Editorial Comment: Pakistan - A State for Muslims or an Islamic State?
Understanding Pakistan Project Team June 25th, 2007
This week’s discussion on the Objectives Resolution opens an opportunity for Understanding Pakistan to shed some light on the one of the most fundamental, perplexing, hijacked, and emotionally charged issues, namely, the role of religion in Pakistan’s politics, constitution, economics, and society. Put simply: Was Pakistan created to become state for Muslims, or an Islamic State. The difference between the two ideas is both fundamental and profound.
If Pakistan was created as a state for the Muslims (of the sub-continent), it came into being on August 14th, 1947 and–although it lost part of its raison de’tre in 1971–it still pretty much sticks to this original ideal. If, instead, Pakistan was created to become an Islamic state, it has still a long way to go even after 60 years of its independence. In a state for the Muslims, for instance, people can choose what code of law and conduct is to be observed and the system of governance created. In an Islamic state, on the other hand, only the Law of Allah–what is commonly referred to as Shariah–must apply.
This then quickly leads to images of two opposite extremes, namely, would Pakistan be a secular state or a Shariah-based state. Both these words, “secular” and “Shariah” are grossly misunderstood and have, over time, been so demonized that at this point it hardly remains possible to have a decent conversation that explores what lies beneath this terminology and rhetoric. Understanding Pakistan will attempt to jumpstart this conversation and sustain it as Pakistan’s story goes forward…
This week, we are publishing two very interesting pieces–both originally published elsewhere–arguing the opposite sides of this debate:
In the first of the two pieces titled “Genesis and Ideology of Pakistan”, Allama Ghulam Ahmed Parvez presents a view for the creation of an Islamic State that is very different from the traditional view of forcing Shariah on a state. Allama–a relatively unknown figure in post-partition Pakistan–is reported to be a disciple of Allama Mohammad Iqbal and an advisor to Quaid-e-Azam. While this leaves some pragmatic issues to be resolved, this is a somewhat lengthy but very well-written and cogently argued piece on the subject. Taking Allama’s claims on face value, this piece makes a point that Quaid-e-Azam intended to create an Islamic State–but one of a very different kind than what we usually think about.
In the second of the two pieces titled “Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity or Ideology”, Hamza Alavi–a noted Historian of Pakistan–makes a diametrically opposite case. Alavi, in his own words states that “in a nutshell the argument of this paper is, to repeat, that the Pakistan movement was a movement of Muslims rather than of Islam; a movement in which diverse Muslim ethnic groups from different regions, representing different social strata and interests, were allied in pursuit of quite material objectives.” . This is a considerably long academic paper and is not for the weak at heart.
Both these perspectives, however, are definitely worth reading and some good bit of reflection. These are not the only ones either. We’re trying to find a comprehensive piece on Jama’at-e-Islami’s (and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi’s) perspective on Pakistan’s Islamic Ideology. Another name that comes to mind is that of Dr. Sharif Al-Mujahid–a more contemporary historian who was one of the ideologues of Zia’s era and wrote a famous book on “Ideology of Pakistan”. Finally, one could make a case for a purely Secular Pakistan (as against a purly Islamic Pakistan) — A case that we believe still needs to be cogently made. We hope to provide appropriate material on each of these aspects in the coming episodes.
So, where do we stand? And why is this all so important? Not only has Pakistan struggled with defining its ideology for several decades in the past, many recent events (e.g. Lal Masjid and Hafsa Brigade etc.) point towards increasing Talibanization of Pakistani society. There is a dire need to better understand and define the role of religion in Pakistani society and government. We hope to make our little contribution in this debate by bringing diverse perspectives to the table.
Enjoy, participate, and have fun.
-Ed.¼/p>
Loading ...
as far as i am comcerned this is a very fundamental but very neglected issue. it encompasses not only the nature of our national ideology, but with recent seperatists movements gathering momentum, we must as ourselves what, in this land of a multitude of languages, races, cultures really unites us? what really is a pakistani?
pure democracy failed….dictatorships failed….islamisation failed……now secularism is failing yet again…
this land is for islam….for those who say its not : i say well, we might as well become another province in india. because then we have defeated the purpose of our creation….
what the hell were all that blood and sweat and tears wasted for….
my family is muhajir and my grandparents didnt leave everything behind just so their granchildren could say ‘ ooops - mistake! we dont really care about islam …its just a private belief system that has nothing to do with the country!’ OR ‘oops! these guys with the beards seem to know what theyre talking about! so lets leave religion and rule to them! who cares if they cant count beyond 100!
what i would like to see happen is an ‘enlightened islamisation’ the likes of which themodern world has yet to see. and pakistan is the best country to acheive this.
islamisation has failed under zia….
and islam of the subcontinent has been mullahficated….
pakistanis need to come to terms with the reality and decide if we want to truly understand and implement islam intelligently like the quaid envisioned….or
we might as well start singing bande matram and waving the indian flag…
I am afraid the above response does not understand the basic idea behind Pakistan….
Pakistan was created as a result of a struggle which said - numerical permanent majority by sheer majority should not be allowed to dominate numerical permanent minority by sheer weigh of umber…
An “Islamic” Pakistan thus is the negation of the principle on which you got Pakistan.
Pakistan can only be a secular state… which does justice to all its citizens or it has no rationale.
Dear Osama
It Pakistan was created for the muslims of india not for the muslims from all over world.Pakistan was not created to be Islamic state as claimed. Quaid-e-Azam was secular mind and he wanted political and geographical division of India.
It was liaqat Ali Khan and Regugees Minded people who converted new created state on the name of religion. They also made two nation theory a part of constitution and make it some thing undiscussedable. Two Nation theory is no more now after the creation of Bengladesh. If Muslims are one nation then first of all, All muslim countries should not bound to ask for visa when ever any muslim want to visit particular country, even pakistan believes ( atleast constitutionally) that all muslims are one nation but when any Iranian, Or Malysian want to visit pakistan he needs visa Why.
We are an independent nation, but we have lost it due to mullas, Military Generals and So called Politicians.
We need Pakistan a Country which has its own culture and policies , not imported one.
Here is the paradox:
If Jinnah ka Pakistan was secular, then why back the two nation theory and mobilize the masses in the name of Islam. The only common denominator between people of Pakistan who despite speaking different languages, different traditions and norms, and in some cases past disurbances with one another come under one flag. And why would a huge number of people from greater India not from a single geographical cluster but from various demographic blobs migrate in one of the largest mass migrations this world has ever seen? Only because they wanted a secular country? Wasn’t that and isn’t it still the identity of India? If it were the Hindu fanatics we were afraid of so much that we never had confidence in larger India, then instead of fighting for our rights within the federation, we took the separatist route. A secular Pakistan is a nonexistent Pakistan, the day it declares it is secular (reflected in its constitution) at large, there will be no Pakistan. Except for Punjab, the other three provinces favor heavily for self rule (either thats the perception or reality, its a totally separate debate). Especially the separatists in Balochistan will stand out here for their own country, they will surely give birth to their Jinnah if Jinnah ka Pakistan was secular.
The problem started at the start of Pakistan when lack of religious leadership in parliament sidelined the Islamic agenda under the name of an ‘Islamic Republic’ and minorities were made ministers in Law and Foreign Affairs. The end result was a messed up constitution under the banner of an Islamic state and hence the reason for secular forces to diverge the historical context of the Pakistan movement. The Muslim League not made up of practicing muslims but the elite who should have let the matters or religion be dealt by those expert in it. However, they get the right credit for carrying out the whole movement since the Islamic clerics didnt hold as good a leadership stance as they did.
One question to consider.
Whatever Pakistan’s initial idea was (religious or secular), is it a necessity for the country to stick to it for ever? Or can the nation decide, that it wants to chart a new course for itself in light of new conditions or simply, a changed preference of the nation? Does such a change necessarily mean negation of the country?
So if Pakistan was meant to be a secular state, does that mean the people of Pakistan can not decide, at any point, that they would rather have a religious state or vice versa?
Also, is the choice between religion and secularism totally in black and white or are there also some possibilities that could provide a compromise acceptable to both sides of this debate in Pakistan?
Complete secularism and an Islamic State with Islamic laws are two extremes. One cannot make laws which are valid and applicable for all times and circumstances. This is why we have an amendment procedure even in the basic law of a country. Secularism simply means separation of religion and State. It is a political idea. It is possible to separate religion from the State and the law-making process. This way all the citizens of the State belonging to any religious denomination can have equal rights and opportunities. But it is impossible to separate religion from the society. Society is an assemblage of individuals, individuals have beliefs and religions and these beliefs of the members of society reflect in the composition of the society. In my opinion this is the reason for the creation of Pakistan, to have a secular State but a society where Muslims are in a majority and thus the character of the society is a mix of deliberate traditionalism (religion) and modernism. In such a society the majority (Muslims) can freely profess and propagate their faith and they can set an example of a model which others may like to follow voluntarily but they cannot be allowed to impose their religion or their interpretation of religion on unwilling people.
Wake up! Pakistanis ! Blow these terrorists to bits once and for all.Stop encouraging terrorists and follow the straight path.Look around you and learn from countries like India & china and focus on economic development,moderacy,education & development.Enjoy life!
Posted by: Denzil at July 10, 2007 02:18 PM
AA-
I like the sound of what you’re saying - ‘enlightened islamization’ (except that the term sounds too close to Musharraf’s enlightened moderation). However, some fundamental questions remain:
“It is possible to separate religion from the State and the law-making process.”
Of course its possible, but can it still be called an Islamic process?
“In my opinion this is the reason for the creation of Pakistan, to have a secular State but a society where Muslims are in a majority and thus the character of the society is a mix of deliberate traditionalism (religion) and modernism.”
How this any different from a state of Muslims?
BTW, who am I talking to? A bit tough talking to a mysterious identity…
WA-
Naeem