RE

Old habits never die. With time, if we do not tame them, they grow so strong that they may end up, by themselves, defining our personalities. Lying is one of those habits (trust me) that do not wither away easily, requiring special efforts and focused personal attention to be subdued.
Alas, the chairperson of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Imran Khan, who is also the most provocative speaker nowadays, suffers from the same problem of mendacity. It manifests itself quite often when he, in his heart, is convinced by the merit of his argument and is attempting to make a point. Let me elaborate: listen to some of his interviews and soon you will notice that he keeps on repeating a particular catchphrase again and again. Everyone does that and there is nothing wrong with it. What is the problem? None, as long as what he says is true. The problem arises when he incorrectly attributes things to important historical personalities, Muslim or otherwise, without doing any background investigation, confirming the source of the phrase or even using his own common sense.
By doing so, I am not sure if the former cricketer-turned-politician-turned-revolutionary is able to make his point but what he says gets recorded, replayed and reproduced as evidence of his lack of understanding of the core issues and maybe his inability to solve the problems of the common people. No, I do not think it is just an academic debate nor can it be shrugged off as a matter of little importance. For people like me, it depicts a personality trait, a dangerous characteristic of a leader who would use any technique, no matter what, to demonstrate the accuracy of his claim.
Not many people I must admit are so sure about their self-righteousness as he is even when they are wrong. My disagreement with his politics and his stance on election rigging notwithstanding, I still appreciate his confidence, arrogance and absence of any sign of remorse. He makes these statements in front of thousands of people as if he has heard the heroes utter those words himself, leaving no space for ambiguity and equivocation. The truth, nevertheless, unfolds the other way when one starts looking for the source or tries to confirm its validity.
A few years ago, when he was supporting the then Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Imran would tell the baseless story in his interviews about Sir Winston Churchill who, while attending a high level meeting, allegedly said that in the middle of the second world war, as long as the courts were working in his country and providing justice, the UK could never be subjugated. That story was catchy, no doubt about that. Unfortunately, not all catchy stories are true. Such was the case with this story as well. Yet the chairman kept on telling the story to the people of Pakistan on national television till the time an explanation from Mr Richard M Langworth, an expert on this issue and editor since 1982 of Finest Hour, The Journal of Winston Churchill, was published in Daily Times on July 13, 2012 in these words: “The statement or key phrase from it is not among his 15 million published words (books, articles, speeches, private papers). He might have said it to someone in the judiciary but I find no evidence. And his writings are studded with sentiments about why democracies win wars over dictatorships.”
Lately, I have observed, Imran is using Hazrat Ali Ibn-e-Talib’s name for his political objectives. In his speech, delivered on the second day of the azaadi (independence) march, while addressing his supporters, Imran told the crowds a quote attributed to the fourth caliph, who, according to the chairman, had said, “Never let a trader/merchant become your ruler because they will make money for themselves first.”
Like his previous story about the British prime minister, this phrase also seems to be untrue, absent from reliable Shia and Sunni sources. The reason is evident to any student of history: the respectable caliph himself belonged to a family of merchants (including most likely himself). As a general principle, we all agree that traders should not conduct personal business while in power. But how can we expect such a quotation from the most venerated follower, the son-in-law and the most knowledgeable companion of the Prophet (PBUH) in this case? Not only were his father and grandfather, the Prophet (PBUH) himself, merchants, they were also rulers. How could we miss that piece, regarding the profession of the Prophet (PBUH), of history from our minds? In addition, the third caliph of the Muslims, Hazrat Usman, was also a renowned merchant of his time. There are many authentic hadith that deal with the honest practices of business and encourage Muslims to adopt these fundamental principles for being successful. Other quotes that reflect the importance of business in the economy can also be found easily. Knowing these fundamental facts, can we just call the former cricketer naive and excuse him for using religion to gain short-term political support?
Unlike Islam, as far as I remember, it was Plato who wanted to divide society into three groups: philosophers, guardians and workers that included both farmers and traders. Compared to the top two professions, he did not think very highly of the last group and said, “Woe to the nation whose traders become politicians.”
Similarly, Hinduism has classified society through its caste system into five groups: Brahamin, Kshatriya, Vaishiya, Sudra and Pariah. Vaishiyas, the traders fell in the middle at number three in this arrangement. Nonetheless, Islam had an entirely different vision about people. It did not malign any profession or disrespect any trade. The only virtue that distinguished one person from another in its teaching was the fear of God. Everyone, regardless of one’s means of living, was otherwise equal and equally reliable, respectable and eligible to rule.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com