Public auction of selected sites and agreed sizes may bring in a windfall of revenues for the city. For reference and guidance the city government may like to take a quick look at the policy developed by the “Chief Ministers Aesthetic Committee” during the early nineties and rotting in some files.

There is no singular racket or one mafia that violates the rights of the common man in this city. While the nation grapples with macro-issues of Referendum, National Security Council and War Against Terrorism, allotments and misuse of street sides, service roads and even water mains’ reservation and portions of public parks and playgrounds are under commercial use where commercial activities like running nurseries continue unabated, in the city. Permission for a typical nursery may fetch up to five hundred thousand rupees for the ones in chair. Street sides like the one at Neher-i-Khayyam and Boating Basin at Clifton, or the ones near Safari Park in Gulshan or the triangular park plot near Do Talwar may mean a lot more than a mere five hundred thousand rupees.

Many other violations of our collective rights like illegal conversion of green-belts into parking spaces or parking spaces into warehouses or shops and offices seem to have quietly become an accepted norm in our society and continue with full impunity today. Literally all green-belts and many stormwater drains on M. A. Jinnah Road, I. I. Chundrigar Road, Saddar, Clifton, Tariq Road, Sharea Faisal, University Road and even in residential areas like Nazimabad have been callously converted into illegal parking areas. Similarly, many multi-storied buildings have illegally been converted for commercial use and public parking have been allowed on amenity spaces by the Karachi Building Control Authority.

Such violations may be truly unthinkable in any halfway decent city of the world, including Lahore, Islamabad, or Rawalpindi. We urgently need a closer look from our rulers at micro-details concerning such basic civic issues. Otherwise it would be exceedingly difficult to console the children of the cyber generation by simple answers.

On a positive note, citizens struggle to make our lives and, above all, of our special children a little better. Jimmy Engineer, a philanthropist and social worker, during April alone organized two laudable events bringing tons of joy to special children at Civil Hospital and a local hotel. He is working with the Al-Ummeed Foundation, Edhi Trust and Ida Rieu Foundation for the noble cause. He plans to organize another event for special children in Karachi before the month ends. Some may not agree or support what he does best, yet his work remains an example of angels coming down to earth for many of us.

IT has been quite a baffling circumstance to find the majority of the armed forces deployed, at full alert, along the borders (LoC-plus) and the army chief out on a referendum trail. Yes, the vice chief of the army, the naval and air chiefs are there in their respective commands waiting for the word ‘go’ from either side of the fateful crossing — our own or the enemy’s.

Could, however, the vice chief serve as a full replacement of his chief who, as president and chief executive, also happens to be the supreme military commander?

Hardly, even in the current usage of the referendum. It remains a dilemma otherwise both from individual and institutional points of view. Forget all about the individual burden and challenge to one’s own conscience. Nevertheless, a situation such as the one existing does raise questions about the status of the unity of command, the bedrock of military corporateness.

Even an expedient sharing of command would, by implication, amount to a split command — an institutional aberration. Gen Pervez Musharraf has time and again - in his public speeches and press statements - declared his intent to stay at his military command even after the referendum. By implication even after the October general election, other things being equal, of course.

He was specific about the point at his wide-ranging press conference on April 16 in Islamabad. “I will not leave the office of the chief of the army staff even after having ‘won’ this referendum.

“You know the importance of the uniform. Therefore, I would not remove it,” he said. That the uniform and his status as the army chief are the bedrock of his power goes without saying. However, once mixed up too much with his image as a public figure, his military image gets diluted, no matter how slightly.

Above all, in the process of his hectic campaigning for popular support, his military power base gets a good deal overstretched, if not exactly affected, in its pristine power and authority. There is a point for him and for his high command to ponder the matter with the degree of urgency and seriousness it deserves.

As for the uniformity of the uniform, it can hardly afford any re-touching. While in uniform, one is either properly dressed or not properly dressed. The dress code must be strictly and uniformly observed, to live up to the description of uniform at all. No deviation would be permissible within the steel framework of the military discipline.

In the pre-Partition imperial era, the pampered princelings of the armoured corps were, in certain cases, allowed minor deviations from the prescribed dress code (uniform), namely the colour of their socks (etc). And that too at the unit level only, with the knowledge and approval of the unit commander.

In the case of Gen Musharraf, of course, he remains his own competent authority as far as the observance of dress code (as indeed most other matters) is concerned. However, even his latest civil-military get-up would not escape comment.

After his two public appearances in Lahore and Bannu, sporting a loosely-tied pugree on top of the uniform, he very wisely opted for civvies. At his Islamabad press conference, the general appeared resplendent in his crisp khaki in the image of a thoroughbred soldier and supreme commander.

As for the referendum itself, there is little to add to the constitutionality / legality or otherwise of the exercise after all the on-going animated debate. The outcome of the exercise in terms of a thundering ‘yes’ vote has already been taken for granted. And not just as a part of wishful thinking, but as a settled issue, more or less.

Success in the referendum and continuation as the president and chief of the army staff would, however, be like balancing oneself on two ill-matching stools. Gen Ayub’s one wise act had been to yield his military command to Gen Mohammad Musa soon after donning his double crown as CMLA and president.

He promoted himself to the non-retiring — practically proforma posted — rank of field-marshal, however, to retain the grip on the high command. The arrangement worked mainly out of the courtesy and personal loyalty of a pliant Gen Musa.

Once he was gone, Yahya would not wait much to sideline the field marshal in matters of command and control of the army. For vice chiefs, each in the four star slot, Gens Sawar, Iqbal, Arif and Beg, also stood by Zia, well and steadfastly, to set up a good example.

Now it would be for Gen Musharraf and his high command to decide whether or not to follow his earlier example after a ‘yes’ verdict in the referendum. By far the best course to follow in the materially changed circumstances since the closing decade of the last century would be to draw a firm line between the civil and military spheres and observe it scrupulously.

The writer is a former director of ISPR.