| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Sharia versus secularism? |
| 2014-03-03 |
| [Pak Daily Times] Maulana Abdul Aziz ...nutball holy man who runs the Lal Masjid in the heart of Pakistain's capital. After instigating a rebellion against the state in 2007, he was caught trying to sneak away dressed in a burka. He rejects democracy as un-Islamic, which it probably is... represents that very vocal section of our extreme right-wing, which thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is a kafir (infidel) and an enemy of Islam. There is another vocal section even smaller in number that feels that anyone who disagrees with their krazed killer 'anti-religion-ism' is automatically an Islamist. To the former, sharia or shariat, and that too only their version, is a panacea for all ills confronting Pakistain. The other section feels that there are absolutely no redeeming features of religion and that religion, especially Islam, is in complete contravention of the principles of secularism, democracy and modernity. Yet these two extremes have more in common than they would accept. For one thing they both have a very narrow and absolutist view of Islam as a religion, which one extreme champions and the other extreme denigrates. Both these extremes believe that Islam is inherently bigoted, misogynist, violent and anti-modern. One section celebrates this worldview while the other castigates it but both agree on the substance. Historically, they have another thing in common: both opposed the creation of this country -- the former because they felt that the leaders of the Mohammedan movement were too secular and, in any event, extracted from various different sects within Islam such as Shia, Ismaili and Ahmedi sects, which offends their bully boy Salafi brand of Islam and then there is the latter because they feel that Mohammedans did not exist as an entity and had no grievances or concerns whatsoever, economic or otherwise, and therefore the demand for Pakistain itself was communal. Meanwhile, ...back at the palazzo, Don Smilzo looked for an avenue of escape. The only window opened a hundred feet above the moat. The nearest of the hired assassins hold a bloody axe. The window was looking better all the time.... an ideological debate rages on in Pakistain as to whether Jinnah wanted a secular or an Islamic state. A study of his record will show that the man was no Islamist by any stretch of imagination and that he consistently wanted an inclusive and democratic state, which treated its citizens equally, a recurring theme in most of his pronouncements. When the Objectives Resolution was being debated, some members of the religious class paraded out an alleged letter that Jinnah had addressed to the Pir of Manki in the Frontier (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... ) where he is supposed to have promised sharia. This letter, the veracity of which cannot be confirmed by the way as it does not appear in official records of Jinnah's correspondence, however does not promise sharia in the least. The operative line, which supposedly promised shariat reads as follows: "It is needless to emphasise that the Constituent Assembly, which would be predominantly Mohammedan in its composition would be able to enact laws for Mohammedans, not inconsistent with the shariat laws". In other words, he was saying that if you could convince compatriots through the ballot you could enact such laws, which may not be inconsistent with sharia and that these laws would be applicable to Mohammedans only. On the basis of this, both the aforesaid extremes claim that Jinnah promised sharia, which is just simply untrue. Jinnah also told his audience in the Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... Bar Association that the principles of democracy, equality and fraternity of justice were not in contravention to sharia. Whether he believed this or whether he was speaking in the idiom of his people is immaterial but what is clear is that he was not speaking of the straitjacket sharia, just as his secularism was not of a straitjacket variety. As a lawyer schooled in the Common Law tradition, the founding father of Pakistain was a strong believer in harmonious construction. The two extremes I speak of however believe in straitjackets, both in sharia and secularism. Sharia to these two extremes is what the Taliban propose: beheadings, harsh punishments, closing up of women behind closed doors and a rebellion against reason and rationality. Secularism to both these groups is a complete and total negation of religion. In doing so they are woefully ignorant of the history of secularism as it developed. The separation of church and state was not driven by the idea that religion ought to be discarded altogether. The first actual manifestation of the idea came from Roger Williams, a devout Christian theologian, who saw it essential for religious freedom. He was a puritan Christian who had profound religious disagreements with the established church in Massachusetts. Thus, contrary to what the krazed killer anti-religion-ists would have us believe, secularism itself emerged from the rejection of a religious straitjacket. The term 'secular', which originated in Europe was itself used to refer to the clergy that did not belong to a church. The father of modern secularism, John Locke, derived his ideas of modern society from his Christian belief. Kemal Ataturk, the greatest and most successful of the secularists in the Mohammedan World, tried till the very end of his life to give his people a Turkish only version of the Koran to reinforce his project of modernisation. His biographer, Andrew Mango, writes revealingly about his reforms, "As a result, a new form of Islam, illogical in theory but viable in practice -- Islam-within-secularism -- gradually developed in Turkey" (Page 535, Ataturk by Andrew Mango). In our Pak context, secularism would mean the liberty and freedom to disagree with Maulana Abdul Aziz and the Taliban on matters of faith. It would mean the freedom to believe in whatever faith or interpretation of a faith without interference from the state. The constitution -- especially one that promises fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion -- therefore can only be an enabling and never an enforcing constitution. Now coming to sharia and Islam, the question is whether Islam is fundamentally contrary to human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. and democracy. The best answer was given by Benazir Bhutto ... 11th Prime Minister of Pakistain in two non-consecutive terms from 1988 until 1990 and 1993 until 1996. She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founder of the Pakistain People's Party, who was murdered at the instigation of General Ayub Khan. She was murdered in her turn by person or persons unknown while campaigning in late 2007. Suspects include, to note just a few, Baitullah Mehsud, General Pervez Musharraf, the ISI, al-Qaeda in Pakistain, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who shows remarkably little curiosity about who done her in... when she wrote about the early Mohammedan society, "Democracy was a consensus emerging from the free expression of the will of the small community as well as the implementation of Koranic ideals that we know to be intrinsic to democratic society: tolerance, pluralism, justice, law, equality and a fair economic system" (Page 73, Reconciliation by Benazir Bhutto). This is also the essence of secularism. Mohammedans in general and Paks in particular need to begin defining sharia as something bigger than merely harsh punishments, which have no place in the modern world and to stop conflating secularism with anti-religion-ism. The question of secular versus Islamic will become immaterial then. |
| Posted by:Fred |