By Nusrat Pasha
Europe drew wisdom from pragmatism, and eventually separated the Church from the State. Ataturk had to struggle ardently to emancipate Turkey from its theocratic past and lead it to a secular and secure future. Secularism, as some people misleadingly propose, does not at all imply being anti-God, anti-Religion or atheistic or even agnostic; it only means to separate Religion from the business of the State. In fact, speaking realistically, this precisely is what the Holy Quran teaches in the words ” laa ikraaha fid deen ” (Quran 2 : 256) meaning ‘there is no compulsion in matters of religion’. Instead of deriving guidance from the Word of God, we as a nation, preferred to be intimidated and remain enslaved by the ‘ holier than all ‘ clergy of this country.
There is an oft misquoted line of Iqbal, which , can actually open the doors to religious extremism. Iqbal said : ” juda ho deen siyasat say to reh jaati hai changezi “. People in search of justifications for bringing Religion into politics, keep quoting this line. Deen does not mean Clergy, because if it did, we would have to infer that contrary to Iqbal’s claim, by bringing deen into siyasat, we practically landed in the midst of Changezi. This Changezi in turn has cost us the lives of more about 3000 of our valiant soldiers and a similarly large number of innocent civilians.
The truth, rather undeniable truth is that, what we apologetically call “militancy” is nothing but ” mullaism “. Opting to use terms like “militancy” instead of “mullaism “, has less to do with our objectivity, and more to do with fear of the Mulla that rides our subconscious minds. Otherwise, it is historically established that all forms of religious priesthood, known to man, when allowed into politics have invariably evolved into militancy. This is a thumb-rule we must always keep ourselves reminded of. Each time a soldier falls, during the ongoing Rah-e-Nijat Operation, let the entire nation be reminded that this is the price we must pay for silently tolerating mullaism for six decades. Each shahadat offered and each wound received is the result of allowing religion into politics.
Let us not forget that in the history of Muslims, mullaism was first politically institutionalized during the reign of Yazeed. That was the first instance of a council of Muslim ulema, involved in politics, issuing a unanimous fatwa. The council of ulema, in the court of Yazid, unanimously declared Hazrat Imam Husain a kaafir (heretic), a murtadd (apostate) and waajibul qatl (worthy of being put to death). The tragic events of Karbala were only a logical consequence. Therefore, it is not surprising, that throughout the history of Muslims, Saints and Sufis have, for some reason or the other, always been opposed and persecuted by their contemporary ulema. These are all facts – bitter historical facts. We have to reconcile with them, and learn from them.
Today our dear country is at war with religious extremism. Religious extremism is either the natural consequence of allowing religion to come into politics or the result of politicizing Religion. Either way, the outcome is religious extremism. Extremism leads to religious inequality. Religious inequality, in turn, arouses among the clergy representing the majority, an insatiable desire to rule and impose its own interpretation per force. This subsequently paves the way to friction, then militancy and then terrorism, in the name of Religion.
Bin Ismail
February 10, 2010
Yes, it is our responsibility to strive to regain our ‘Paradise Lost’. We owe it to Quaid-e-Azam.
Khullat
February 10, 2010
Very enlightening. This means that Yazeed is guilty of two evil deeds – the persecution and massacre of Aal-e-Rasool(SAW) as well as establishing the institution of Political Clergy.Indeed we have to learn from this chapter of history. As for now, we have to go back to Jinnah’s vision of a Secular Pakistan and segregate State and Religion.
nirmal maunder
February 11, 2010
Secular pakistan is athema to mullas & they hold huge influence on poor & illiterate public.Pakistan has to go turkey way in order to survive.But where is kemal ataturk?
Bin Ismail
February 12, 2010
On a lighter note, which way is “turkey way” by the way ?
Bin Ismail
February 12, 2010
@nirmal maunder
With reference to your words ‘Pakistan has to go turkey way’ and ‘where is kemal ataturk?’, may I observe that Pakistan needs to follow Jinnah. Whereas Ataturk’s secular thinking was reactionary, Jinnah’s secular approach was more composed and dispassionate.
Not that I admire Ataturk less, but that I admire Jinnah more.
Nusrat Pasha
February 14, 2010
@Bin Ismail
I too deeply admire and revere Jinnah, but we have to be fair to Ataturk. I agree that Ataturk’s secularism was reactionary, and in that respect different from Jinnah’s less revolutionary and more constitutional secularism but both faced different situations. Beside the daunting task of nation-building, a challenge common to Ataturk and Jinnah both, Ataturk was confronted with the task of de-theocratization of a clergy-dominated Turkey, and Jinnah faced the challenge of preventing theocratization of Pakistan. So it’s not a question of who’s Secularism was better. The two great leaders faced challenges of different nature.
Amna Zaman
February 18, 2010
Well done Nusrat. I think she has summed up everythin effortlessly. Our dear country is in war with extremism and militants but then a lot is being done to change that frame of mind. An important thing here is that we all unite as one to back the military operations so that our country can prosper in future.
Nusrat Pasha
February 18, 2010
@Amna Zaman
Thank you for your kind words and for endorsing. I realize that ‘Nusrat’ is not a very gender-specific name, but your addressee here happens to be a ‘he’. However, I fully agree that the present military operations must be supported. We owe this to our 3000 fallen men.
Khalid
October 26, 2013
I admire Jinnah, but admire Ataturk no less. Kemal was the only Muslim general in the past two or three centuries who stood against the combined onslaught of powers like England, France, Italy and Greece, and held his own. He judged the mulla of his day correctly and neutralised him effectively for decades to come. The present-day Turkey continues to keep the mulla in his place, but is not shy to keep and vote in favour of its Islamic link and heritage. I think it is the right mix. Turkish approach to state-religion can be profitably imitated by other Muslim majority states. However, occasionally the Turks tend to act exteremists in favour of secularism ( like banning the hijab in campuses). Extremism is bad whatever the cause.
Syed Yasir
February 17, 2010
Its an eye opening article. How can we take this discussion from forums to colleges and universities and initiate an open debate and then take it to assembly floors and execute it. This what at least we can do to secure Jinnah’s Pakistan for our generations. It will be a battle field of minds. At least I am going to take this discussion to my friends and social circle.
Nasir Ahmad
May 30, 2010
@Syed Yasir
>>How can we take this discussion from forums to colleges and universities and initiate an open debate and then take it to assembly floors and execute it?
Dear ….., I appreciate your concern and applaud your decision that you are going to take this discussion to your friends and social circle. With best regards I would like to say that with the level of understanding we have acquired till now is not sufficient to initiate these discussions in social circles. I don’t think that we can defend our stance in open debates. And in the courts and asseblies we will be utterly incapable. Why? Because we are not pretty much clear. First of all we ourselves should do our best to understand where the plague that is poisoning our country lies. Crucial to the issue is the interference of religion in state affairs. How it is poisoning the country? How religion gets politicized and why? What are the main factors? And what should be done to wipe it out? And what preventive measures should be taken to regain our lost paradise? These are the points that are central to the issue. Unless we get pretty much clear on these points I don’t think that we can defend the secularization of state anywhere, be it an open debate at some university or be it a dispute at some court or assembly for that matter. And defend we will have to, otherwise we will keep loosing our paradise. So, the best thing to do right now is to focus on understanding, the rest will come naturally in due course. Without clear understanding raising these discussions in open debates will be just like fighting in the battlefields without preparation and adequate equipment.
Ammar
February 18, 2010
A completely secular Pakistan seems like a far-fetched utopian dream, religion and religious doctrines are so entangled in Pakistan that it will take a strong political will to amend the constitution of Pakistan which allows all sects and marginalized communities equal opportunities. As per my understanding a reactionary model will not last long, the evolutionary process of liberalism is taking its due course and ultimately given to the actions of extremist elements the masses will root them out eventually
Rustam
February 18, 2010
@ Amna Zaman! you wanna chiggy wiggy with me babes ?
C’mon secularism yarr 😛
Amna Zaman
February 19, 2010
@rustam. plzzzz dude….gimme a break!
Paradise is a secular Pakistan with all moderate people. If not all then majority. Why have we become so sensitive and EXTREMIST about even the minor of things. Just look at the valentines. Women came out n streets buring posters of valentines. Whats going on! Are we living in a global world or are we isolationg ourselves from everyone.
Bin Ismail
February 19, 2010
These are all the fruits of extremism. We are either busy in bhangras or in burning banners – never anything in between. If you’re looking for one single factor that causes these swings, well it’s the Maulvi. The Fatwa business is the most lucrative commercial enterprise these days. Fatwas sell like anything. Apparently, it was for this very reason that when someone came seeking a fatwa from the Holy Prophet, he graciously advised ISSTAFTI BI QALBIKA, meaning ‘take the fatwa from your heart’. I hope you appreciate the difference between a prophet and a Maulvi.
nasir khan
February 20, 2010
what ever is going today in our country is the result of misinterpretation of Islam. Islam is a religion of piece love and brotherhood. but now a dayz it going in opposite direction . the uneducated moulanas shouting in the mosque are totally mis guiding people .if we want our country be a peace full country we have to remove all these beast. and make Pakistan a secular country..
Nasir Ahmad
June 13, 2010
@nasir khan
>>what ever is going today in our country is the result of misinterpretation of Islam.
“And the Messenger will say, ‘O my Lord, my people indeed treated this Quran as a thing to be discarded.’ ” (Al-Furqan, 30)
Primarily speaking it is the abadoning of The Holy Quran that is causing all that is going on in the country. The Holy Quran that was for all of us to read and act upon has been left to remain enclosed in book cases. Apparently we claim that we believe in it but we do not pay as much attention to it as it requires. Had we remained attatched to it, as our great forefathers have been doing in history, the so called champions of Islam would never have dared to keep us under their thumbs. We are ignorant, and that is why we believe whatever the so called scholars tell us. Had we remained attatched to it, and had we developed a habit of pondering over its message, and had we been in the habit of finding recourse to it for guidance in every field of life, we oulselves would have been enlightened and we ourselves would have been aware of the true meaning of religion. Unfortunately this is not the case, and that is why we always rely on whatever the so called scholars tell us. During the periods in which The Holy Quran was widely read and pondered over, no such so called religious clergy existed that could have kept the Muslims under its thumb. People themselves were aware of the true meaning of religion and no one could have dared to misinterpret The Holy Quran and then imposed his own misinterpretation on others. But now, unfortunately, The Holy Quran has been discarded by most of us. And consequently most of us are ignorant of the true message of The Holy Quran. Such a situation is ideal for the so called champions of religion who want to exploit it in the name of God. They know that people are ignorant and don’t know the truth, and therefore, we are free to impose upon them whichever interpretation of the Holy Quran we find suitable for our mercenary purposes. Had people themselves been aware of the truth, such a situation would never have arisen. So the best we can do is to turn to The Holy Quran. We ourselves should ponder over it, instead of relying on the second hand knowlege the so called scholars impose upon us. The Holy Quran is the least complicated of all the books. It is for everyone to read and ponder over. There is no need to rely on others in this matter. Though there are places where it is difficult for everyone to pick the point, but most of The Holy Quran is crystal clear for all of us. So, we must put an end to this monoply of knowlege on the part of the so called scholars, and begin to concentrate on The Holy Quran OURSELVES.
Bin Ismail
March 9, 2010
Dear everybody,
The following 2 links are highly recommended for everybody:
#1: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/pakistan-must-be-a-secular-state-or-it-will-perish/
#2: http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/onwards-to-peoples-republic-of-pakistan/
Regards
abc
April 8, 2010
>>Are we living in a global world or are we isolationg ourselves from everyone.
Dear Amna,
Think, if the millions of muslims of this subcontinent, wanted to live in a global word then why have they strived to make their own country to live separately.
Qurbani deyn Musims aur khayen Secular !!!
Listen!! They just give sacrifies for their great Religion …. Do Qoumi Nazaria
This seems to shia blog … just doing propaganda against Sunni.
Nasir Ahmad
May 7, 2010
@abc
>>This seems to shia blog … just doing propaganda against Sunni.
I would like to turn the kind attention of abc to the following sentence of the writer:
“Let us not forget that in the history of Muslims, mullaism was first politically institutionalized during the reign of Yazeed”
The word “first” is of prime importance here. The writer has cited the example of Yazeed only because the institutionalization of Mullaism was FIRST done in his reign. Had it been in any other person’s reign, the writer would have very willingly cited his example, instead of Yazeed’s. So, just by the citation of Yazeed, it is totally an erroneous conclusion to say that this blog is a Shia blog.
I would like everyone here to get very much clear on the purpose for which we are here. We are here to fight religious extremism which is poisoning our beloved country. We are neither against any particular sect, nor are in its favour for that matter. We want all to live happily, be they shia, sunnis, deobandis, brailvis, or any other sect.
So, please dont divert from the central issue, stick to is, or all our efforts to root our extremism will prove futile and we will end up with disputes on different sects, which we definitely do not want.
Nasir Ahmad
May 30, 2010
@abc
>>Listen!! They just give sacrifices for their great Religion…. Do Qoumi Nazaria
In response to this I would like to make it a little bit clear as to what Pakistan was ACTUALLY founded for.
Pakistan was ACTUALLY founded for a suppressed relegious minority, nothing else. the fact that the particular minority in this case was Muslims is not fundamental to the issue. Fundamental to the issue is suppression, not the name of the suppressed. Had our beloved Quaid been a Christian (or Jew, or Buddhist, or Taoist, whatever), and had Christians (or Jews, or Buddhists, or Taoists, whatever) been suppressed on religious grounds in the sub-continent, he would still have demanded a separate country for this particular suppressed nation (whatever it would have been), and this particular nation would still have been giving sacrifices for this newly demanded country. So, suppression is the fundamental factor that demanded a separate country, not the name of the suppressed nation.
When we say that Pakistan was founded for Islam, we turn the thing upside down. We push back what is fundamental and bring forward what is only a temporary thing. Jinnah said:
“…I am not fighting for Muslims, belive me, when I demand Pakistan.” (Press Conference, 14 November 1946)
If the founder of the nation himself has said that his objective was not Islam, what right has anyone else got to say that Pakistan was founded for the cause of Islam?
When we let people propagate that Pakistan was founded for Islam, the so called champions of Islam creep in and begin to claim their share in politics and government. Why? Do they want to serve Islam? No. Do they want to propagate the cause of Islam? Not at all. They simply want power and exploit the name of Islam. Why they want power? Simply to serve their own bellies and to fill their bags with money. Their vision of Islam is completely distorted. Had they got a clear and correct vision, they would never have needed power, the power of truth would alone have been sufficient, people would have accepted it. They lack the power of truth, that’s why they desperately need political power, so that they may excercise their own distorted vision of religion and impose it on others. The vision people do not accept on rational grounds, they seek ways to excercise it through sheer force.
They need justification to enter into politics and for this they propagate the idea that Pakistan was founded for the cause of Islam, we are the champions of Islam, people should let us enter into politics and therefore attain power, so that we may excercise the “true” Islamic system in the country. The only way they can attain power on national level is through politics and the way to enter into politics is the twisted idea that Pakistan was founded for the cause of Islam. This point has been so much stressed upon that the ignorant people in the country too share this opinion. That’s exactly what these so called champions of Islam want.
We must get clear on this point that Pakistan was not at all founded for the cause of Islam. It was simply founded for a suppressed nation. This nation was Muslim, it is only a temporary and arbitrary aspect of the issue. Central to the issue is suppression, nothing else. Had this suppressed nation been Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist, or any other nation, the result would still have been the same! there would still have been a demand for a seperate country!! Would it have been correct, in that case, to say that this newly demanded country is being demanded for the cause of Chritianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or any other religion? Not at all.
So, it is only a twisting of the fact that Pakistan was founded for Islam. And the people who will keep propagating this twisted opinion till death are no other than those who want to benefit from it on political level. If we really want to regain our lost paradise, we will have to root out politicization of religion. And to do this we will have to bar the ways through which this is attained. The central door is the false idea that Pakistan was founded for the cause of Islam. We must get clear on this point that this is nothing but a twisting of facts to suit mercenary purposes.
So, I request abc, and all others who share this opinion, to revise it in the light of facts and to unite on the central point that we must find the loopholes through which relegious extremists creep into power. This twisted vision is just one of them, that these extremists keep advocating at the top of their voices. So, we must understand the significance and practical impact of this twisted vision and try our best to root it out. This will be the first and major step towards the regaining of our lost paradise.
Nasir Ahmad
May 30, 2010
@abc
>>Qurbani deyn Muslims aur khayen Secular!!!
This statement makes me feel that 2 points should be made clear:
The first thing to be understood is this that secular state does not at all mean that Islam will be rooted out and secularism will be propagated in the country. Secular state only and only means that religion should not interfere into state affairs, that’s all, nothing else. Society will be alloud to follow whichever faith they find correct, state will not force anyone to follow any particular faith nor will it force anyone to leave his faith. Religion will not be monopolized on governmental level. People will be free to follow their own religion. Our beloved Quid said:
“…You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State.” (Presidential Address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11 August 1947)
Secular only means the segregation of state and religion, nothing else. Muslims will be free to follow their own faith, Jews will be free to follow their own faith, Christians will be free to follow their own faith, or any other religion for that matter. Secular state does not mean that people too will be secular and society too will be secularized. They may be devoutly religious if they wish to be, no one will be asking them or forcing them to leave religion. They may remain attatched to whichever faith they want, state will have nothing to do with that.
So, it is totally an erroneous view that a secular state means an anti religious or anti God or an anti Islamic state. What it means is only and only this that state will have nothing to do with religious affairs and religion will not interfere into state affairs, i.e., state and religion will be segregated. It does not mean that religion will be rooted out and abolished. It only means the separate and independent existence of the two, not the extinction of religion. To think that by converting a state into a secular state society itself will be secularised is a total misunderstanding on the point as to what it actually means for a state to be a secular one. A secular state and a secular society are totally different things. A secular state does not at all require for its establishment, existence and continuation the secularization of the society too. A secular state and a religious society, these two are not at all mutually exclusive. They may co exist, if society chooses to remain religious.
` The second point I wish to make clear is this that if Muslims sacrificed for this country, it is not that secular people are benefiting from these sacrifices, instead of the Muslims. Majority of the people in Pakistan is Muslim and it is Muslims, before anyone else, who are benefiting from those sacrifices. So, to think that secular people will benefit from the sacrifices of our Muslim forefathers is again an erroneous conception, it has emanated from a misunderstanding on the point as to what it means for a state to be a secular state. Muslims sacrificed, and it is the Muslims, above all, who are benefiting from it, not the seculars. If we get clear on the point as to what exactly it means for a state to be a secular state, such misconceptions will automatically dwindle out of existence.
Nasir Ahmad
May 30, 2010
@abc
Please don’t take my comments as a personal attack. I have found your response to the article to be a very oppertune moment to clarify the misunderstandings that are in circulation. Has this response of yours been put forward by anyone else I would have made comments upon it in the same way. So, please don’t think that I am focusing you in these comments of mine. I only wish to clarify the points on which I find that many of us are not pretty much clear. If we want to take these discussions from forums to colleges and universities and then to assembly floors, we will have to get clear on the points that are crucial to the issue. I found your response to be an oppertune moment to clarify them, it is not at all a personal attack on my part. Thanks
Bin Ismail
April 9, 2010
@ abc
Azeezam. Shaayad aap kay ilm mein na ho, laikin iss waqt Pakistan kay shumali ilaqon mein Musalman hee Musalmanon ki qurbani day rahay hain. Aur aap ki ittila kay liyay arz hai keh yeh “deendar” musalman ab tak muta’addad “bay-deen” musalmanon ko shariat kay naam par zibah kar chukay hain. Allah jaza day hamari fauj ko, jiss kay sipahi in zaalimon ka muqabala kar rahay hain.
maheen
December 14, 2012
the paradise of pakistan, won after so many battles, and sacrifices, gave up itself to militancy and mullaism. is this is why it was made? has every pakistani stopped for a second and asked himself why is pakistan failing in every battle so badly?what is taliban, what is lashkare jhangvi, well they are the result of our own bad decisions of bringing religion into politics? has anyone realized why mullaism is brought into politics well the simple definition of this phenomenon is “”oppurtunitism””, selfishness??
maheen
December 14, 2012
religion should never been brought into politics, it has opened gates for all sorts illegal exploitation of laws !! the most exploited laws in pakistan are the blasphemy laws and hudood ordinance! this is the reason religion should never be brouht into politics.
sta
February 21, 2014
Nusrat Pasha wrote in this article :
The recent shahadat of Maj. Jahanzaib Shaheed reminds us once again of the price the nation of Pakistan is continuously paying for silently tolerating mullaism.
Parliament certified Muslim
February 21, 2014
I am proud to announce that I am a Parliament-Certified Muslim, as per the historic 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I would like everyone to recall that Hazrat Maulana Munawwar Hassan Amir Jamaat-i-Islami, whose voice rightfully represents the voice of all Jayyid Ulama of Pakistan, has recently issued the following historic fatwa:
.
Therefore, according to this historic fatwa issued by one of the greatest of our Ulama, and acceptable to most of the Pakistani Jayyid Ulama, Major Jahanzaib Maqtool is not a shaheed. And the same fatwa applies to the 23 FC soldiers who were slaughtered by the Taliban.
sta
February 22, 2014
@Parliament-certified Muslim (Feb 21, 2014)
You have quoted only half the fatwa of Maulana Munawwar Hassan. There are two aspects to his fatwa:
1. All Pakistan Army soldiers killed fighting against the Taliban are merely “Maqtools” and “not Shaheeds”.
2. All Talban killed fighting against the Pakistan Army, indeed Pakistan itself, are “Shaheeds”.
This is what the worthy Ameer of Jamaat-i-Islami, the party that opposed Pakistan and the Quaid-e-Azam tooth and nail, decrees. Concurrently, there is also another interesting statement issued by another esteemed religious scholar of Pakistan, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of Jamiat Ulama Islam. He declared that if even a dog got killed by the Americans in this on-going war against terrorism, that dog would be a “Shaheed”.
If one studies these two “fatwas”, issued recently by Pakistan’s two most learned scholars, in conjunction, what you arrive at is that while a dog killed by the Americans may be a “Shaheed”, a Pakistan Army soldier killed in defence of his homeland by the Taliban “can not be termed a Shaheed”.
Bin Ismail
March 31, 2014
@ Parliament-Certified Muslim (February 21, 2014)
You have stated, Sir, and I quote :
Please be informed, albeit belatedly, that on the Day of Judgement, the Being known to us as Maalik-i yaum id deen, or the Lord of the Day of Judgement – God – will not exactly be issuing judgements in consultation with your parliaments and ulama. I assure you, these fatwas that you quote with such ardour, are in reality, quite inconsequential.
Regards