perfect human prophetic

The Perfect Human: Prophetic Biography and the Sci…

The boundless and dynamic history of Seerah—the prophetic biography—bears witness to how every era’s intellectual currents, scholarly demands, and civilizational pressures have played a pivotal role in shaping the style of this sacred literary genre. In the earliest biographical periods, the primary objective was the preservation of prophetic traces and historical continuity, which later evolved during the medieval age into polemical, defensive, and theological debates. Up until the mid-twentieth century, the major goal of Seerah writing remained a reasoned defense against Western Orientalist objections alongside historical verification. However, in this fast-paced, technology-driven, and metaphysics-averse scientific age of the twenty-first century—where the prevailing trend is to test every narrative against data, logic, and objective criteria—there has been an intense, growing need to present the Seerah of the Prophet (PBUH) with an intellectual cadence that steps outside traditional rhetoric to directly appeal to the modern scientific mind and international academic paradigms.
To bridge this intellectual gap, Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed—a distinguished professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington and director of the Center for Advanced Computing Systems—authored a valuable English work titled The Perfect Human, Muhammad (PBUH). To bring this book into the broader Urdu sphere and facilitate access for intellectual and academic circles, Saqlain Shaukat translated it into Urdu under the title Bashar-e-Kamil: Muhammad ﷺ, an endeavor that undeniably holds a prominent and esteemed place in our intellectual world.
The most distinctive quality of this book is that its author is not a traditional graduate of a religious seminary or a conventional orator, but rather a scientist accustomed to weighing every phenomenon through algorithmic precision, systematic models, and multi-level bibliographies. The undertaking of Seerah by a computer science professor with such meticulousness—weaving historical events into a fact-based narrative—bestows upon the account a rare academic and objective validity. Abandoning traditional emotional hyperbole, the author adopts a methodology of historical and documentary evidence that convinces the reader the life of the Prophet (PBUH) is not merely a scattered collection of emotional episodes, but rather the most authentic and actionable code for human evolution and global civilizational formation.
The first part of the book comprises fifty-three detailed chapters, presenting a continuous historical narrative of the Prophet’s (PBUH) life. The true uniqueness of this section lies in how the author intertwines nearly fifteen hundred Quranic verses and authentic references from other heavenly scriptures into the text with such skill that the Quran itself becomes the speaker of the Seerah. In particular, the critical analysis applied to the Constitution of Medina (Mithaq-e-Madinah), the documentary treaties of the Medinan state, and other political and social conditions offers rich intellectual nourishment for students of international law, modern political science, and sociology.
The second part of this scholarly masterpiece represents an entirely novel and unique chapter in the history of Seerah writing. This section encompasses comprehensive research statements based on one hundred distinct human attributes extracted from the individual, collective, and moral life of the Prophet (PBUH). Each attribute is connected to the historical and Quranic evidence of the first part in such a way that it ceases to be mere verbal advice and instead becomes a living, dynamic model of action. For today’s globalized world—which suffers from materialism, moral decline, and severe intellectual chaos—these one hundred attributes serve as a Magna Carta fully capable of restoring the fractured equilibrium of modern man.
The most significant aspect distinguishing this work from traditional Seerah books is its systematic model and algorithmic framework. As an engineering professor, Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed has transitioned the study of Islamic history and the Seerah away from traditional narrative and into a structured system and source code. The one hundred attributes listed at the end of the book are essentially a reverse engineering of the Seerah, providing modern humanity, the corporate world, and academic institutions with a moral source code that any organization in the world can implement to achieve professional success—provided it is applied independently of its colonial and unjust frameworks. Furthermore, the balanced academic perspective that Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed establishes to foster interfaith harmony and intellectual tolerance acts as a robust intellectual bridge for the new generation living in the West and for non-Muslim academies.
However, when this book is examined critically through the lens of objective, deep Islamic thought and history, certain fundamental contradictions become apparent in its methodology and narrative, limiting its universal utility to a degree. It is most important to clarify here that Islam is by no means opposed to science or objective research. Throughout Islamic history, illustrious Muslim scientists such as Ibn al-Haytham, al-Khwarizmi, and al-Biruni enlightened humanity precisely by integrating faith with scientific reasoning. Therefore, Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed’s methodology is not an inherent intellectual deviation; rather, its true tragedy lies in the fact that, in its scramble to satisfy the modern scientific mind, it sidelines Islam’s divine and metaphysical essence.
The understanding of the prophetic Seerah in Islam is not merely a dry collection of historical events, political treaties, or social algorithms. It is built upon a spiritual equilibrium of divine revelation from heavenly sources, miracles that transcend intellect, and a profound love for the Divine—elements that cannot be entirely imprisoned within the mold of computer science source codes. When an author begins to present the Seerah as a corporate model, they inadvertently weaken the metaphysical beauty of the religion, which offers humanity deep spiritual fulfillment alongside intellectual satisfaction.
The second critical observation regarding this assessment is that, in attempting to satisfy the modern scientific mind, the author occasionally reduces historical events to material causes, effectively rendering the original element of miraculous and divine succor either entirely absent or marginalized. An authentic Muslim intellectual perspective maintains that while the material causes of Islamic history hold their proper place, the operational force behind them is divine will and unseen support—the fundamental catalyst without which the entire narrative of the Seerah feels incomplete and lifeless.
The book’s assertion that the Magna Carta of the Prophet’s (PBUH) attributes serves as a source code for the modern corporate world also suffers from a clear intellectual contradiction. The Western corporate world, built fundamentally upon profit-seeking, capitalist exploitation, materialism, and post-humanism, lacks the capacity to genuinely internalize these universal principles of the Seerah unless it radically dismantles its own colonial and materialistic framework. To simply assume that presenting the Seerah as a scientific algorithm will lead the Western world to accept it is an intellectual illusion. Genuine Muslim thought does not consist of blindly imitating prevailing Western intellectual systems; rather, it challenges those systems in light of divine values and offers humanity a just alternative.
Moreover, while the extensive argumentation involving nearly fifteen hundred Quranic verses and historical references stands as a testament to the author’s prolonged academic labor and dedication, its scholarly evaluation occasionally departs from the established classical principles of Jarh wa Ta’deel (critical appraisal of narrators and texts) observed by traditional exegetes and traditionists. When a researcher rooted primarily in computer science bypasses the classical methodology of traditional Islamic sciences to project scriptural verses directly into a modern scientific context, it opens the door to intellectual interpretations that can compromise the authentic understanding of the religious text. This blending becomes hazardous when the reader begins to believe that the truth of Islam depends on the validation of modern science, whereas in Islamic thought, science itself is subservient to revelation and sound intellect, rather than serving as the standard for the truth of religion.
Overall, Bashar-e-Kamil: Muhammad ﷺ is a unique and commendable endeavor in terms of its technical and scientific style, yet it falls short of becoming a balanced synthesis of comprehensive Muslim and global thought because it appears somewhat intimidated by the intellectual pressure of Western positivism. In its quest to prove religion as a functional scientific system, the book dims its metaphysical and divine essence—representing the ultimate tragedy of intellectual equilibrium for any mature, thoughtful reader or practicing Muslim.

Similar Posts

  • New World Order and World War III

    There is a common perception among experts that a new world order usually emerges after a world war or a major geopolitical event. Wars are caused by the irrational behavior of existing powers, illegal resource capture, and opposition to rising powers. These factors make the peaceful transition difficult. Thucydides’ Trap further explains the phenomenon. In modern history, World War I and World War II are often quoted as examples.   World War I began after Germany’s exponential growth and emergence as a new economic and global power. Germany’s efforts to enhance its influence further complicated the situation for existing powers such as the British Empire. It threatened them, and they started to conspire against Germany, especially after the launch of the Berlin-Baghdad railway line. The Berlin-Baghdad railway was considered a game-changing initiative for Europe and the Middle East. The British Empire negated it and built alliances with France; Russia, and later on, the USA helped them. World War II is considered a byproduct of the 1930s economic recession, Germany’s reemergence, Britain’s declining power, and the USA’s emergence as a new economic and global powerhouse.   World War I resulted in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Germany. It laid the first stone of the new empire, the USA. President Wilson tried to build on the fallen Empires and create a new world order through the League of Nations, but it could not sustain itself and ended with World War II. World War II ended with the collapse of Germany and the end of the two empires, the UK and Japan. After World War II, the USA emerged as a global empire and began crafting a new world order. Fortunately, it had the support of the USSR and China, which helped it create a new world order. However, after building a new world order, the USA turned against the USSR, and China laid the foundation of the Cold War Era.   The new system was built to continue the exploitation, but with new tools and strategies. With the end of World War II and the rise of freedom movements, the Western powers realized that the age of occupation and colonization had passed. It is not possible to enslave people physically. Thus, they pondered what new ways of controlling people should be. They identified the economy as a leading tool. Hence, they began devising tools to control the global economy. In the beginning, they leveraged the West’s production capacity to dominate the global economy. With the advent of globalization, they introduced tools to control supply chains and dominate markets by exerting absolute control over intellectual property rights, market rulemaking, and non-tariff barriers such as human rights, democracy, and the environment.  It led to the weaponization of the economy.   Simultaneously, they initiated the process to strengthen control over the financial system. The Bretton Woods institutions helped the USA and the West to dominate the global financial system. The US$ further consolidated its dominance as the leading global currency of global trade and reserves. Unfortunately, they also weaponized the global financial system.   However, with the dawn of the 21st century, they started to realize that new economic, technological, and trade powerhouses are emerging. These will challenge their dominance and exploitation. The rapid development and trade progress of the Global South further deepened their fears. China’s advances in technology and innovation made them worry about their future. However, China’s emergence as an alternative economic, trade, and technological power, challenging Western dominance in these areas, antagonized them.  After the launch of global initiatives such as GDI, GSI, BRI, GCI, GGI, AIIB, CIIE, and CIFTIS, among others, the West took off its gloves and began openly opposing China.   The West is opposing China, especially its BRI and technological aspects, just like the British and other powers opposed Germany’s rise and the Berlin-Baghdad railway line just before World War I. Therefore, many experts believe that the world is living under the threat of a looming third world war.   However, another school of thought claims the world is already in World War III, with different parameters. This time the battlefield would be trade, technology, and financial systems, as mentioned by an expert from Russia, Ms. Daria Para.   According to this theory, the world is already at war. President Trump has already intensified the trade war. He is using it as a tool to extract maximum benefit and consolidate the USA’s dominance over the global economic system. The USA is also not allowing any country to surpass it in the field of technology. First, in the late 90s and early 2000s, it compelled Japan to give up its dream of technological leadership. Now, the USA is doing everything to undermine Chinese advancements. It is sanctioning Chinese companies and compelling other nations to cut or restrict relations with China. Even the USA is creating challenges for Chinese students, as it considers them essential to technological development. Hence, admissions have dropped significantly. The USA has also weaponized the financial sector and is using it to penalize countries.   The war in these areas is deeply impacting humanity. It is aggravating inequality, food insecurity, and human suffering. This time, people are dying of malnutrition, unsafe water, poverty, and lack of opportunities for livelihoods, not with bullets or bombs. It is more painful and leaves lasting impacts on those who survive. Unfortunately, the war is intensifying in these fields. It is feared that soon it will lead to a hot war. First glimpses are already visible from the Iran-USA conflict, Russia-Ukraine conflict, regime change in Venezuela, blockade of Cuba, and conflicts in many other countries.   However, China and the Global South are still making every effort to avoid a third world war and create a new world order through reforms. The demand for reforms is rational and genuine, as due to flaws and inefficiencies of the existing order, inequality and poverty are on the rise and the world is facing the existential threat of climate change.

  • The Stories of Pakistan’s Unsung Heros

    Every 14th of August we hear the same national narrative. Speeches recall 1947, flags are hoisted, and anthems are played at midnight. The symbolism matters. It reminds us of the cost of independence and the idea of Pakistan. Yet symbolism without substance risks becoming ritual. If we are to understand what independence means in 2026, we must look beyond the ceremony and toward the quiet, persistent work that sustains the nation through every crisis. That work is rarely televised. It is carried out by teachers in under-resourced schools, by health workers walking door to door, by engineers keeping the grid alive during heatwaves, by farmers adapting to erratic weather, and by young people building livelihoods from laptops in small towns. These are the stories of resilience that deserve a central place in our understanding of Pakistan, 79 years after its founding. Resilience is not an abstract virtue. It is a measurable response to constraint. Pakistan has faced recurring fiscal stress, energy shortfalls, climate shocks, and security challenges. In each case, state capacity alone has been insufficient. What has prevented collapse is a dense network of civic and professional effort that fills gaps, innovates under pressure, and restores basic function. Consider education. Official data continues to show millions of children out of school and low learning outcomes. At the same time, thousands of low-fee private schools, community learning centers, and volunteer tutoring initiatives operate in the same neighborhoods. They do not appear in headlines, but they keep children literate, prepare them for exams, and create a pathway, however narrow, to higher education. The same pattern appears in health. Lady Health Workers and polio teams travel on foot in heat and in risk, maintaining immunization coverage and maternal counseling in areas where clinics are distant or overburdened. Their work is repetitive, underpaid, and essential. Without it, disease surveillance and primary care would deteriorate far more rapidly. Economic resilience is visible in the informal sector and in the emerging digital economy. Pakistan’s labor market has never been able to absorb all new entrants through formal jobs alone. In response, millions have created their own employment: workshops, transport, retail, agriculture processing, and services. In the last decade, a new layer has appeared. Freelancers in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, Peshawar, Quetta, Multan, and Faisalabad now earn foreign exchange by writing, designing, coding, and providing remote services. They pay no rent for office space, require little imported capital, and learn through online courses. This is not a substitute for industrial policy, but it is a real expansion of opportunity. It represents a form of independence: the ability of an individual to earn without waiting for a large institution to hire them. The state’s role here should be to reduce friction, ensure reliable electricity and internet, and simplify taxation and payment systems, so that this energy is not wasted. Climate resilience is now inseparable from national security. Floods in 2010, 2014, and 2022 displaced millions and damaged infrastructure worth billions. Drought and heatwaves threaten wheat and water. The response has included both engineering and community adaptation. Farmers are experimenting with drought-tolerant varieties and more efficient irrigation. Urban volunteers organize tree planting and waste management in their streets. Provincial and federal programs have attempted large-scale afforestation and watershed management. Progress is uneven and often underfunded, but the impulse is clear: adapt or lose. The most effective adaptations are local, because they are designed around specific soil, rainfall, and social networks. National policy can support them by providing data, credit, and technical extension, but it cannot replace the judgment of people who live on the land. What ties these examples together is a refusal to wait for perfect conditions. Resilience in Pakistan is not optimism. It is a practical calculation that problems will persist, and that action must proceed anyway. This attitude is visible in small businesses that maintain generators and solar panels to cope with load-shedding, in parents who pool money to hire a tutor, and in journalists and lawyers who document cases despite pressure. It is not heroic in the cinematic sense. It is tedious, repetitive, and often thankless. That is precisely why it matters. Nations are built not only in founding moments but in the accumulation of ordinary competence over decades. As we mark 79 years, the task is to recognize this resilience and to institutionalize it. Recognition means collecting data that captures informal work, community schools, and local adaptation, and then designing policy around them. Institutionalization means protecting merit in recruitment, ensuring predictable funding for primary services, and removing regulatory obstacles for small enterprises and freelancers. It also means telling a different story about Pakistan. The dominant story is one of crisis and rescue. The more accurate story is one of persistence and incremental gain. Both are true. But a country that only narrates its crises will train its citizens to expect failure. A country that also narrates its resilience will train its citizens to contribute. Independence, therefore, is not a date. It is a practice. It is the practice of showing up to teach, to heal, to build, to adapt, and to hold institutions accountable when they fall short. The midnight speech reminds us why we began. The morning work determines whether we continue. If we wish to honor 1947, we should honor those who, without fanfare, keep Pakistan functioning every day between 15th August and the next 14th. Their work is not perfect, and it is not sufficient on its own. But it is the foundation on which any serious reform must rest. To see it, to name it, and to support it is the most patriotic act available to us now.

  • Pakistan’s Rise Leaves India Isolated: A Set…

    As the fourth week of the US–Israel military campaign against Iran unfolded in March 2026, a major geopolitical shift reshaped South Asia and the Middle East. For years, India’s rise under Narendra Modi had dominated regional diplomacy while Pakistan faced marginalization and economic struggles. However, the outbreak of war in West Asia created an opportunity for Pakistan to leverage its geography and relationships to regain global relevance. Within weeks, Pakistan mounted a proactive and unified diplomatic effort led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and military chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, reversing its isolation and, according to observers, redirecting diplomatic pressure toward India. This “peace offensive” highlighted Pakistan’s strategic agility and exposed perceived weaknesses in India’s foreign policy, marking a striking turnaround in regional influence. This resurgence began after the US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on February 28, 2026, forcing countries into difficult alignments. Pakistan instead positioned itself as a neutral stabilizer, maintaining ties with both the United States and Iran while emphasizing its stake in de-escalation due to its shared border with Iran. A rare civil-military unity drove this strategy: Sharif engaged the Muslim world and framed mediation as a moral duty, including direct outreach to Iran’s president, while Munir used high-level connections in Washington to open backchannel communications. His rapport with US leadership enabled message exchanges between American and Iranian officials, helping establish a temporary de-escalation and cementing Pakistan’s role as a key diplomatic intermediary. The effectiveness of this two-pronged approach became evident when President Trump announced a conditional pause on plans to “obliterate” Iranian energy infrastructure. In his announcement on the Truth Social platform, Trump cited “VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE” conversations, a tacit acknowledgment of the behind-the-scenes efforts being made by Pakistan. Building on this momentum, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif made a formal, public offer on March 24, 2026, stating that Pakistan “stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks” between the United States and Iran. In an extraordinary diplomatic signal that underscored the shift in Washington’s attitude toward Islamabad, President Trump reposted Sharif’s offer on his Truth Social account. This repost was widely interpreted by analysts and officials in Islamabad as Washington’s de facto endorsement of Pakistan’s emerging role as a credible and neutral mediator, capable of hosting what would be a historic breakthrough in one of the world’s most volatile conflicts. While the White House cautioned that such talks remained speculative, the very fact that Pakistan was being discussed as a potential venue—and that its leadership was publicly coordinating with Turkey and Egypt to secure a fragile pause in hostilities—represented a monumental diplomatic victory for a nation that had spent years trying to shake off its image as an international pariah. The strategic ramifications of Pakistan’s diplomatic surge extend far beyond the immediate conflict in West Asia, striking directly at the heart of India’s long-standing foreign policy objectives under Prime Minister Modi. For years, a central pillar of India’s global strategy was the policy of isolating Pakistan, portraying it as a sponsor of terrorism and an unstable, economically faltering state. By deepening India’s strategic partnerships with Western powers, including the United States, Israel, and the Gulf monarchies, New Delhi sought to limit Islamabad’s diplomatic space and marginalize its influence on the world stage. However, Pakistan’s performance as the lead mediator in the US-Iran conflict has fundamentally challenged this narrative. By demonstrating that it possesses “strategic synergy” and can act as a “responsible nuclear power” and a stabilizing force, Pakistan has proven itself to be an “indispensable actor” in a crisis where a larger power like India cannot provide the same utility. This development has been described by scholars like Vali Nasr as a calculated and highly effective move to prove that Pakistan is more than a “problem child,” capable of “walking the talk” on global peace. This reversal has been so stark that it has prompted open criticism of the Modi government from within India itself. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, a prominent voice in the Indian opposition, issued a series of scathing statements on March 24, 2026, acknowledging that Pakistan’s diplomatic engagement and narrative management had been “markedly superior to that of the Modi Govt”. Ramesh went further, stating that the international media reports identifying Pakistan as a potential intermediary represented a “severe setback and rebuff to India”. He directly attributed this disadvantage to the “self-styled Vishwaguru” (world leader) foreign policy of Prime Minister Modi, arguing that despite India’s military successes, its diplomatic space in the region had shrunk over the previous year. A key point of criticism was Modi’s “ill-advised” visit to Israel just days before the US-Israel strikes on Iran, a move that Ramesh and other analysts argued fatally compromised any claim India might have had to neutrality in the conflict. In contrast, Pakistan, despite being a close US ally, was able to maintain a balanced posture, leveraging its ties with both Washington and Tehran to become the preferred interlocutor. The once-celebrated “hug diplomacy” of Prime Minister Modi, which sought to build deep personal relationships with global leaders, was now being characterized by critics as “brutally exposed,” unable to compete with the practical, geostrategic value that Pakistan was able to offer in a moment of acute crisis. The architect of Pakistan’s success in securing such favorable access to the US administration is widely acknowledged to be Field Marshal Asim Munir, whose efforts to rebuild ties with Washington began long before the war with Iran erupted. Throughout 2025, Munir engaged in a methodical campaign to reverse the diplomatic isolation that Pakistan experienced during the Biden administration. A pivotal moment came when Pakistan nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. This shrewd move, which played to Trump’s well-known desire for the prestigious award, was rewarded with an invitation for Munir to a one-on-one White House lunch—a privilege rarely granted to a foreign military leader who was not also a head of state. Furthermore, Pakistan aligned

  • A new wave of youth activism in Asia

    By : Amir Ismaiel ( London based pakistani student )  A new youth-led protest movement in India, known as the Cockroach Janata Party has become the focus of global attention. In recent days students associated with the movement attempted to march towards Parliament, but police used baton charges and force to stop them. The movement’s founder, Abhijeet Dabke, is currently studying in the United States while several of its other leaders are enrolled at leading universities in India and the United Kingdom. The movement is primarily driven by young students. The movement began after the Chief Justice of India reportedly referred to young people as “cockroaches.” Students adopted the term as a symbol of resistance and established the Cockroach Janata Party. According to its leaders, the recent examination paper leak scandal has exposed deep weaknesses and corruption within India’s education system. They argue that corruption in examinations and the erosion of merit are allowing unqualified individuals to enter key institutions, ultimately damaging the country’s future. Protesters are therefore demanding the resignation of the Education Minister, whom they hold responsible for the crisis. Thousands of students continue to demonstrate across different cities while pressing for a wider set of demands. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has expressed solidarity with the protesting students. Meanwhile, allegations of police mistreatment of both protesters and opposition leaders have sparked a nationwide debate. Several Indian actors, artists, and public figures have also condemned the use of force against students, adding to the growing political and public pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. India often presents itself as the world’s largest democracy and a champion of democratic values. While its large youth population is one of its greatest strengths, it can also become a significant challenge. Because of its distinctive identity and objectives, this movement has attracted the attention of young people not only across India but throughout Asia and beyond. Its growing popularity on social media has encouraged increasing numbers of young Indians to join. If the protests spread further and gain broader public support, they could become a serious political challenge for the government. In response to the latest developments, Prime Minister Narendra Modi released a late-night video message appealing to young people for patience. He stated that investigations into the paper leak scandal were already underway and assured the public that those responsible would be held accountable. However, student leaders insisted that their sit-in would continue until the Education Minister resigned. Some observers believe that the Prime Minister’s body language during the address reflected political pressure and unease. A government that has previously responded firmly to numerous protests now appears to be facing unprecedented pressure from a youth-led movement. Over the past few decades, Asian politics has undergone significant change, with young people emerging as an increasingly influential political force. Even before the current protests in India, youth movements in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal had already played decisive roles in shaping political developments. In March 2022, Sri Lanka was engulfed by mass protests triggered by a severe economic crisis. Young people stood at the forefront of the demonstrations and led protests that continued for weeks. The government imposed a state of emergency, enforced curfews, and attempted to restrict access to social media, but these measures failed to weaken the protesters’ determination. Eventually, demonstrators surrounded the Presidential Palace, forcing the President to resign. Similarly, Bangladesh witnessed a student-led protest movement that fundamentally reshaped the country’s political landscape. As demonstrations intensified, then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left office and departed the country. Security forces attempted to suppress the protests, resulting in the deaths of numerous young demonstrators. Despite this, the movement expanded across the country. Student activism ultimately dominated national politics, the government collapsed, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunusassumed leadership of the interim administration. The intensity of public anger was evident in the actions of some protesters, who set fire to a statue of Bangladesh’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, burned his residence, and removed his image from banknotes. Many young protesters viewed these acts as a response to what they considered years of political repression and believed that every sacrifice was necessary to achieve their objectives. Nepal also witnessed strong youth mobilization against corruption, weak governance, and restrictions on social media. As a generation raised in the digital era, young activists relied heavily on social media to organize, coordinate, and build public support. Issues were first highlighted online, public consensus was gradually developed, and protest calls were then issued. The same strategy transformed local demonstrations into a nationwide movement. The protests became so significant that the country’s political leadership resigned, with Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli and his cabinet stepping down. The new interim administration subsequently accepted several of the protesters’ demands. Young people have likewise organized movements in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines to demand political, social, and economic reforms. Together, these examples demonstrate that the youth of Asia are no longer passive observers but have become powerful and influential agents of political change. Pakistani media is currently giving extensive coverage to the student protests in India. Reports highlight the Indian government’s use of force against students and the growing political pressure facing the Modi administration. This naturally raises an important question: if young people in Pakistan were to launch a similar peaceful movement for their rights, would our own government respond with the same level of restraint? Would protesters avoid police violence, criminal charges, house raids, blocked identity cards, or accusations of disloyalty? The reality is that as a society, we have yet to build a strong culture of tolerance for dissent. Too often, we are more accustomed to silencing critical voices than listening to them. Pakistani youth face not only unemployment and economic uncertainty but also an environment shaped by fear. Even those who have jobs frequently hesitate to raise legitimate concerns, fearing that doing so could cost them their employment, personal freedom, or future opportunities. For this reason, before commenting on developments elsewhere,

  • Beyond Riba: Reconstruction of Just Financial Orde…

    Pakistan has debated the elimination of riba—a Quranic term subjected to judicial interpretation and theological discourse but still lacking a precise statutory definition—for decades. Judicial decisions have been delivered, commissions constituted, reports prepared, appeals filed and withdrawn, deadlines announced and Islamic banking expanded. The central intellectual and legislative task, however, remains incomplete. We have not developed a precise, comprehensive and operational definition of the economic practices that must be prohibited. This omission is not merely academic. No financial system can be reconstructed around a prohibition that is expressed only as a moral declaration. A law [Who will draft Riba Prohibition Law? Minute Mirror, April 7, 2026] must identify the transaction, the prohibited increment, the parties affected, the substance to be examined and the consequences of violation. It must also distinguish an unlawful return on money from lawful earnings arising from trade, labour, services, ownership and commercial risk. The first requirement of a serious programme for the elimination of riba is clarity. Riba is commonly translated as interest/usury. This translation is useful but incomplete. Modern interest is one of its most important manifestations, particularly where a lender advances money and contractually claims an additional amount merely because the borrower is allowed time to repay. The prohibition, however, cannot be confined to instruments carrying the label “interest”. Nor can every commercial gain, deferred price or fixed payment be declared riba. The distinction lies in the legal and economic substance of the transaction. Where money is advanced as a loan and the lender is guaranteed an increase over the principal, the return does not arise from ownership of a productive asset, provision of a service, participation in business or exposure to commercial loss. It arises from the loan itself and the passage of time. The borrower must pay the increase whether the borrowed funds generate profit, produce loss, meet a medical emergency or finance bare survival. This asymmetry lies at the heart of the problem. Capital is protected; return is predetermined; risk is shifted to the borrower. Trade operates differently. A trader purchases or produces an asset, assumes the risks of ownership, incurs costs, faces the possibility of loss and sells the asset at a profit. The profit is not earned merely because money has been unavailable to another person for a period. It is connected with property, exchange, enterprise and market risk. Lease income also rests upon a different foundation. An owner permits another person to use an asset while retaining the liabilities associated with ownership. Rent represents consideration for the use of the asset. The arrangement becomes questionable when the supposed owner bears no meaningful ownership risk and the entire structure is merely a cash loan disguised through documents. Partnership profit has another character. Partners combine capital, work, expertise or enterprise. Profit is divided according to an agreed formula permitted by the applicable juristic principles, while financial loss follows the capital placed at risk. A partner cannot lawfully guarantee himself a fixed return upon capital and compel the other partner to bear every commercial loss. These distinctions are recognised, with variations, across the major Muslim schools. They differ on matters such as the permissible relationship between capital contribution and profit-sharing ratios, conditions attached to contracts, possession, agency and the allocation of particular risks. They do not treat every profit as riba. Nor do they permit a partner to convert genuine risk participation into a guaranteed return on money. A modern Prohibition of Riba law must preserve these distinctions. The difficulty is that contemporary finance has developed techniques through which a loan can be divided into several formally separate contracts. An institution may purchase an asset for a few moments, sell it to the customer at a marked-up price, obtain comprehensive security, transfer every economic risk to the customer and calculate its return by reference to the prevailing interest rate. The transaction may satisfy documentary requirements while reproducing the economic substance of conventional lending. The institution receives a predetermined return; the customer bears the commercial risk; and the institution’s temporary ownership exists mainly to legitimise the financing charge. This does not mean that murabaha, ijarah or diminishing musharakah are inherently invalid. Each can serve a legitimate commercial purpose. Murabaha can facilitate an actual purchase where the financier genuinely acquires and assumes responsibility for the asset before selling it. Ijarah can finance the use of an asset where the lessor retains real ownership obligations. Diminishing musharakah can support home ownership where the parties genuinely share ownership and the customer gradually acquires the financier’s units. The problem arises when these contracts are treated as legal devices for guaranteeing the same return that would have been received under an interest-bearing loan. A workable definition must therefore contain both a formal and a substantive test. The formal test will examine the legal category of the contract. The substantive test will determine whether the financier has provided an asset, service or productive participation and whether it has assumed a genuine risk corresponding to its return. This test should not be misunderstood as hostility towards fixed prices. A lawful sale price may be fixed. Rent may be determined in advance. A service fee may be agreed. The existence of a fixed amount does not by itself establish riba. The decisive question is what the payment represents. A fee charged for maintaining an account, transferring funds, valuing property, arranging documentation or providing an identifiable professional service may be legitimate. A “service fee” calculated as a percentage of a loan, increasing with time and unrelated to the actual cost or nature of the service may be interest under another name. The same care is required in relation to delayed payment. A seller, who supplies goods on deferred payment, may charge a price higher than the immediate cash price, provided one price is finally agreed when the contract is concluded. Once the debt has been created, however, an additional amount cannot ordinarily be imposed merely because the debtor requires more time. This is where many modern systems institutionalise exploitation. A

  • A lesson from 1979

    In the winter of 1979, a neighbour’s house caught fire. The Soviet Union had marched into Afghanistan, and the flames of war were licking at the walls of Kabul. From across the ocean, a distant power arrived at Pakistan’s door. It did not come with soldiers. It came with money, guns, and a promise: *”Let us fight this fire together. Use your roof. Use your roads. We will stand with you. We will not let the fire reach your house.”* Pakistan opened its door. What else could it do? The Soviet army sat on its western border. The world was divided into two camps, and neutrality was a luxury no frontline state could afford. For ten years, Pakistan became the staging ground for a war that was not its own. It hosted three million refugees. Its cities swelled. Its tribal areas became training grounds for fighters armed and funded by outside money. Weapons arrived by the shipload through Karachi. Pakistani officers coordinated strategy. Every bullet fired at a Soviet convoy in the Hindu Kush passed through Pakistani hands. The distant power paid the bills. It sent the Stinger missiles. It called the resistance fighters “freedom fighters” and Pakistan a “frontline state.” But the war was never truly about Pakistan’s safety. It was about bleeding the Soviet Union in a distant mountainside, using Pakistani soil as the operating theatre and Afghan bodies as the currency. Then, in 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew. The fire in the neighbour’s house went out. And the distant power that had promised eternal friendship turned its attention elsewhere. The billions dried up. The diplomatic interest evaporated. Afghanistan, the battlefield, was left to warlords who turned the weapons on each other. Pakistan was left with three million refugees who would not go home, a Kalashnikov culture that would not disappear, and a border that would never again be quiet. The weapons that had been given to fight the Soviets did not rust. They remained. They moved into streets, into disputes, into corners of the country where the state had never fully reached. The guest who had brought the fire extinguisher had started a blaze that spread to the host’s own house — and then moved to a new neighbourhood. The distant power won its strategic objective at the cost of Afghan and Pakistani soil, then walked away. Its own cities were never bombed. Its own children never became refugees. Its economy never staggered under the weight of someone else’s war. Pakistan, which had signed no formal treaty of alliance but had acted as an ally in every meaningful sense, was left holding the pieces. This is what happens when alliances are forged in the middle of a fire. The stronger partner does not need your victory. He needs your usefulness. He needs you to hold the front, to absorb the blow, to stand in a place where he does not wish to stand. And when the war ends, he will shake your hand and go home — while you remain amid the embers, wondering why the fire you helped extinguish has reignited in your own courtyard. History records a curious pattern. The alliances that have endured — the ones that outlasted their founders and shaped the world for generations — were almost never built while the house was burning. NATO was forged in 1949, not because the bombs were falling on Paris, but because the memory of war was still fresh and the desire to prevent it was shared. The parties had time to read the text, to negotiate the terms, to build institutions that could survive a change of government on either side. An alliance born in the middle of a fire is a different creature entirely. It is an emergency measure. And emergency measures have a way of becoming permanent arrangements that no one planned and no one fully controls. When you sign while the heat is at your back and the smoke is in your eyes, you do not have time to ask who owns the hose, who pays for the water, and who walks away when the flames are out. The Afghan episode is not ancient history. It is in our own lifetime. It is written in the smoke that still rises from our western border. And it is written in the simple fact that the weapons once aimed at a northern invader eventually turned inward, because no one had written a clause for what happens after the guest leaves. Pakistan has every right to defend itself. Pakistan has every right to seek friends in a dangerous world. But history offers a quiet observation for those who are listening: **the strongest alliances are built in peacetime, not borrowed in panic.** The fire is real. The neighbour’s house is burning. Yet the hand that offers protection in the middle of a war is holding a different ledger than the hand that offers partnership in the middle of calm. That is not a warning against friendship. It is simply what the record shows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *