Imam Bukhari
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
Note of Caution as Preamble: This post may be controversial because it questions a key belief that is widely held in our society. In addition, in order to make my point, I have had to take recourse to some illustrations involving sectarian differences and religious views. I apologize in advance if anyone feels hurt or upset by this original post. I also request all further posters to first take a few deep breaths to let all the immediate emotions subside, and then recite "Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un" 10 times before they reach for the keyboard. We would not like to see this thread turn into a deranged shouting match....
---
There is a common belief in our country that Islam provides excellent protection for minority religions and so an Islamic state is no threat to the rights of non-muslim minorities. Therefore, the argument goes, there is no need for Pakistan to become an officially-Secular Republic like Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Morocco etcetera. Pakistan, it is strongly argued, would be just fine as a non-secular Islamic Country like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
In this post, I will now argue that the people who hold the above view have not really grasped the importance of secularism to Pakistan.
The importance of secularism to Pakistan has nothing to do with the safety of religious minorities. Absolutely nothing. It has everything to do with the safety of the religious majority. To see why, let us do a mind-experiment:
<<< WARNING: The following may offend some readers. If you are extremely sensitive by nature, please stop reading this post now and move to another thread>>>
Imagine a Pakistan in which there are no religious minorities. No Hindus, no Christians, no Sikhs, and no Parsees whatsoever. In other words, Pakistan is 100% Muslim-- to the last man. In that case, we would say that it makes no difference whether we create a Secular or Islamic Republic, as the issue of religious minorities would not exist.
So let us suppose that we go ahead and create an Islamic Republic. Yes, this will be a State made for only for Muslims, but this will not oppress, disenfranchise or endanger anyone, because the State is does not have any non-Muslims.
Having created this Islamic State, the next question that logically follows is this: What is Islam? Or more to the point: Who is a Muslim? For whom was this state created and for whom does it exist when it officially calls itself an Islamic Republic? After all, it makes no sense to create an "Islamic" State without have a lucid legal definition of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim".
Clearly, we cannot accept that anyone who just says he is a Muslim is a Muslim. Otherwise misguided idol-worshippers with multiple gods could keeping on worshipping rats, monkeys, snakes & cows and still say that they are Muslim----but clearly just saying so would not make that true.
So it becomes a question of setting down a set of rules which define exactly who is a Muslim. Let us say we go for something simple, universal and inclusive: "A Muslim is one who observes the Five Pillars of Islam".
But wait, we can't do that...
Because that would imply that the Qadianis are also Muslim, because they do believe in the Five Pillars of Islam. But we already know that Qadianis/Ahmadis cannot be Muslims because they do not accept Khatme Nabuwwah (even though that is not one of the 5 pillars).
To solve this conundrum, let us say we amend our Constitution to declare the Ahmadis as non-muslims. Then we strip them of their citizenship and expel all of them from Pakistan. All Exiled. All Gone.
Pakistan is now back to 100% real Muslims who observes Khatme Nabuwwah. Good. Now can we use the definition of the Five Pillars of Islam?
No, we cannot.
Because the Sunni, Shia, Ismaili pillars are all different.
Five Pillars of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancillaries of the Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sixth Pillar of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seven pillars of Ismailism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upon further examination, it becomes obvious that the Shias cannot get along with the Sunnis. These two girohs are inherently incompatible. Especially when we consider the parts about loving Ahl-ul-Bait (Ali, Fatima, Hussein, Hasan & other Imams) and hating those who rebel against them or usurp their rights (Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman & other Caliphs like Mu'awiya & Yazid).
In fact, a lot of what our Quaid-i-Azam said in his 1940 Two-Nation Theory speech about "..they have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap.." is exactly true between Shia and Sunni.
"These are two different nations that cannot co-exist..", as our Quaid said, and so "..to yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority (Shia) and the other as a majority (Sunni), must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state"
So that 5-pillar definition won't work. And our own basic Two-Nation Theory proves that reconciliation or compromise won't work either. So let us say we solve this problem also by amending the constitution again to declare the Shia as non-Muslim. We then strip them of their citizenship and expel all of them from Pakistan as well. All exiled. All gone.
Pakistan is now 100% Sunni, with Sunni being accepted as the more precise definition of Muslim. No more Shias, Seveners, Twelvers, Nizaris, Alawis, Druze, Ismailis, Zaidi, Bohra, etcetera. All driven out. Fitna is over. Only 100% pure Sunnis as the true Muslims with the true Five Pillars of Islam (and, of course--lest we forget-- Khatme Nabuwwah).
Are we done?
Not quite. Because if, in trying to define who is Muslim, we are going to say that the word "Muslim" is actually synonymous with "Sunni", then the next logical question become: Who is a Sunni? For whom was this Sunni State created? For whom does it exist?
Well, we would say that-- by definition-- a Sunni is obviously one who follows the Sunnah (or the example of the Prophet).
But then again we have a problem.
The Barelvis cannot be Sunnis because they worship at graves and ask for mannah from dead people, when the example of the Prophet clearly shows that he specifically prohibited this in no uncertain terms. The prophet himself asked Ali to smash all the mausoleums and raised graves along with the idols in Makkah and forbade people, under punishment of the hell-fire, from worshipping at graves ever gain. This business with the graves is clearly not the Sunnah.
In addition, the Sufis who sing, dance, whirl, play musical instruments in religious ceremonies also cannot be Sunni, because the example of the Prophet clearly shows that he said that these practices were the impure habits of the Kufar-e-Makkah in the period of Jahiliyya. It is inconceivable even to imagine the Prophet and the Sahaba singing, dancing, clapping, playing instruments and whirling as a way to worship God. Therefore, this also cannot be the Sunnah.
And all of these are not simple, trivial practices that the Sufis & Barelvis can just change or abandon. They have been doing this for centuries and their Mowlas have developed tremendous literature, rites, rituals and liturgical books on Wahdat-ul-Wajood and so forth. They are not going to throw all that away just because someone asks them to.
So we conclude that the Barelvi, Sufis, Dervishes and so on are not really Sunni and will never be real Sunnis.
To solve this problem, say we amend the constitution yet again and declare them all as non-Muslims. We then we strip them of their citizenship and expel all of these pseudo-Sunnis from Pakistan as well. No more Dervishes, Barelvis, Grave-worshippers, Dargahs, Mausoleums, Urs, Qawwalis. All gone. Only 100% pure Sunnah of the Prophet allowed. No more monkey business. No more Bidah.
So now what are we left with?
An Empty Pakistan!
This is because 90% of Pakistanis will then have been driven out of Pakistan. But if 90% of Pakistanis have been driven-out, then what is the meaning of Pakistan? What is any country or land without the all the people who have always lived there?
And to think that all of this started with that pesky Khatme Nabuwwat issue. If only we hadn't started that, we could have just said that anyone who is willing to uncover (K-F-R) and bear witness (Sh-D-H) that there is no god but God (W-H-D) and Muhammed is his messenger (R-S-L) is a Muslim (S-L-M). And then we would not have opened this can of fitna-worms. But with that Khatme Nabuwwat Legislation, it is now far too late to put that takfiri-genie back in the bottle....
<<<END: Controversial mind-experiment ends here>>>
As we can see, the importance of secularism has nothing to do with the safety or rights of the non-muslim minority-religions. The importance of Secularism for Pakistan lies in this: For whom was Pakistan made? If you answer, "For Muslims", then the dreaded question arises: Who is a Muslim? Contrary to lay belief, the answer to this has historically never been clear beyond the era of the Sahaba. Sunni/Shia/Khariji-Ibadi, Zaidi/Hejazi/Najdi/Imami have been around for a long, long time in various parts of the world trying to settle this very question by fighting amongst themselves. And even today, asking this question sets into motion a sequence of events that eventually finishes with people at each others throats, with each one saying to the other: "My truth is greater than your truth!" or "Mine is True, Yours is False!".
Would it not be much better to just say: Pakistan was made for all 100% of the people who have always lived on this land that we call Pakistan; religion has nothing to do with it, as religion is a personal, family or local community matter. Shias, Ahl-e-hadith, Barelvis, Sufis, Yazidis, Ahl-e-Sunnah-wal-Jamah, Ahl-e-bayt, Deobandis, Ismailis, Ahmadis, Nazariyas, Dawoodis, Najdi, Zaidi, Salafis, Babis, Hejazi, Bahais, Ibadi, Mandawis are all equally Pakistanis. (Again, we note that Hindus, Parsees, Christian etc have nothing to do with this-- their presence or absence in Pakistan does not make one iota of a difference to the argument for secularism.)
PS: I note as an interesting side-issue that Israel (created similar to our country and at about the same time) does not have this problem. And that is because Judaism is not really a proselytizing religion, but essentially an inherited one. So the Jews view themselves not as much as followers of some particular religion, but rather as a People.
For example, while it is not possible for a Muslim (or a Christian) to turn to atheism and still continue to call himself a Muslim (or a Christian), it is certainly possible for a Jew to deny the existence of God and still call himself Jewish on the basis that his parents and their parents and so on were Jewish. This is why history records bloodbaths in Europe between Orthodoxies, Catholics & Protestants, while there is no such equivalent religious bloodletting between Jewish/Israelite sects despite their also having significant theological differences and arguments.
I fear that Pakistan may be heading for a repeat of the horrific violence that Europe saw between the Catholics, the Orthodoxies and the Protestants before the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. In other words, Islamic (non-secular) Pakistan may well be headed into the equivalent of the Dark-Ages of Christian Europe. Therefore, the only hope I see is for Pakistan to move toward Secularism and disentangle the State from all Religion.
----
I could be wrong. This is just my theory. I just thought it would be interesting if readers would come up with their own views on this theory. Does not have to be in absolutes of True/False, Yes/No only. Posters could also examine finer nuances like "Yes, but", "No, although", "Unlikely, but possible", "Improbable, but not impossible" etcetera.
---
There is a common belief in our country that Islam provides excellent protection for minority religions and so an Islamic state is no threat to the rights of non-muslim minorities. Therefore, the argument goes, there is no need for Pakistan to become an officially-Secular Republic like Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Morocco etcetera. Pakistan, it is strongly argued, would be just fine as a non-secular Islamic Country like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
In this post, I will now argue that the people who hold the above view have not really grasped the importance of secularism to Pakistan.
The importance of secularism to Pakistan has nothing to do with the safety of religious minorities. Absolutely nothing. It has everything to do with the safety of the religious majority. To see why, let us do a mind-experiment:
<<< WARNING: The following may offend some readers. If you are extremely sensitive by nature, please stop reading this post now and move to another thread>>>
Imagine a Pakistan in which there are no religious minorities. No Hindus, no Christians, no Sikhs, and no Parsees whatsoever. In other words, Pakistan is 100% Muslim-- to the last man. In that case, we would say that it makes no difference whether we create a Secular or Islamic Republic, as the issue of religious minorities would not exist.
So let us suppose that we go ahead and create an Islamic Republic. Yes, this will be a State made for only for Muslims, but this will not oppress, disenfranchise or endanger anyone, because the State is does not have any non-Muslims.
Having created this Islamic State, the next question that logically follows is this: What is Islam? Or more to the point: Who is a Muslim? For whom was this state created and for whom does it exist when it officially calls itself an Islamic Republic? After all, it makes no sense to create an "Islamic" State without have a lucid legal definition of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim".
Clearly, we cannot accept that anyone who just says he is a Muslim is a Muslim. Otherwise misguided idol-worshippers with multiple gods could keeping on worshipping rats, monkeys, snakes & cows and still say that they are Muslim----but clearly just saying so would not make that true.
So it becomes a question of setting down a set of rules which define exactly who is a Muslim. Let us say we go for something simple, universal and inclusive: "A Muslim is one who observes the Five Pillars of Islam".
But wait, we can't do that...
Because that would imply that the Qadianis are also Muslim, because they do believe in the Five Pillars of Islam. But we already know that Qadianis/Ahmadis cannot be Muslims because they do not accept Khatme Nabuwwah (even though that is not one of the 5 pillars).
To solve this conundrum, let us say we amend our Constitution to declare the Ahmadis as non-muslims. Then we strip them of their citizenship and expel all of them from Pakistan. All Exiled. All Gone.
Pakistan is now back to 100% real Muslims who observes Khatme Nabuwwah. Good. Now can we use the definition of the Five Pillars of Islam?
No, we cannot.
Because the Sunni, Shia, Ismaili pillars are all different.
Five Pillars of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancillaries of the Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sixth Pillar of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seven pillars of Ismailism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upon further examination, it becomes obvious that the Shias cannot get along with the Sunnis. These two girohs are inherently incompatible. Especially when we consider the parts about loving Ahl-ul-Bait (Ali, Fatima, Hussein, Hasan & other Imams) and hating those who rebel against them or usurp their rights (Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman & other Caliphs like Mu'awiya & Yazid).
In fact, a lot of what our Quaid-i-Azam said in his 1940 Two-Nation Theory speech about "..they have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap.." is exactly true between Shia and Sunni.
"These are two different nations that cannot co-exist..", as our Quaid said, and so "..to yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority (Shia) and the other as a majority (Sunni), must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state"
So that 5-pillar definition won't work. And our own basic Two-Nation Theory proves that reconciliation or compromise won't work either. So let us say we solve this problem also by amending the constitution again to declare the Shia as non-Muslim. We then strip them of their citizenship and expel all of them from Pakistan as well. All exiled. All gone.
Pakistan is now 100% Sunni, with Sunni being accepted as the more precise definition of Muslim. No more Shias, Seveners, Twelvers, Nizaris, Alawis, Druze, Ismailis, Zaidi, Bohra, etcetera. All driven out. Fitna is over. Only 100% pure Sunnis as the true Muslims with the true Five Pillars of Islam (and, of course--lest we forget-- Khatme Nabuwwah).
Are we done?
Not quite. Because if, in trying to define who is Muslim, we are going to say that the word "Muslim" is actually synonymous with "Sunni", then the next logical question become: Who is a Sunni? For whom was this Sunni State created? For whom does it exist?
Well, we would say that-- by definition-- a Sunni is obviously one who follows the Sunnah (or the example of the Prophet).
But then again we have a problem.
The Barelvis cannot be Sunnis because they worship at graves and ask for mannah from dead people, when the example of the Prophet clearly shows that he specifically prohibited this in no uncertain terms. The prophet himself asked Ali to smash all the mausoleums and raised graves along with the idols in Makkah and forbade people, under punishment of the hell-fire, from worshipping at graves ever gain. This business with the graves is clearly not the Sunnah.
In addition, the Sufis who sing, dance, whirl, play musical instruments in religious ceremonies also cannot be Sunni, because the example of the Prophet clearly shows that he said that these practices were the impure habits of the Kufar-e-Makkah in the period of Jahiliyya. It is inconceivable even to imagine the Prophet and the Sahaba singing, dancing, clapping, playing instruments and whirling as a way to worship God. Therefore, this also cannot be the Sunnah.
And all of these are not simple, trivial practices that the Sufis & Barelvis can just change or abandon. They have been doing this for centuries and their Mowlas have developed tremendous literature, rites, rituals and liturgical books on Wahdat-ul-Wajood and so forth. They are not going to throw all that away just because someone asks them to.
So we conclude that the Barelvi, Sufis, Dervishes and so on are not really Sunni and will never be real Sunnis.
To solve this problem, say we amend the constitution yet again and declare them all as non-Muslims. We then we strip them of their citizenship and expel all of these pseudo-Sunnis from Pakistan as well. No more Dervishes, Barelvis, Grave-worshippers, Dargahs, Mausoleums, Urs, Qawwalis. All gone. Only 100% pure Sunnah of the Prophet allowed. No more monkey business. No more Bidah.
So now what are we left with?
An Empty Pakistan!
This is because 90% of Pakistanis will then have been driven out of Pakistan. But if 90% of Pakistanis have been driven-out, then what is the meaning of Pakistan? What is any country or land without the all the people who have always lived there?
And to think that all of this started with that pesky Khatme Nabuwwat issue. If only we hadn't started that, we could have just said that anyone who is willing to uncover (K-F-R) and bear witness (Sh-D-H) that there is no god but God (W-H-D) and Muhammed is his messenger (R-S-L) is a Muslim (S-L-M). And then we would not have opened this can of fitna-worms. But with that Khatme Nabuwwat Legislation, it is now far too late to put that takfiri-genie back in the bottle....
<<<END: Controversial mind-experiment ends here>>>
As we can see, the importance of secularism has nothing to do with the safety or rights of the non-muslim minority-religions. The importance of Secularism for Pakistan lies in this: For whom was Pakistan made? If you answer, "For Muslims", then the dreaded question arises: Who is a Muslim? Contrary to lay belief, the answer to this has historically never been clear beyond the era of the Sahaba. Sunni/Shia/Khariji-Ibadi, Zaidi/Hejazi/Najdi/Imami have been around for a long, long time in various parts of the world trying to settle this very question by fighting amongst themselves. And even today, asking this question sets into motion a sequence of events that eventually finishes with people at each others throats, with each one saying to the other: "My truth is greater than your truth!" or "Mine is True, Yours is False!".
Would it not be much better to just say: Pakistan was made for all 100% of the people who have always lived on this land that we call Pakistan; religion has nothing to do with it, as religion is a personal, family or local community matter. Shias, Ahl-e-hadith, Barelvis, Sufis, Yazidis, Ahl-e-Sunnah-wal-Jamah, Ahl-e-bayt, Deobandis, Ismailis, Ahmadis, Nazariyas, Dawoodis, Najdi, Zaidi, Salafis, Babis, Hejazi, Bahais, Ibadi, Mandawis are all equally Pakistanis. (Again, we note that Hindus, Parsees, Christian etc have nothing to do with this-- their presence or absence in Pakistan does not make one iota of a difference to the argument for secularism.)
PS: I note as an interesting side-issue that Israel (created similar to our country and at about the same time) does not have this problem. And that is because Judaism is not really a proselytizing religion, but essentially an inherited one. So the Jews view themselves not as much as followers of some particular religion, but rather as a People.
For example, while it is not possible for a Muslim (or a Christian) to turn to atheism and still continue to call himself a Muslim (or a Christian), it is certainly possible for a Jew to deny the existence of God and still call himself Jewish on the basis that his parents and their parents and so on were Jewish. This is why history records bloodbaths in Europe between Orthodoxies, Catholics & Protestants, while there is no such equivalent religious bloodletting between Jewish/Israelite sects despite their also having significant theological differences and arguments.
I fear that Pakistan may be heading for a repeat of the horrific violence that Europe saw between the Catholics, the Orthodoxies and the Protestants before the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. In other words, Islamic (non-secular) Pakistan may well be headed into the equivalent of the Dark-Ages of Christian Europe. Therefore, the only hope I see is for Pakistan to move toward Secularism and disentangle the State from all Religion.
----
I could be wrong. This is just my theory. I just thought it would be interesting if readers would come up with their own views on this theory. Does not have to be in absolutes of True/False, Yes/No only. Posters could also examine finer nuances like "Yes, but", "No, although", "Unlikely, but possible", "Improbable, but not impossible" etcetera.
