The prevailing thought in our society is that Pakistan was made in the name of Islam. For one thing it is not correct. Pakistan was made for the Muslims of subcontinent to prevent possible future discrimination by extremist Hindutva ideology after they turn into a minority. Muhammad Ali Jinnah explicitly mentioned in his speeches that Pakistan will not become a theological state. The same religious elements who disdain state-religion separation in Pakistan are the greatest proponents of secularism in the countries where Muslims are in minority, for instance Madrassa Deoband and Jamat-i-Islami in India. This is because they know that the rule of one specific extremist religious version will make their lives miserable. On the contrary, in Pakistan, we see otherwise. Ironically, the Muslims are safer and more prosperous in India than in Pakistan. Except few inevitable communal clashes there is a lot of harmony there; while in Pakistan we have lost more than 70,000 lives in the last 10 years by our own Muslim brethren and about 30,000 people have become victim of sectarian killings. The plight of thousands of minorities is undeniable. Secularism does not mean that people may shun their religion. It simply means that religion should be made a personal matter, ensuring that the state does not side with one specific version of it and makes sure that no one could violently enforce their specific version on others. The question is not about Muslims and non-Muslims anymore. It is also about the divisions within Muslims. Justice Munir in his famous Munir Commission Report of 1953 wrote this epic statement. “After taking into account the views of all the scholars on the definition of a Muslim, the Court arrives on the conclusion that even two scholars do not have a consensus over this fundamental question. Every scholar has a definition different from the other. If the court accepts the views of one particular scholar, all the remaining schools of thought fall out of the definition of Islam. If one scholar believes that we are Muslims, the other believes that all of us are infidels.” This is a perfect analysis. In a country of 180 million, where there are dozens of sects, how can a single acceptable version of religion be adopted by state? And why should it be the state’s problem, or mine, if a person offers prayers with his arms lowered or his pants drawn below his ankles or even if someone is Muslim or not? Why can’t the state treat all its citizens on equal grounds? Why are our religious sentiments more important than humanity and our Pakistaniyat? Is religion not about empathy, love and peace as they claim? Then why does it need to be enforced with blasphemy laws, mob justice, takfir and death threats? If religion is that comprehensive, why does it need the protection of state? And who is benefiting from it? Taken from Akif Khans article in The Nation.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:36:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015