a very gud article written by one of my friend need ur views on it as well

In the various forms of government that exist in the world today or have existed in the past, the answer to where sovereignty lies and who represents and exercices it differs. In ancient China, the Emperor had the Divinely Ordained Right to rule in the name of the Heavens. In a modern Monarchy, the monarch is the vestige of the sovereignty of God, while often to be exercised by another (the people eg), as is in the UK (the Queen represents the Sovereignty of God, "Dieu et mon Droit" while it is exrercised by the people. In a theocracy (Theo-God kratos-rule) sovereignty rests in God but is exercised by a group of men somehow divinely ordained to do so (as in Iran) by virtue of a class of priesthood. A democracy (Greek for demo-people kratos-rule) holds that each and every individual is the sovereign (we are all god), where they choose (legal fiction kicking in here) to delegate such sovereignty by a democratic process such as a vote to certain individuals who then exercise it in their name of their behalf.

Also, where a state acts as a legal person, it does so in the name of the Sovereign. So when you go to court in the UK for a criminal offence, the Queen/King (Regina/Rex) is the opposing party. And when you accidentally hit an Iranian government car, you've just hit... Oh wait, this can't be right now.

The question is: What about Pakistan? The Objectives Resolution which was adopted into the constitution clearly states Allah Almighty is the Sovereign. Okay. So what about the elections then? hm. God is the sovereign, thats for sure. But who gets to represent that said sovereignty? In a classic example of Pakistani originality (will write some other day of how this is a consistent example with every other facet of what Pakistan is all about), the answer to this question is as nowhere else to be found: every single citizen of the Republic expresses the sovereignty of Allah. It is not a clergy or a mullah or a group thereof, it is me and you who are empowered by the Constitution to do so. Thus explaining universal suffrage. Which is where democracy steps in. The people delegate not the right to make laws in their names, but in the name of Allah to the state. The state and the parliament are therefore BOUND by the interpretations which represent the will of the people. Sure the constitution binds us by having to follow the Shariah, but not as defined by a clergy (meant to be non-existant) but the bare will of the people. It is in our great country that the proverb comes to life:

"Zubaan-e Khalq ko naqqara-e khuda jano"

Everytime one does not vote, he contributes to not only evading a moral obligation but a violation of the trust of God. The religion of the state is nothing more than the will of the people. As I see it, Democracy is the state religion of Pakistan, and any mullah who wishes the will of the people to be undone should be held on charges of blasphemy against the voice of God speaking through the will of the people. If you find my political intrerpretation absurd, heres my religious take on it:

I recently explained this in great detail in a lecture I delivered at the 3rd Creatvie Leaders' Conference. To summarise: Islam was brought to our part of the world by a mystic strain of Islam called Sufism. Among many other themes, one of the central focuses of this ideology is the realisation of the perfection of humanity in every single one of us. And that is, to become a mirror so pure that we become the reflections of the image of God. As Waris Shah speaks through the words of Heer:

Ranjha Ranjha kardi nee mein aapay Ranjha hoi. Saddo nee menu dheedo Ranjha, Heer na akho koi.

And for each and every one of us to actualise the stage where, as in the words of the Hadith-e-Qudsi, "al-Lisaano maen Yatakalamo biha" to become the tongue through which HE speaks.

The religious identity of Islam when seen through this specter fits perfectly with our special expression of democracy as I expressed above but raises a fundamental question: What of the white on our flag, the status of minorities?

To rephrase, how does Seculrism fit in if at all. We have been very unfortunate that the Urdu press in the post-socialist post-Taraqqi pasand era has been dominated by our own home grown, green-is-all-I-see-Nationalist-Conservatives who have always translated the term Secular as La Deeniat, which brings back the sentiments associated with the Atheism of Communists (the dreaded reds we waged the Jihad against).

Sadly, secularism does not mean La Deeniyat. Further, there is no singular definition of what it enatils simply because of the diverse ways in which it has manifested itself around the world. Indian Secularism can surely not be squarely bunched with the la:icité of France or the anti-Religious Nationastic Identity of Turkish Secularism brought forth by Mustafa Kemal.

What then does Secularism meant for us when our dear (Ismaili converted Isna Ashari Shia) founding father Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah spoke of it so commonly? Perhaps it is best to let him answer that for himself. A look at Jinnah's innumerable addresses show us how he envisaged a country where the state had no role in the practice or support, in negative or positive terms, of religion and where each citizen had the right to practice it as he will. His adamant determination to get ALL of the Punab and the Bengal was proof of his scheme to retain large areas of non-Muslims to balance off the presence of Muslims in India (the number one claim of the Islamist Parties against the creation of Pakistan).

Secularism in Pakistan is thus just that:
For the state to distance itself from matters of religion. To not encourage or deprive one of the right to follow a certain creed. To remove it as a consideration while treating all those bearing its citizenship with equality before the law (as still upheld by our constitution) and to not hinder or create let in the process of free speech and freedom of association or expression, qualified against those who use this right to harm others. Jinnah was religiously persecuted himself by the religious parties who now claim the country was created for the fullfillment of their dreams. He was an Ismaili forced to convert to something more USUAL.

This argument is over rated though. What if Jinnah supported Secularism? We're not going to be bound by the notions of a man who died 60 years ago, no matter how great he may have been. Or will we? I'm not going to build upon this argument just to avoid raising a few obvious contradictions that I do not wish to address. We are a democratic people after all. We can decide what kind of a country we wish to lie in.

But heres another of our great leader's thoughts nevertheless. Everyone, read 'The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam' by Dr Allama Muhammad Iqbal if you ever want to get a clue about what Islam was all about for our founding fathers. The Shair-e-Mashriq writes:

"All that is secular is deeply sacred in the roots of its din."

But then what would he know about Islam. We want a nanny state because we love it so much and we don't want to grow up, lest it shall let us be and treat us as a bird does when its little pecker is old enough to go fend for itself.

The recent action against the Ahmedis raised a question for me afresh, which no one seems to ask. I for one believe that Ahmedis are not Muslim, because they do not qualify my characterisation of what it means to be so. On the other hand, a religion is essentially a self-identifying group. The fact that one calls oneself to be something is enough in its own right. No one goes to the west to those newly found Rumi followers declaring themseles to be Sufi telling them they can't call themseles that. The Roman Catholic Church has never told the Mormons they can't call themsevles Christian as weird as they may be. (Though some Muslims have, saying they mis-represent the teachings of Jesus Christ). The Question is, as I had raised last week when FB was banned, is of the relationship between the individual and the state.

What right does the state have to decide for others what names they may or may not give themselves? Ahmedis, under Pakistani law, cannot call themselves Muslim, or call their places of worship Mosques or even display verses of the Quran in them. As much as I may disagree with them personally (and I find them absolutely mis-guided), its no job of the state to go and regulate others' faiths. And what difference does it make in my responsibilities, duties and rights a s a citizen what I do or do not believe? Why does the state want me to sign a declaration of faith for a travel document? If Hindus and Christians have rights to propagate their faith why don't Ahmedis (and no the answer is not that they just can't all themselves Muslim). Since when has nomenclature become a domain of the state? Let it name your babies next for lack of ingenuity. And that too in a country that has just spent 90 million Rupees renaming a province.

The state has failed once again in protecting its citizens. Just as it has many a times before when similar elements lashed out against citizens calling themseles Shia, Christian, Sufi or just Pakistanis. I adhere to a strain of Sufism and I find it consistently difficult to believe that with each passing day I find it harder to practice and profess my faith, and I represent the tradition of the majority. What makes it even more difficult is when terrorist organisations like the Sipah-Sahaba rename themselves Ahl-s-Sunnah wal Jamah (like the Irish Republican Army renaming itself the Roman Catholic Church) and then campaigning for a senior provincial minister's election campaign (Rana Sanaullah) and going around killing minorities while being afforded the protection of the State's blind eye. What was found to be a safe inroad to revenue during the 1980s by supporting Wahabism has now become a state-funded suffocation of our religious identities. The tide was strong and its tearing out lots on its way back, but we're doing nothing in comparison to the ruthlessness of the counter-ideologies of hatred, as the times demand of us. We must wage a Jihad to take back our identities, to put the state back to its business of governing for and by the people. And giving these extremists all the right to practice their beliefs in closed confines or letting them move to Saudi Arabia or Iran with passports that do not state their religion.

Pakistan Paindabad.