The Pakistan Update

By Khalid Zaheer

The issue of Aasiya Bibi’s alleged blasphemy became one of the hottest topics for debate in 2010. At a very basic level, the question that everyone sought to answer is this: How are we, as Muslims, meant to deal with blasphemy?

This question has a simple answer: we should ignore people who are accused of blasphemy and tell them that the great man whom they are supposedly targeting in their acts of blasphemy was the one who taught us to ignore their actions and focus on more positive things in life.

There are several passages in the Quran which mention acts of blasphemy committed against the prophet and the message of Islam, three of which are more important than the others. None of these passages contains any indication that those found guilty of blasphemy ought to be killed. If there was a punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it should have been clearly mentioned in the Quran, especially in the passages where occurrences of it during the prophet’s lifetime are mentioned. (more…)

Tags: blasphemy, governor, islamists, Jihad, killings, Pakistan, punjab, quran, Religion, Taliban

Posted in Blog | 1,337 Comments »

by Dr. Manzur Ejaz

Sufis were witnessing the misuse of religion by qazis and other ‘pillars’ of religious institutions. They were aware of the corruption, nepotism and injustice being practiced in the name of Islam. Therefore, to save the spirituality of religion, they preached the separation of religion from the state and other worldly affairs

Once again Muslims are celebrating Eid on two different days, some on Tuesday and others on Wednesday. I wonder if most of the countries with Muslim majority populations were secular, they may have fixed one day for everyone. This raises the question — is a secular state necessary to keep the spirituality of religion unpolluted?

Usually, Pakistanis and many other Muslims take the word secular as being equivalent to atheism and an anti-religious system of governance. On the contrary, the founders of the US constitution argued that religious purity can only be maintained if it is kept away from the business of the state. US politicians, from the president downwards, go to their places of worship regularly but they do not bring their personal faith to the affairs of the state. They enjoy the spirituality of their faith without encumbering the state.

When George Washington and his colleagues were debating the foundations of the US constitution, they were quite aware that statecraft required strategies of reconciliation that may not be justified through religious ideology. Therefore, if the constitution is based on religious ideology, matters of faith will be polluted by the state’s own specific needs. To address this question, George Washington wrote, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

The founders of the US constitution had witnessed widespread persecution on the basis of religion and sectarianism. They were aware of the role that the Catholic clergy had played in corrupting Christianity. Early US history was no different than that of Europe, where witch-hunt trials were burning/drowning hundreds of women on allegations of witchcraft. Therefore, they were clear that to save the spirituality of religion, it had to be separated from the business of the state.

Contrary to this, Muslim rulers in the subcontinent used religion as the basis of their system of justice and other institutions created to rule society. A whole system comprised of hundreds of thousands of qazis was put in place. These qazis were educated at religious monasteries before taking over state jobs. Sometimes, the ruler persecuted the people who belonged to a different sect. Aurangzeb’s onslaught against Shia Muslims is a known fact of history. Consequently, the spiritual aspect of Islam may have been polluted and compromised.

This is the main reason that Sufis in the subcontinent kept emphasising the spiritual essence of religion. They were witnessing the misuse of religion by qazis and other ‘pillars’ of religious institutions. They were aware of the corruption, nepotism and injustice being practiced in the name of Islam. Therefore, to save the spirituality of religion, they preached the separation of religion from the state and other worldly affairs. In practice, this meant that religion should be practiced on an individual level leaving the state to be run by the worldly rulers. This was the reason that Muslim Sufis had a following of people from every religion. It is known that the majority of Shah Hussain’s followers were Hindus.

From Baba Farid to Bulleh Shah and Waris Shah, everyone emphasised the separation of individual spirituality from the state-sanctioned formal religion. Recurrence of the concept of embracing shoh (the beloved) was meant to induce spiritual purification on an individual level. Baba Farid’s lifestyle was such that the qazi and ruler of Pakpattan ganged up against him and his family.

Guru Nanak was much more open and critical of the alliance between the state and clergy of every kind. For example, when Babar was ruining the Indian landscape, Baba Nanak taunted the Muslim religious leaders for their useless prayers to stop the invasion. Similarly, he laughed at the Hindu clergy who had assured the Indian ruler that their mantras would destroy Babar. And, Nanak jeers at them because Babar made no differentiation between mosques and temples or between Turk (Muslim) and Hindu women. Baba Nanak ridiculed both Muslim and Hindu ritualistic practices and projected spirituality devoid of any state manipulation or ritualistic routine.

Shah Hussain rejected the role of the qazi and mullah when he said, “Mullan qazi mattin dainde…Ishq keeh lagge rah de nal” (The mullah and qazis tell us about the right path but love has nothing to do with it). He reiterates spiritualistic integrity as separated from state and other worldly affairs.

“Badshahan nu badshahian, shahan nu ugrahian

Mahar nu pind graon di aasaan, Talab sain de naam di.”

(Kings are busy in their kingdoms, the moneylenders are collecting their debts and the tiller is concerned about his village. We only seek the pleasure of our sain (lord, beloved)).

Sultan Bahu also rejected a religious establishment that sells religious knowledge. For him the mullah’s service to the ruling class in every shape and form pollutes the religion, where scholars become bargaining commodities.

“O dohin janin muthay Bahu jinhan khahdi waich kmai hoo.”

(The ones who sold their scholarship are dejected in both worlds.)

Bulleh Shah and Waris Shah were much more openly critical of the state’s use of religion. For example, when Bulleh Shah says, “Bulhia rab kaho na kaho, aai soorton sacha raho” (Oh Bulla, it is immaterial if you openly profess God or not. However, the important thing is that you should be truthful in a given situation).

Waris Shah’s entire creation of Heer was meant to show and denounce the unholy alliance between the rulers and the religious establishment. He maintains, throughout his creation, that qazis are the thoroughly corrupt and illegitimate partners of the ruling elite. He repeats the theme of “Qazi rishwatan mar ke koor keete” (Qazis have been blinded by bribery). His implicit argument is that to save the spiritual aspect of religion, it has to be kept away from the state and its institutions.

Unfortunately, the Sufi tradition has been grossly neglected in Pakistan. This has led to social decay as well as the pollution of religious spirituality. Allama Iqbal’s one line has been quoted to shut down the discussion on secularism:

“Judah u deen siasat se tu reh jati he Changaizi” (Separation of religion and politics leads to barbarianism).

The fact of the matter is that, “Milae jab deen siasat se tu ban jati he Changaizi” (when religion is mixed with politics, it leads to barbarianism).

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com

Tags: Aurangzeb, Baba Farid, Bulleh Shah, catholicism, Christianity, eid, europe, george washington, Guru Nanak, Islam, Pakistan, Religion, Shah Hussain, shias, sufis, Sultan Bahu, United States, us constitution, Waris Shah

Posted in Blog | 473 Comments »

by Ishtiaq Ahmed

There is no doubt that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi brought religion into politics in a big way, but religious revivals were underway among all religious communities of India since the late 19th century. He wanted religion to play a positive role in bringing India’s myriad of religious, sectarian, ethnic and caste-based communities into an inclusive grand composite nation.

Gandhi was by no means an advocate of fundamentalism. He did more than any other upper-caste Hindu to speak out against the curse of untouchability. On a number of occasions Hindu fundamentalists attempted to assassinate him because of his campaign against untouchability. The first such attempt took place in 1934 when a bomb was thrown at him in Pune. While critiquing untouchability, he did find arguments for the justification of the caste system. According to him and other Hindu reformists, the castes were based on the division of work and equal dignity of all professions. Such an explanation may not sound convincing to many of us since caste is hereditary in practice. However, such a middle position helped him bring Hindus from all sections behind the anti-colonial struggle and therefore compromises were necessary.

However, India was home not only to the Hindus but millions of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and other groups as well. He developed a novel idea, Sarva Dharma Sambhava: equal respect of all religions. His daily morning sessions began with prayers and hymns and recitations from the Bhagwad Gita, Quran, Bible and other religious scriptures to underline the common moral roots of all humanity. I have a recorded interview with Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani, a staunch Muslim Leaguer and a prominent Muslim student leader of the 1940s. He attended one such morning session in Delhi in 1946. It deeply moved him, though he remained convinced that a separate state for Muslims was the solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem.

When Gandhi was asked to explain his idea of good government or Ram Raj, he said it would be inspired by the governments established by Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar. About Imam Husain he said, “My faith is that the progress of Islam does not depend on the use of the sword by its believers, but the result of the supreme sacrifice of Husain, the great saint.” In saying so, he was not supporting blind devotion to each and every act of these illustrious Muslim leaders but to their historical roles as champions of good government and justice.

On the other hand, when some Muslims told him that they were bound by their faith to submit to each and every word in the Quran he disagreed with them. He said that religious texts should also be subjected to the changing standards of morality and conscience. Therefore, Muslims have to interpret their sacred scriptures with an open mind and distinguish between the core ideas of their faith and the literal texts. He was unreservedly in favour of India becoming a secular state with equal rights for all citizens. In fact, the idea of affirmative action or positive discrimination on behalf of the Dalits was his way of keeping his word given to Dr Ambedkar that his Dalit community will not be subjected to the humiliation and degradation it had suffered down the centuries. Consequently, preferential treatment in educational institutions, legislative assemblies and in government jobs was constitutionally guaranteed for the Dalits and Adivasis. Without it the Dalits stood no chance of getting education or getting elected to the legislatures.

Today, a Dalit intelligentsia and political class exist and contribute to intellectual and political debate. Some Dalit intellectuals and leaders are very critical of Gandhi, accusing him of denying them their liberation by insisting that they were an integral part of the Hindu community, and going on a fast-unto-death when the British were considering giving them separate representation just as the Muslims had been granted in 1909. It is a debatable question whether separate electorates for Dalits would have gotten them a separate state because unlike the Muslims they were not in a majority in any region of the subcontinent.

Gandhi opposed the creation of Pakistan. Such opposition was based on his conviction that Hindus and Muslims and other communities could live together and make their particular contributions to building a multi-religious, multi-cultural nation with equal rights for all citizens. However, when partition did take place he took positions that have no parallels, historically or contemporaneously. Thousands of Hindus and Sikhs who fled West Punjab arrived in Delhi to find that large numbers of Muslims were still around. This infuriated them and they began to harass and terrorise the Delhi Muslims. A delegation of prominent Muslims, which included among others Dr Zakir Hussain (later president of India) and Dr Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi (later education minister and vice-chancellor Karachi University) approached Gandhi for help. He promised to do his best. Dr Qureshi has written that Gandhi and his volunteers went around Delhi and to the tomb of Emperor Humayun to see to it that the Muslims were not harmed. Further attacks on Muslims ceased.

The second case is about the last fast-unto-death of Mahatma Gandhi. The background to it was that the Indian government was withholding Rs 550 million due to Pakistan as its share of the cash left behind in the common kitty of the colonial state. India and Pakistan had been drawn into a military conflict over Kashmir, and the Indian government took the stand that Pakistan will purchase weapons with it. Gandhiji did not accept such reasoning and started a fast-unto-death to compel the Indian government to pay Pakistan its share. That infuriated Hindu nationalists. On January 30, 1948, Gandhiji was assassinated by Nathuram Godse.

The outpouring of grief in Pakistan was no less than in India. In fact, I was told by a senior Lahoriite that Lahore Radio’s programmes that day were even more moving than what was relayed elsewhere in the subcontinent. Muslim women who had safely arrived in Pakistan from Delhi because Gandhiji would not let Hindus and Sikhs take revenge for what happened to their women in West Punjab, broke their bangles and beat their chests. It is important to remember such facts when sitting in judgement on Gandhi. Without intellectual honesty and an open mind, political analysis degenerates into mere propaganda.

The writer is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com

Tags: Adivasis, Bhagwad Git, bible, christians, dalits, delhi, Dr Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Emperor Humayun, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, hindus, Imam Husain, India, koran, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Muslim League, Muslims, Nathuram Godse, Pakistan, punjab, Ram Raj, Religion, Sarva Dharma Sambhava, sikhs, Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani

Posted in Blog, India | 1,384 Comments »

By Ishtiaq Ahmed

The barbaric, appalling beheading of Jaspal Singh — one of the three Sikhs who were taken hostage by the Taliban — has shocked decent, peace-loving people all over the world. Two versions are in circulation. One that their families failed to pay the huge ransom that the Taliban thugs had demanded; two, that the ransom was paid but the Taliban insisted that the Sikhs convert to Islam, which they refused. In both cases there is absolutely no justification for the savage treatment meted out to Jaspal Singh.

Many Sikhs, totally shattered by what has happened, have written to me to find out if this is Islam. They even wondered why we keep talking of Islam as a religion of peace. I must say I have run out of arguments but would still like to believe that Islam can also develop its humanism like all other cultures or religions have been compelled to consider by the march of time. I will come to this issue later but first (more…)

Tags: Christianity, communists, Featured, Fundamentalism, Hindu, Iran, Islam, Muslims, NWFP, Pakistan, Religion, Sikh, Taliban, Terrorism

Posted in Blog | 429 Comments »

This post carries an offer for the right wingers. Those who consider themselves good Christians, the ones who talk incessantly about family values and the importance of virginity. The ones who go to Church every Sunday and incorporate Jesus into every nonsensical thought that comes out of their mouths. The wholesome, flag-waving American-born Christians.

For all you believers, Afghanistan has a proposition for you. The Taliban leaders had a grand Jirga and suggested that each riteous Christian should be offered a sum of money, a couple of grand, to change their hearts.

Now, we know not all good Christians are sell outs…but look when you take gas prices, utility bills, unemployment, health, inflation, and the kids’ education into account, is it that hard to imagine that more than a few people would consider the Taliban’s offer?

Good Christians might secretly visit Church even after agreeing to the deal. But what’s going to happen once the money is gone? Good Christians will return to their faith, or will scheme to keep the money coming their way.

Does this sound ridiculous enough?

Well, that’s what Afghanistan’s puppet President Hamid Karzai proposed at the London Conference. The United States backed the idea, and has decided to raise one billion dollars to buy off Taliban or Taliban sympathizers. The specific amount of money each member of the Taliban would receive has not yet been worked out, but given the high corruption level in Afghanistan, my shot in the dark is that they won’t get enough money to keep their loyalties to one party.

Over the next 5 years, as proposed by the Afghan government, this money would be used to establish a trust to finance the reintegration program that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The U.N. Security Counsel  also removed the names of five Taliban leaders from the “black list” of 144 dangerous terrorists figuring in the sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 dating back to the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. This shows that we are back to square one. As the UN envoy to Afghanistan put it, “If you want results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority.”

Paying the bribe to purchase a change of heart is a bogus idea. But some argue that Taliban supporters have failed to realize why international forces are in their country. Interestingly, this idea is supported by the argument that it can’t be worse than the previous efforts.

Well, then the previous efforts were wrong, as this one. Bottom line is, you can not correct a historical blunder with such idiotic tactics. This is what the West never understood and still refuses to.

–

Picture Credit: AP

Tags: 9/11, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Christianity, Current Affairs, Featured, Hamid Karzai, Jihadists, London Conference, National Security, Religion, Richard Halbrooke, Taliban, Terrorism, United Nations, UNSC

Posted in Blog | 93 Comments »