THAT religious extremism has assumed horrendous proportions in our society, there can be no two opinions about this. During last few years, hundreds of people have fallen victim to the menace as the jihadis have taken upon themselves to establish a monolithic society by ridding it of all “evil”. The failure of the Swat deal reminds us that the jihadi ideology precludes tolerance of any dissent, difference or opposition as tolerating any ‘antithesis’ would constitute kufr.

Thus, according to that ideology, democracy and parliament are illegitimate being a western concept and institution respectively and thus an antithesis of the Islamic political system. The constitution, the legal system and all subordinate institutions which are based on democratic ideals are likewise branded as un-Islamic.

Such an ideology is obviously incompatible with the modern society, which is multiethnic, multicultural. In such a society, social order has to be based on a pluralistic philosophy—tolerance of religious and cultural differences within society permitting various groups to practise their distinctive cultures while cooperating in larger social, economic and political life. Pluralism also underlies democracy, which stipulates that people regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliations should be given equal rights and opportunities. As one political scientist puts it, democracy is multivalued rather than single-valued and is disposed to share rather than hoard or monopolise.

The fundamental question as we face the strong challenge of religious extremism is this: Is a pluralistic society incompatible with Islam? Does Islam abjure other worldviews and provide for suppressing them? The jihadis would have us believe that Islam provides only for a monolithic society in which different cultures or sub-cultures cannot co-exist; rather they have to be merged with the “Islamic” culture. If preaching cannot effect that merger, force can be, and must be, employed.

If such an interpretation of Islam were to be accepted, then the use of force to remove cultural diversity would become legitimate and freedom of conscience, which underlies all moral freedom, become meaningless. There would be only one creed and one moral code, not by choice but by force. Such an interpretation of Islam would not only divest society of all ethical freedom but also breed mayhem and chaos as jihadis would wade through blood if need be to purge society of what they consider to be un-Islamic beliefs and practices.

All religions, including Islam, preach unity of their followers. However, most religions, including Islam, have experienced the rise of sects for one reason or another. In case of Islam, even the two main sects—Shias and Sunnis—are divided into sub-sects. The main reasons for this development are the question of leadership, different interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah, performance of rituals and application of codes. But do such differences preclude peaceful co-existence of people adhering to different creeds? The answer depends on what kind of society we have in mind.

In a monolithic society, different creeds cannot co-exist peacefully. All diversity has to be forced into a unity. It is only in a pluralistic society that different creeds can co-exist peacefully. The foremost condition for establishing a pluralistic society is to accept diversity of beliefs, practices and codes without trying to reduce the diversity to a unity.

Coming back to Pakistan, the country was created in the name of Islam. However, the purpose was not to create a theocratic, monolithic state but to safeguard the social, economic and political rights of Indian Muslims. And once Pakistan was created, the rights of even non-Muslims were to be protected as equal citizens. And that is what the founder of Pakistan, the late Muhammad Ali Jinnah, emphasised in his historic address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, wherein he said: “You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in the State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state….Now, I think that we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

The vision of Pakistan as outlined by its founder in the above extract was that of a pluralistic society in which full religious freedom would be granted to all communities, where the state would not discriminate on the basis of caste or creed and where cultural diversity would be reconciled with national unity. Being a statesman, Mr Jinnah knew well that in a multicultural society like Pakistan discrimination on the basis of religion could prove disastrous as it would play havoc with the very fabric of society.

Establishment of a multicultural society, as envisioned by Mr Jinnah, necessitated above all that religion should not be used for political purpose, because this invariably promotes one community at the expense of others. But unfortunately, starting from the 1949 Objectives Resolution, religion has been strongly injected into the body politic. Rulers have used it to consolidate their position, and power seekers to satisfy their ambitions. Though every government has used religion one way or the other, the Zia regime (1977-88) clearly outclassed others in this respect.

Since Gen Zia had assumed power by unconstitutional means, he needed some principle to legitimise it. He found such a principle in religion—the “Islamisation” of society—and an instrument to carry it out in the clergy. Zia’s so-called Islamic measures increased the existing polarisations in society. They widened the chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims and between Shias and Sunnis. It was his regime which fathered the country’s most extremist religious outfit. In exchange for the cooperation of the clergy, the Zia regime extended them full patronage. The enormous money that the clergy received was spent on arms and religious propaganda. Courtesy the US-sponsored Afghan war against the Soviet Union in which Pakistan was a frontline state, arms were easily available. The Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr and activists of many religious outfits fought in the war. The training and arms which they received were later used against rival creeds.

In breeding and nurturing religious militancy, the madressahs have played a lethal role. The pen is bloodier than the sword and this is perfectly applicable to our madressahs. The madressahs teach negation, and hence repudiation, of doctrines, rituals and moral standards different from theirs. Those who profess a different creed or have a different moral standard are looked upon as an evil. Women who do not put on veil or men who do not have a beard are considered impious. Men and women who mix with one another are regarded as essentially wicked. Those who listen to music commit a grave sin. All such wicked or impious people have to be reformed—by the use of force if need be.

The education imparted in the madressahs instead of inculcating in students a dispassionate quest for truth or at least enabling them to take to some socially useful profession, indoctrinates in them hatred for other creeds. The students are taught that only their creed is based on truth, whereas the rest are an incarnation of evil whose elimination is a most sacred duty of theirs. The reward of performing that duty, they are taught, is an everlasting life of pleasure in the paradise.

Most of the students owing to their impressionable age come to believe this stuff. Hence, when they leave their institutions, their hearts are filled with the strong desire to carry out their “sacred” duty. The madressahs also churn out sectarian propaganda in the form of inflammatory literature, which denounces followers of rival creeds as kafirs, who must either be coerced into conversion or exterminated.

It is easier to accept people like us than people different from us. But it does not mean that a society should shun all diversity and consist of only one race, creed or ethnicity. Rather all such diversity has to be appreciated, affirmed and accepted. This is the only sound approach in a multiethnic society like Pakistan. It is such approach that both the government and civil society should promote.

The view propagated by successive governments and even today by religious parties that Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic, monolithic state and a citadel of Islam needs to be corrected. As for madressahs, they as the breeding ground of religious militancy need a major surgery, otherwise the cancer of religious extremism would eat up the entire body politic.