Read on Twitter
One of the critiques that's leveled at Khadim Rizvi and his group/movement is that they undermine rule of law and the writ of the state.
That much is true, but there's a broader trend here.
In the classical Islamic era, the ulema were an independent check on rulers as well...
That much is true, but there's a broader trend here.
In the classical Islamic era, the ulema were an independent check on rulers as well...
...as the de facto "legislative branch" of government.
Today, that's no longer the case. The modern nation-state is all-powerful, and has its own internal legislation and checks & balances. Ulema exist outside that.
Today, that's no longer the case. The modern nation-state is all-powerful, and has its own internal legislation and checks & balances. Ulema exist outside that.
However, a charismatic cleric like Khadim Rizvi is sometimes able to use the tools & methods of mass politics (rallies, sit-ins, social media, etc) to create power & influence for himself.
This inevitably clashes with the state, even if Rizvi didn't commit any crime.
This inevitably clashes with the state, even if Rizvi didn't commit any crime.
In Rizvi's case, I believe he went too far in condoning people who did actually circumvent rule of law, such as Mumtaz Qadri.
But I'm not blind to the fact that any cleric who gathers independent power will have these accusations thrown at them, something we need to keep in mind
But I'm not blind to the fact that any cleric who gathers independent power will have these accusations thrown at them, something we need to keep in mind
